iMessage on Mac is an abominable, buggy mess - <AUTHOR> I don't understand. How is the "it just works" working in complete reverse here? Currently, I'm sending messages that show "Not delivered" but are actually making it through.  Then there's the sync / ordering nightmare that I've encountered since upgrading to High Sierra where some new messages will show ON TOP of my messages.  And given iMessage's massive popularity and the fact that it's a core piece of their marketing for some of their central IP, why does it feel like it's only being developed by summer interns passing the project along? <comment><USER2> I've had no issues with iMessage on OS X. I do however get the stupid bug of having replies on top of my messages on my iPhone.</comment>


Undoing the Dis-Education of Millennials - <AUTHOR> http://newbostonpost.com/2017/11/09/undoing-the-dis-education-of-millennials/ <comment><USER2> I only quickly skimmed the article, but it seemed to mainly be about understanding and engaging seriously with ideas (even if you disagree), thinking critically, being open to new ways of looking at things, and so on. That seems like a very reasonable message to me, and something that politically active younger adults could definitely benefit from.

We all need to wrestle with and face the limits of our own understanding at some point, if we wish to grow.

</comment><comment><USER3> >newbostonpost

Someone on r/boston constantly posts links to this garbage "news" source, everyone flags it as spam there, I'm going to flag it as spam here as well.

<comment><USER4> That's called _' shooting the messenger'_. It is not a good idea for those who want to be open to different opinions, a fact which actually can be gleaned from the linked article. If, as you say, _' everyone flags it as spam'_ it would be good for _' everyone'_ to read the linked article. That does _not_ mean you need to agree to everything written there, by all means disagree but do so on the base of reason.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> > First, except when describing an ideology, you are not to use a word that > ends in "ism." Communism, socialism, Nazism, and capitalism are established > concepts in history and the social sciences...

I agree with the impulse here, but I wouldn't give those words a pass so quickly. Some (all?) of them are poorly understood.

Even here on HN, a potential bastion of reason, and presumably populated mostly by products of education in capitalist countries, I routinely come across anti-"capitalist" sentiment that is really complaining about something else: cronyism, regulatory capture, non-violent extortion, etc.

From wikipedia:

"Capitalism is an economic system and an ideology based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system and competitive markets."

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

Go google "site:ycombinator.com capitalist". All sorts of nonsense HN comments show up in which people object to capitalism but aren't clearly criticizing wages, prices, private contracts, private property, etc.

<comment><USER6> I disagree. Many complaints about capitalism are often rebuffed with some form of "No True Scottsman" fallacy when people raise this points about capitalism. Defenders of communism fall into the same trap.

I don't see what's so controversial about the simple fact that capital markets will not significantly reduce global human suffering. Some will benefit tremendously, significantly more than others, and there's no correction mechanism for that.

If we look back a few decades, it seems like there was a sea-change in thought around capitalism after WWII. Prior to the war, it was seen as an imperfect system but our best option. Something I don't think it's hard to argue with. Now, we place capitalism on a pedestal and blame its shortcomings on impurities of its implementation-- again, similar to academics who had to defend Marxism/Leninism vs its implementation in the Soviet Union.

<comment><USER5> My basic point was that "capitalism" is a term not understood broadly enough to be meaningful. Your (justified) complaint about "No True Scotsman" fallacies supports my point. As does your critique of the shifting feelings about capitalism over the years.

My main point was that people criticizing capitalism and the people defending it are rarely talking about the same thing. I _have_ seen people defending capitalism (as defined in dictionaries and wikipedia) that obviously are referring to the canonical definitions. I _have_ seen, though less frequently, people criticizing capitalism in the same sense. It seems like you might be one of these, though most of the time the solutions to capitalism look mostly like tweaked capitalism with another label attached. For example, a progressive wealth tax doesn't (directly) dispute the importance of wages, property rights, market-based pricing, etc. Likewise, proponents of rent control aren't in favor of a centrally controlled housing authority that sets and approves rents (as opposed to a market based solution).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This piece is incoherent "campus loonies" outrage, pushing _" diversity of opinion"_ talking points (while unintentionally demolishing it in a paragraph), demonstrating a surface-level understanding of issues (grouping "cisgenderism" with "racism"), and ultimately going for really silly "logical gotchas" instead of pointing out the importance of arguing soundly _for_ your ideals.

<comment><USER8> I get it: you don't like the piece.

Do you have any _substantive_ and specific criticisms of it?

For instance, can you give an example of what you call a "logical gotcha" in the piece, and demonstrate why it is a "logical gotcha" (and, for that matter, why "logical gotchas" are bad)?

What you have written here is basically just name calling.

<comment><USER7> _> For you have been taught that we must have as much diversity as possible and that equality means that everyone must be made equal. [...] So when you say that we should have diversity and equality you are saying we should have difference and sameness. That is incoherent, by itself._

This is a strawman argument - the rhetoric only works if you already agree with the author's belief that a statistically significant proportion of students desire _literal_ equality (as satirized in _Harrison Bergeron_ ) instead of social equity.

<comment><USER9> > if you already agree with the author's belief that a statistically > significant proportion of students desire literal equality

Anecdotal, I know, but based on what I see in my kids's high-school classmates and from what I've heard from university professors I think that there is a good chance that a statistically significant proportion of students do desire literal equality.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> FLUX-YOU People have been giving this same speech for centuries for different labels of generations.

<comment><USER5> I presume you mean "kids these days!"

OP agrees and quotes Aristotle to that effect. But he still wrote and posted the article, right? So the purpose of the piece must be different, or at least more specific, than a trite "kids these days!" rant.

<comment> FLUX-YOU Everything he says basically feeds into that point. I don't think it was really an article about how -ism word usage is changing.

<comment><USER5> The post isn't trite in context since he was responsible for educating his particular audience. Complaining about generic kids these days is venting. Setting up ground rules for discussion to advance education is part of his job.

And, besides, his instruction is basically a critique of all the things (media, primary schools, undergraduate schools, parents, etc.) that _should_ have been teaching those lessons but weren't. So he had to teach them not to "kids these days" but to people who were intelligent and educated enough to make it into law school.

Besides, part of his point was that dismissing old thoughts because they are old is bad reasoning. To dismiss his thoughts likewise because they're not new (I think they're a new spin on things, but YMMV) does _ourselves_ a disservice.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Lumosity fined $2M for deceptive ads of "Brain Training" app - <AUTHOR> https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/01/lumosity-pay-2-million-settle-ftc-deceptive-advertising-charges <comment><USER3> All of these brain training products are suspect. Evidence for far transfer (training in one task transferring to a different domain task) is surprisingly hard to find, and empirical findings otherwise tend to disappear or diminish when replicated.

Many of the pro-brain-training camp have already begun to shift the goal posts. First it was 'simple games increase IQ,' which turned out to be difficult to prove when well controlled studies were performed. Now it's more along the lines of 'These simple games might have preventative effects against age related declines!,' which is an even harder claim to actually prove given the difficulties performing well controlled studies on aged participants.

In the cognitive science world, if we discovered a solid far transfer paradigm, especially one which transferred to something like G(eneral Intelligence), it would be our anti-baldness pill\flying car\4-day cellphone battery. People thought that these working memory transfer effects were the real deal and got very excited about it, money poured in, and the water got muddied by all these scientists with conflicts.

I obviously don't put much stock in working memory training. I wish it worked like they said, but I don't think it does. If far-transfer shows up at all, it's tiny, and doesn't persist after delay.

<comment><USER4> I was under the impression that Dual-n-Back[0] had real benefits. Is that not the case?

[0] [http://brainworkshop.sourceforge.net/](http://brainworkshop.sourceforge.net/)

<comment><USER5> Gwern's done extensive research into this, and his meta-analysis has shown there's "a net gain (medium-sized) on the post-training IQ tests"[0, 1].

0: [http://www.gwern.net/DNB%20meta-analysis](http://www.gwern.net/DNB%20meta- analysis)

1: [http://www.gwern.net/DNB%20FAQ](http://www.gwern.net/DNB%20FAQ)

<comment><USER6> Why is this downvoted? I was under the impression that Gwern did solid resarch and was well respected in the HN community.

<comment><USER7> Because JumpCrisscross's post [0] implies that w1ntermute cherry picked a component of the Gwern meta-analysis to prove his point while the next paragraph refuted it.

[0] : [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10846443](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10846443)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I just wanted to share my thoughts, which are simply: "Thank God!"

I've been working on a startup: [http://synaptitude.me/](http://synaptitude.me/) (demo is old)

Essentially, we can do some of what Luminosity claims (and have independent studies to prove it). Every time someone goes: "Oh it's just like Lumosity" I have to go through and explain the difference. My wife has a degree in neuroscience and I minored in BioE, and we both just HATE Lumosity. Their misleading ads seriously damaged the public perception, and there is no way they can assess anything they claim (if it is even possible).

That's pretty much why my startup is working on our applications. We feel there is a market and can definitely help people, but just "brain games" (without feedback/guidance) don't do anything.

<comment><USER9> The worst that can happen to a good small company is that some overhyped and overfunded 'start-up' enters the field and spoils the trust built slowly and over a long time between the consumers and the suppliers of goods and services.

This is unfortunately not rare at all and the 'hotter' a market seems the more of these BS artists will enter. In the end you have the same product and the same relationship with your customers but you're going to end up spending a lot of time differentiating yourself from the snake oil peddlers and the damage they can do is very real.

Good companies have gone under in the wake of the scandals triggered by the fakers. Playing a long game while your field is being torn up by people playing a short game is extremely frustrating.

<comment><USER10> This is actually a form of corporate sabotage some companies use. You'll find it interesting to read about Coca Cola's Tab Clear[1].

Basically, Pepsi introduced a soda called Crystal Clear that was gaining momentum in the "clear soda" market. Coke wanted to sabotage the public perception, so they introduced "Tab Clear" and made it taste so terrible, that both products failed within 6 months. After that, no one wanted to touch clear soda for a while. (That is, until Coke reintroduced another drink called Sprite).

[1][http://thedailyjournalist.com/pen-and-pad/corporate- sabotage...](http://thedailyjournalist.com/pen-and-pad/corporate-sabotage- part-1/)

<comment><USER11> Wait, what? Sprite had been around long before Tab Clear came and went.

<comment><USER12> Well he did say "reintroduce". Looking quickly at the Wikipedia page, it looks like Sprite did have a rebranding effort done in 1994, so... maybe?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The way I see it, they tapped into a _widely held belief_ , rather than fears. It is a popular belief that doing mental work staves off cognitive decline (including age-related). I bet you that everyone at Lumosity actually believes it because their mother told them that when they were kids.

My wife (Japanese) always says "good for older people" about any sort of puzzle. She didn't get this from being deceived by Lumosity.

The FTC is being very heavy-handed here.

It's like someone sold carrots claiming they improve vision, and got thrown in jail.

Testimonials being paid for shills? Like, say it ain't so. Every damed commercial you've ever seen in your life has fake people presenting fake testimonials. It's _assumed_.

(Claiming that doing puzzles can stave off Alzheimer's _is_ going somewhat far, though. That disease has specific physiological causes which can't be reversed through brain activity.)

<comment><USER14> > It's like someone sold carrots claiming they improve vision, and got thrown > in jail.

No, it's not. It's like they were appropriately fined for profiting off unproven medical claims.

> Testimonials being paid for shills? Like, say it ain't so. Every damed > commercial you've ever seen in your life has fake people presenting fake > testimonials. It's assumed.

And they're labelled as an actor representation. Giving them a pass because it's "assumed" is irresponsible and harmful to those who might not otherwise know.

<comment><USER15> To add another reason why his analogy was irrelevant and misleading, no one got thrown in jail. Lumosity got fined 0.01% of what some bank fines have been over the past few years.

<comment><USER14> That is also a good point, though I don't see how the comparison to what banks were fined is relevant or enlightening.

<comment><USER15> I like to contextualize the real magnitude of 'illions. There are many people who hear "$2M" and think it's a large fine. It's actually relatively modest, and I wanted to provide a point of reference for people to know how modest.

<comment><USER16> > The order also imposes a $50 million judgment against Lumos Labs, which will > be suspended due to its financial condition after the company pays $2 > million to the Commission.

The whole piece is pretty unclear about whether they're shutting down Lumosity, or shutting down Lumos Labs while somehow not shutting down Lumosity.

<comment><USER16> Oh, I guess I misparsed this originally. I understood it as "The order imposes a $50 million judgment against Lumos Labs, and Lumos Labs will be suspended due to its financial condition after paying $2 million".

But, the article as a whole is more intelligible with the meaning "The order imposes a $50 million judgment against Lumos Labs, and _the judgment_ will be suspended due to Lumos Labs' financial condition after it pays $2 million".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Based on the ads and no little fine print at the bottom citing any real science, I was a skeptic from the outset. Never did any real research to find out if their claims were inflated - or even viable in the first place. Apparently when challenged by the FTC they didn't have anything solid to show in their defense.

Oh, and then there's this bit:

 _> The complaint also charges the defendants with failing to disclose that some consumer testimonials featured on the website had been solicited through contests that promised significant prizes, including a free iPad, a lifetime Lumosity subscription, and a round-trip to San Francisco._

Classic huckster move, not surprised, glad they got caught, etc.

<comment><USER18> Ah, consumer testimonials. I pay very close attention to those. If I learn they're fake, I blacklist the business. If someone is willing to lie to people like that on their page, I don't want to have anything to do with them.

<comment><USER19> I am under the impression that almost all customer testimonials are fake. They are just too easy to fake one, and hard to catch one, so I assume that they are all lies.

<comment><USER18> That's my default assumption too. I don't trust them at all, though I still give the company the benefit of doubt. Innocent until proven guilty, etc. And hell, even if they're not lies, they're usually so vague as to be meaningless anyway.

<comment><USER20> It's also worth noting they don't have to be faked, just mis-represented.

You can cherry pick sections of long testimonials.

You can cherry-pick testimonials themselves.

:-/

<comment><USER20> Alternate spellings of cherry--pick used to annoy the anally retentive :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Great article on this trend of investors/entrepreneurs with no scientific background thinking they can get into the space and "shake things up":

 _Silicon Valley is confusing pseudo-science with innovation_ [0]

> I don't think all the VC firms that are moving into the space know what > they're doing — so I think you only need a couple of nasty failures to get > them to pull back. Take Pathway Genomics, for instance, which was selling a > test that was supposed to tell you if you had cancer. I say "supposed to" > because it turns out no one — including Pathway Genomics itself — had done > any research whatsoever to determine the test actually did what it said it > did. The company sold the test directly to patients through a regulatory > loophole, and after we wrote about it, the FDA got wind and told them to > knock it off. But Pathway had investors: Edelson Technology Partners, > Founders Fund, IBM Watson Group. You'll notice these are not health care > firms.

In the next couple of years, we're probably going to see companies like Nootrobox, Stemcentrx, and Theranos go belly up, after which SV investor interest in the healthcare industry will dry up, just as it did in the energy industry after the late 2000s.

0: [http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/29/10642070/2015-theranos- ve...](http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/29/10642070/2015-theranos-venture- capital-tech-bubble-disruption)

<comment><USER21> I don't know much about Stemcentrx - why do you think they will fail? Their science page sounds reasonable; antibody-drug conjugates don't seem far- fetched and I don't think they're the only ones pursuing that therapeutic paradigm.

<comment><USER22> Lumping Stemcentrx in with the others is extremely ill reasoned imo. The most basic of google searches show some pretty impressive stuff being done there.

[http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/7/302/302ra136](http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/7/302/302ra136) [http://www.esmo.org/Conferences/Past-Conferences/European- Ca...](http://www.esmo.org/Conferences/Past-Conferences/European-Cancer- Congress-2015/News/First-Targeted-Treatment-for-Small-Cell-Lung-Cancer-Shows- Promise)

While the second link is only phase 1, those are some impressive numbers.

Finally, their clinical trials page ([http://stemcentrx.com/clinical- trials.html](http://stemcentrx.com/clinical-trials.html)) shows two Pfizer collaborations, pretty sure Pfizer has a pretty good pulse on these things.

<comment><USER5> As I stated in the sibling comment, Stemcentrx is indeed much more reasonable than either Theranos or Nootrobox. However, a $5B valuation is still absurdly optimistic when you consider the comps. There have been massive setbacks at Verastem even after getting to phase 2[0], and Verastem's science originated from a top MIT research lab.

0: [https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2015/09/28/verastem- sha...](https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2015/09/28/verastem-shares- plunge-after-company-halts-cancer-drug- trial/trHendPQ0ewSqLm2pixltJ/story.html)

<comment><USER22> Agreed, that is a lot if true, the MIT article[0] gave a 3 billion number and also mentions that the latest valuation was determined by Fidelity not some silicon valley VC firm. This all leads me to stick with the assertion that I would not lump the three in any way.

0: [http://www.technologyreview.com/news/541006/peter-thiel- back...](http://www.technologyreview.com/news/541006/peter-thiel-backs- biotech-unicorn-fighting-cancer-stem-cells/)

<comment><USER5> The latest valuation is $5B, according to the WSJ[0]. The latest (series G) round was led by Fidelity, but Founders Fund, ARTIS Ventures, and SV Bank also participated in it[1]. Also, there's actually talk of Fidelity bringing sanity to startup valuations[2,3], rather than pumping them up even higher.

You're right that Stemcentrx, unlike Theranos or Nootrobox, doesn't smell of SV hucksterism. However, rather than comparing Stemcentrx to Theranos or Nootrobox, compare them to OncoMed, Verastem, and Stemline, which have current public valuations of $700M, $65M, and $116M, respectively. And none of them ever exceeded $1.2B in their public valuations.

0: [http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2015/09/16/peter- thiel-b...](http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2015/09/16/peter-thiel-backed- stemcentrx-emerges-with-5-billion-valuation/)

1: [https://www.crunchbase.com/funding- round/7db717567346f07e604...](https://www.crunchbase.com/funding- round/7db717567346f07e604cb2feb8472cb0)

2: [http://fortune.com/2015/11/11/snapchat-isnt-the-only- startup...](http://fortune.com/2015/11/11/snapchat-isnt-the-only-startup-in- fidelitys-crosshairs/)

3: [http://fortune.com/2015/11/12/fidelity-marks-down-tech- unico...](http://fortune.com/2015/11/12/fidelity-marks-down-tech-unicorns/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> About a year and a half ago i got dragged into the hype (via family subscription) - and actually enjoyed the games for about 3 days. after that, the fact that they had a total of about 5 variations, with totally predictable ordering, got really boring and i went back to 2048. You don't have to be a neuroscientist to see how this kind of predictable repetitive activity will make you "get better at it" every time you play...

Cancelling took a couple of emails and threat to dispute the CC charge.

Hooray for FTC!

<comment><USER24> I was a big fan of the restaurant server game. There was tons of variation in customers and their orders as you progressed in levels. Enough so that I could never really master that one. It felt like a good memory exercise though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> One of their recruiters reached out to me - in a former life I worked in a neuroscience lab researching neurogenesis to improve memory problems from a neurodegenerative disease (regular exercise can actually do wonders for that).

Would have been a really neat to revisit my academic passion, but as I started to read papers that had been published on their product, I wasn't convinced of its efficacy. That, and all of the studies used people with real problems, and they're marketing it to the general population as a way to "train" your brain, which feels wrong to me.

</comment><comment><USER26> I know this is an unpopular opinion, but I think F.lux is equally as guilty of this. None of their cited studies are done with light from an LCD screen (which is prone to white light bleeding), or using their app.

<comment> nommm-nommm Is flux trying to sell you something? I thought their software was free.

<comment><USER26> What does cost have to do with anything? We're talking about its ability to do what it claims.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I have less faith in public radio because my local station is always playing Lumosity adverts. I'm old enough to remember when the whole "sponsored by" thing being extended to full ads was a controversial development on US public radio. Now they're shilling outright scams and doing so with specific promises that are completely specious.

<comment><USER28> When I was a kid, I remember a talk radio show my family listened to that was one of those consumer watchdog / product review shows. One of the advertisements that you head a lot back then was for purchasing a star (like, getting your name registered somewhere and when a new star was discovered by astronomers it would be named after you?)... It was obviously a scam and all you'd get is a bogus certificate in the mail.

Anyway, one day someone called into the show and asked about this product that they advertised, and the host stammered a bit and basically said "well, yeah that's not true but it's all just for fun, a fun gift for people maybe". Was funny to hear him trying to justify this obvious scam because they happened to advertise with the station, even though the entire premise of the show was calling bullshit on other phony product claims.

<comment><USER12> My grandmother has a "star named after her". She knows it's fake but she says she appreciates the thought behind it. Like wearing costume jewelry, you know that green hunk of plastic the size of a walnut isn't a real emerald but that doesn't stop people from wearing them.

<comment><USER29> I'll name a grain of sand after her too if you ping me a $100... :-D

<comment><USER12> See, you gotta do it right. Make it romantic. Stars are romantic. It has to be on a huge scale, too, so it sounds impressive. And then you need something tangible, so there has to be a piece of paper, preferably showing how they could see the thing named after them. Stars are easiest, but you could do custom constellations named after them. Shouldn't be too hard to hack up a python script that draws pictures over a star map and prints out certificates of the brand new constellation.

I'd buy that for my grandma. She'd like that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> My perspective on Lumosity and its "science" is different because I was a paying customer.

I found Lumosity in 2009-2010 and played occasionally, eventually converting to a paid membership in 2012-2013 and playing weekly on desktop and iOS.

I was even quite proud to make it to the 98th percentile of all players [1]. (For reference, that's statistically consistent with my score on a standardized IQ test.)

Eventually _something felt off_ about the scoring. At one point I distinctly recall them catching flack for changing the algorithm to boost you higher for _playing more_ without necessarily _playing better_.

What I found anecdotally was that playing their games while I was in a distracted state would help me regain focus to the point where I could work on a cognitively challenging task, like a programming project, math problems, etc. afterward that I wouldn't have been able to before playing. I don't claim (or know) whether any longterm difference was made, but I also didn't join for that reason and never really cared about that. Lumosity games gave me a brain reset not dissimilar to a short meditation.

I don't know the science behind this idea, and perhaps it's purely placebo effect, but personally Lumosity was helpful to my life. That was my experience.

1: [https://twitter.com/kicksopenminds/status/426760502128041984](https://twitter.com/kicksopenminds/status/426760502128041984)

</comment><comment><USER30> Every time I heard these ads I cringed. As a scientist (with plenty of experience in the neuroscience domain) I knew there was no way they could back up those claims reliably.

I definitely noticed when they toned down the claims, but even then I was surprised they were still going...

+1 FTC

</comment><comment><USER31> NPR plays ads on the radio about Lumosity and brain training, nearly every day for the last year here.

It seemed ED to be more of a "We will give you a chance to raise an arbitrary number over time if you pay us" and heavy marketing ploy.

Seems like if cow clicker got viral and took peoples money.

<comment><USER32> They play those ads on NPR here too. They always make me think about what my dad (a psychologist) told me about IQ tests: all IQ actually measures is how well you do on IQ tests. It's entirely possible to study for the test and improve your IQ. Of course, doing this doesn't make you any better at anything useful, but it might make you eligible for Mensa. (My dad is very skeptical when it comes to psychometrics.)

<comment><USER33> That's a valid criticism if the test taker is trying to cheat, but if its yourself trying to find out your own IQ and you didn't train for it, it's still a useful predictor of academic success.

<comment><USER32> Absolutely, there's some correlation if the test-taker isn't tainted. But I bring it up here because Lumosity basically tells its customers they're getting smarter because they're getting better at its "brain-training" games, when it's pretty clear that the only thing they're likely to get better at is the games.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> >The order also imposes a $50 million judgment against Lumos Labs, which will be suspended due to its financial condition after the company pays $2 million to the Commission.

So does that mean after paying this fine, Lumosity is in financial trouble?

<comment><USER35> It means they don't have $50m. I'd say that shouldn't matter, we don't give the poor a discount on parking tickets either (actually, we usually make them more expensive).

<comment><USER36> I have seen a proposal to make the cost of tickets based on value of the car. The thinking is that a person with an Audi is not at all disturbed by paying a $20 parking fine, so it isn't an incentive. It's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure how hard it would be to implement.

<comment><USER37> The UK does something like this, they call it "means adjusted" fines.

Usually it's done if you challenge a ticket and they still find you guilty. Then they may adjust the fine relative to your financial condition. (I'm not sure how they find that out, eg if they talk to HMRC or other).

<comment><USER38> Popular in the EU:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day- fine)

I don't think the UK does it much, except in the sense that if you lose a case you're liable for costs, and for a driving offence judges are more likely to apply a statutory criminal fine.

Smaller offences have an upper fine limit, and that won't be raised based on income. But it's always bigger than the token Fixed Penalty Notice fine you get from the police. Serious offences have unlimited fines, so judges can get more creative with financial penalties.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Looks like they toned down their website quite a lot:

[http://www.lumosity.com/](http://www.lumosity.com/)

Confront that with the transcript in the original FTC complaint (from page 7):

[https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/160105lumos...](https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/160105lumoslabscmpt.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER40> Marketplace has done an interesting investigation on those types of mind games. [http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/episodes/2014-2015/brain- train...](http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/episodes/2014-2015/brain-training- mind-games)

</comment><comment><USER41> Ugh. Could have been higher.

My local entertainment mediums were spammed with this ad:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGjr_CJ2n98](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGjr_CJ2n98)

for a solid year or two. The vapid, cultish, yet manic grin. The "Now, with Neuroscience(tm)!". The recursive caricature of a borderline mentally retarded person who now feels that everything is right in the world because she's paid tithe to the Intelligence Authorities. The notion that the commercial is not only defrauding, but actively mocking anyone too uneducated or uncritical or low-self-confidence, to doubt their claims. The several percent of her life it's implied she's supposed to spend engaging in ritual flagellation with repetitive, poorly designed games, in order to diminish the shaming at not 'working on my mind'.

It is the singular most offensive scumbag commercial advertisement that comes to mind. It brings on vivid fantasies of punching the smug grin off of this woman, even though I know intellectually she's just a professional actress, and I'm a pacifist.

</comment><comment><USER42> I have something of a litmus test for companies where I just assume any company that advertises a lot via "live reads" on radio/podcasts is not to be trusted. Lumosity, LifeLock, etc.

There are outliers for which I wouldn't quite say "not to be trusted" like Dollar Shave Club and Blue Apron, but even in those cases you are, IMO, overpaying for a vanishingly small amount of convenience.

I think it holds up pretty well though that putting a lot of effort into advertising via "live reads" on radio and podcasts is a negative indicator as to how much you can trust a company.

<comment><USER43> So I take it you don't aren't munching on your Naturebox and mailing the government (using your Stamps.com scale) your application to start a business (that you created on LegalZoom) making websites via Squarespace, all while listening to an audiobook you got from Audible, before dozing off on your Casper mattress wearing nothing but your "Me Undies"?

...I listen to too many podcasts.

<comment><USER44> Ugh. I know it's just an example, but stamps.com is one of those "borderline legal frauds", a step away from phone slamming. Opt-in renewal, online signup and "you have to call us to unsubscribe".

Now I think of stamps.com as the literal devil -- it might be possible to get a good deal, but you really better know what you've agreed to.

[http://darkpatterns.org/stamps-com- october-2013/](http://darkpatterns.org/stamps-com-october-2013/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I wrote my prelims on these kinds of 'training' paradigms and there is zero credible experimental evidence that ANY of them actually generalize to things like fluid intelligence or g. For an excellent overview on the real state of the science see here [0].

0\. [http://longevity3.stanford.edu/blog/2014/10/15/the- consensus...](http://longevity3.stanford.edu/blog/2014/10/15/the-consensus-on- the-brain-training-industry-from-the-scientific-community-2/)

</comment><comment><USER46> even though I'm a 'free market' guy, nice to see action being taken against pseudoscience.

[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brain-training- doe...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brain-training-doesn-t-make- you-smarter/?WT.mc_id=SA_Twitter)

[http://greyenlightenment.com/brain-training-doesnt-make- you-...](http://greyenlightenment.com/brain-training-doesnt-make-you-smarter/)

'Brain training' no better than 'penis enhancement'...just as dubious

</comment><comment><USER47> Rose-Hulman (my alma mater), should probably revise this:

[http://www.rose-hulman.edu/news/academics/2012/rose- hulman-n...](http://www.rose-hulman.edu/news/academics/2012/rose-hulman- no-9-on-americas-smartest-colleges-list,-cited-for-students-having-best- memory.aspx)

</comment><comment><USER48> Building a business on lies and then paying a $2mm fine when caught (without even 100% probability) seems to be an economically rational strategy. Unfortunately.

</comment><comment><USER49> Improvement of fluid intelligence by training with dual-n-back was studied in Jaeggi et al.[0], but could not be successfully replicated [1]. More in the following article: [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brain-training- doe...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brain-training-doesn-t-make- you-smarter/)

[0]: [http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/04/25/0801268105.full...](http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/04/25/0801268105.full.pdf)

[1]: [http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....](http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0063614)

</comment><comment><USER50> Unfortunately, it's a lot easier to sell games than neuroscience. Take an assessment, play games based on that assessment, and take the assessment again --- garbage in, garbage out. The value is in identifying congitive deficits so that proper strategies may be put in place that can be practiced in a variety of contexts such that they are actually transferable to everyday life. There's not a heck of a lot of science in the Lumosity baseline either, since all their data comes from an uncontrolled environment on the web. But there are a number of valid, peer reviewed online neurocognitve batteries available without having to go to a psychologist for a few grand.

NIH Toolbox (for researchers) [http://www.nihtoolbox.org/Pages/default.aspx](http://www.nihtoolbox.org/Pages/default.aspx)

Mindprint Learning (which has the Penn CNB for children) [https://mindprintlearning.com/](https://mindprintlearning.com/)

Brain Resource (which has the Web Neuro for adults) [http://www.brainresource.com/mybrainsolutions/personal](http://www.brainresource.com/mybrainsolutions/personal)

</comment><comment><USER51> One intuitive way to categorize products is according to the observability of the value. In one class, it's readily apparent: the storage is cheaper, it doesn't fail very often, there's little downtime, my payments always go through, the user experience just feels better, all my friends use it. This doesn't have to be objective, just 'noticeable'.

On the other hand, it's hard to judge the value of an encryption app, or a brain training program, because the true value is often hidden. It's difficult to tell, at least for the average consumer whether an encryption app works. There might be signs for the more immediately knowledgeable ('why won't the passwords take special characters, or passwords longer than 12 characters?'), but it's usually a small group.

Unfortunately, this is probably going to make it harder for the latter kind of company to grow quickly, because trust takes time to develop. I don't just need to trust that my data will be safe - the entire value of the product depends on my trust that it does what it says.

I have no idea if lumosity does what it claimed, but I doubt I could easily tell in a day or two. Contrast that with instagram or a better computer - <USER2> value (however large or small) is obvious.

</comment><comment><USER52> On the topic of games and their actual potential impact on cognition and other aspects of life, Jane McGonigal is doing a lot of interesting research, and I highly recommend reading or listening to some of her material if you're interested in the subject. A good starting point is her interview with Tim Ferriss ([http://fourhourworkweek.com/2015/07/28/jane- mcgonigal/](http://fourhourworkweek.com/2015/07/28/jane-mcgonigal/)), and from there check out her books if you're interested in going deeper.

I believe it's in that interview that she says that these kinds of "brain training" games are less effective than just normal games built for fun at developing any kind of cognitive ability. I tried Lumosity out for a trial period to see what it was about, but the games were overly simplistic and not well-designed from a fun standpoint. I also felt like I was hitting 90% of their specific "categories" of games with a single game like Starcraft 2, except a game like Starcraft 2 actually forces you to engage the thinking part of your brain if you want to perform at any decent level.

</comment><comment><USER53> Just going to plug a product I was working on for a while.

Active Memory (From ABC), was working really closely with a team of neuroscientists out of Australia. Lots of their data goes directly into research programs. Here's the blurb from their site:

"Active Memory has been developed in partnership with the University of Melbourne and the Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health. The program is built on a breakthrough statistical model that examines your game results and serves up a customised training schedule that challenges your brain at just the right level of difficulty. Most importantly, the program aims to measure the changes that are happening to your cognition, based on your training. Critically, your participation in Active Memory will contribute to one of the largest studies of its kind into brain training and its potential health benefits."

Was a really great team to work with. Had a very different angle from Luminosity and was held to very strict advertising controls through being a part of ABCs commercial arm.

[https://www.activememory.com](https://www.activememory.com)

<comment><USER54> The ABC is the Australian Broadcasting Corp, in the same category as the BBC and the CBC

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> I develop similar product, that focuses on eye training instead of brains. Half of our office is filled with ophthalmologists, with some big names (supposedly — I don't know much about the field). Constant print outs of scientific articles lying around, presentation files stick to the walls (I don't know the proper term, but you know what I mean if you've been into scientific conferences and seminars) and overall vibe really feels like it's a university faculty and not a start-up. Damn, we even have fully equipped ophthalmologist office and get free eye exams when it's not used to measure our beta-testers.

I always assumed that brain training apps are just like that. What "did not have the science" really mean in this case? Did they find some errors in peer- reviewed papers these companies have published? Or they just faked it all?

<comment><USER56> They are exactly like that, in that almost all purported benefits of eye training and brain training alike are not supported by scientific evidence and only very narrow effects exists: [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15825744](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15825744)

<comment><USER55> As I said, I certainly don't know enough to argue about it in scientific terms, so unfortunately, I have to resort to trust to authority. So, for comparison with this single paper from 2005, here are recent papers of our lead researcher (who has a cute habit of going around the office in the evening and collecting the forgotten tea cups into the washing machine) on the matter: [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Polat+U%5BAuthor%5D](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Polat+U%5BAuthor%5D)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> None of this has been around long enough to generate good longitudinal data either way, imo. That said, taking a cognitive assessment across a couple domains, playing a series of games based on those very same cognitive tasks, and then retaking the same cognitive assessment seems pretty suspect. I would think results would be biased, similar to retest effects. At the end of the day, improvement is either transferred to a variety of other contexts beyond gaming or not. I would think that the true test. There would be some value in a diagnostic, something that would identify deficits, and I think Lumosity offers such a thing but I don't believe it has been rigorously validated.

</comment><comment><USER58> Is the FDA intervention good or bad?

At first glance, it seems like the answer is yes because the FDA action signals that outrageous, unprovable claims do not give offer a competitive advantage. But by making FDA "experts" the sole arbiter of truth, ideas outside the mainstream are harder to pursue. Some people probably really did benefit from the Luminosity, but now it's much harder to figure out why. Note that the FDA also makes it harder on people like Consumer Reports, Cochrane Reviews, etc. who get fewer donations and customers because much of what they could be doing competes with the FDA's government-subsidized service.

</comment><comment><USER59> The worst part of this is that Lumosity probably did a cost-beenfit analysis years back, realizing they would make more money via these deceptive ads than the expected FTC fine.

For those who don't know- Lumosity is killing it. They can easily pay this fine with their enormous profits.

</comment><comment><USER60> So, televangelist can claim that you need to send a "seed" (money) to get good fortune and get away with it making millions from the most gullible people around, but a brain-training app is penalized for deceptive ads?

Shit doesn't add up.

</comment><comment><USER61> The brain training craze all started with the nintendo's brain age game for the ds.

</comment><comment><USER62> While the research underpinning the product has always been weak in it findings, I find their goal post very low.

If we assume that brain games work, why aren't we comparing this to sudoku, Tetris, trivial pursuit or memory? Or simply reading a book, doing homework?

It's not like real life is low on intellectual challenges and if brain training is really transferable, shouldn't solving math problems be transferable too?

</comment><comment><USER63> Where does that money go?

I really hope the FTC doesn't get it. It's a conflict of interest that permeates local law enforcement all across America.

<comment><USER64> FTC puts proceeds of settlement into a "consumer restitution" or "consumer redress" fund. Consumers who were affected by the bad actors, can claim their money back via a separate company which administers that fund. After a period of time, once all affected customers have had time to claim their restitution (usually 12-24 months), then any remaining money left in the "redress" or "restitution" fund goes into the FTCs coffers. I can't quickly find stats on what percentage is usually claimed by consumers. But last time I researched this, it was pretty low with something like <10% of affected consumers actually claiming their restitution and 90% going back into FTC budget.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> Dual n-back, coffee, LSD. All things people swear make you smarter.

Coffee has proven to make brain work better. But it's only temporary.

LSD...well, I've never tried it, but people swear by it. Not sure if scientists would be allowed to try it on test cases.

<comment><USER66> anyone who says lsd makes you smarter is already stupid.

<comment><USER67> To understand the experience of LSD, I recommend "The New Alchemy" by Alan Watts.

[http://www.psychedelic-library.org/alchemy.htm](http://www.psychedelic- library.org/alchemy.htm)

<comment><USER66> I've done it several times (as well as basically all popular hallucinogens). I know all about the drug, its impacts on the brain, what it's actually like being on it, etc. I've also lived around many drippy hippie types in Santa Cruz, and the new wave of "microdosing is the key to creative coding" types, and their insights are equally bullshit to me.

<comment><USER67> Ok, but I don't know if anything you just said entails the claim that "Anyone who says LSD makes you smarter is stupid" \-- I may be stupid, but I don't think the argument that (a) LSD offers a temporary alternate form of consciousness that (b) can lead to valuable insights and discoveries which (c) improve your overall cognition is a bad one.

<comment><USER66> Cocaine leads to a temporary alternate form of consciousness that may or may not lead to valuable insights too. So does ecstacy, or ketamine, or modafinil, or coffee, or weed, or the 2c-X family, or whatever RC you want to take, or yoga, or meditation. A temporary change in perception is not an increase in intelligence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> Where is the scientist? The grad school dropout with one peer reviewed publication?

[http://www.lumosity.com/about/our_team](http://www.lumosity.com/about/our_team)

</comment><comment><USER69> I did not read the article yet but what immediately comes to mind are those "try this one weird trick" ads

<comment><USER70> I used a weird trick to pay off my mortgage

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> I always wondered how the "brain improvements" from this thing compared to just playing a video game

</comment><comment><USER72> I was subscribed to Lumosity for 2 years.

<comment><USER73> Did you use it?

<comment><USER72> Quite a lot. Religiously followed the schedule. Felt good for doing it. Can't say it helped or not.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER74> How does Cogmed compare to Lumosity?

</comment><comment><USER75> Only 2M...?

</comment><comment><USER76> Did the USDA ever get fined for the Food Pyramid being completely wrong and then being thrown out[1]? Justice, justice?

[1] [http://www.pjstar.com/article/20151230/OPINION/151239951](http://www.pjstar.com/article/20151230/OPINION/151239951)</comment>


The second-system effect - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php <comment><USER2> Links to the Wikipedia main page. I think you meant this link [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second- system_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-system_effect)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, thanks!</comment></comment>


Condoleezza Rice Joins Dropbox's Board of Directors - <AUTHOR> http://mashable.com/2014/04/09/condoleezza-rice-dropbox/ <comment><USER2> I wonder what the upside to appointing an outspoken, top-tier NSA advocate and cheerleader for warrantless wiretapping of US citizens to Dropbox's board could be. Seriously, I would love to hear some theories, because I can scarcely imagine a more idiotic (and, as TFA mentions, tone-deaf) move.

Dropbox is likely to hemorrhage their tech-savvy users -- the ones who not only drove adoption at first, but _still_ drive adoption -- and I can only imagine Google Drive, BT Sync, and Box are only too happy to receive us. Is the Valley/B-people bubble really that thick that no one thought this was less than a solid idea?

<comment><USER3> Yeah, i'm no longer a customer of theirs due to this decision.

I can't think of a worse cadre of people than the Bush administration to involve in my own personal matters of privacy.

While I would never hope for the dissolution of a company just because I dislike their tactics, I do hope that this decision they made affects their bottom line enough to let them notice it as a mistake.

<comment><USER2> > While I would never hope for the dissolution of a company just because I > dislike their tactics,

I am curious, why?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Any recommendations on dropbox alternatives?

I've been a happy customer for years but won't stay with a company that appoints a war criminal and spying apologist to their board.

</comment><comment><USER5> >"As a country, we are having a great national conversation and debate about exactly how to manage privacy concerns. I look forward to helping Dropbox navigate it," Rice told Bloomberg Businessweek, which was the first to report the news.

So... what? Help Dropbox hand out private keys to spooks and set up database replication to NSA datacenters? I didn't realize she was technical.

It doesn't help that one of those slides literally said "Dropbox is next".

Now in addition to changing all my passwords because of Heartbleed I've got to migrate from Dropbox to... something? Suggestions?

What a week.</comment>


Metro breakdown: Windows 8 UI is little gain for lots of pain - <AUTHOR> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/03/andrew_does_windows8/

<comment><USER2> This article is spot on. I love the metro UI but in its current form it's not quite ready for the desktop. Some things that were easy to accomplish before are now made more difficult. The removal of the start button is one. Having to click the corner of the screen to access the Start Screen is frustrating. The target to click is essentially smaller which requires more precision and effort to hit.

Closing apps is also more difficult. On the desktop you just click the big red button and the window disappears but in metro you're required to click the top of the screen and drag the app to the bottom of the screen. It's a lot more work and it's frustrating.

The interesting thing about all these frustrations on the PC is that on a tablet they'd be great! Metro is a great tablet UI. It's optimized for touch. This is clear so why force it onto the desktop? This clearly demonstrates the difference between Microsoft and Apple's philosophy on user experience. Microsoft is cannibalizing the desktop user experience to realize a utopian vision of one OS to run on all devices. If Windows 8 on tablets is a massive success then maybe to MIcrosoft that would have made it all worthwhile. People could always go back to windows 7 on the desktop if they prefer to. Maybe this is Microsoft realizing that we are indeed in a Post-PC era and it needs to succeed in this space at all costs!

<comment><USER3> "The target to click is essentially smaller which requires more precision and effort to hit."

It's actually the opposite, the virtual target area extends beyond the screen to the bottom and left and that area has no boundaries. In other words, you can move your cursor in the right direction and if you keep moving you are guaranteed to hit that area. Experienced users will just 'flick' their cursor in the general direction knowing they are going to hit it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> While I don't agree with the tone of the article, it matches my overall experience using Windows 8. In particular, the screenshot of the homepage is quite revealing. A lot of these positive reviews are based on MS marketing videos and someone messing around with it for 30 minutes. But anyone who has tried using it for a few days as their sole OS runs into a lot of issues that can't simply be explained by "beta". There are systemic design issues with Win8 where some "bugs" are by design.

I can't see Win8 being ready before the end of the year…

</comment><comment><USER5> It looks like I'll be sticking with Windows 7. The Metro interface is not worth the pain, especially if you don't even have a machine with a touchscreen already, which obviously most won't. There's no point in using Windows 8 on a PC/laptop other than slowing yourself down and getting frustrated with it.

</comment><comment><USER6> I don't see the issue?

If you want the classic windows desktop experience, it's right there, isn't it? You have no one forcing you to use Metro if you don't like it.

<comment><USER7> In windows 8 the system is 'abstracted' behind metro. You can't access the system using conventional means, you have to launch applications from metro (unless you use the desktop or pin them to the status bar), and have to search in metro to access system configuration. In fact, it wouldn't be incorrect to say metro is the new start dialogue, since it binds to the windows key. This is as of the consumer preview, but it could change for the final release.

The 'integration', if you can call it that, is definitely no where near what it could be (task switching in metro and classic desktop are two different systems). They also introduce many new interactions for metro, that even I didn't know about till people told me (hot spot in top right, right click to access IE 10 metro controls). Of course, most touch based systems have these kinds of problems, but the question is will they be _consistent_ across metro.

So really the best description of the system is Windows 7 with a new start dialogue that takes up the whole screen, can start applications itself, and even has its own task switching; all with some added sugar to the rest of the OS.

<comment><USER8> Someone will bring back an aftermarket progman.exe (application icons in a window on the desktop, kids) and find a way to block all the Metro triggers from the registry.</comment></comment></comment>


Intro to Caching: Caching algorithms and caching frameworks part 1 - <AUTHOR> http://javalandscape.blogspot.com/2009/01/cachingcaching-algorithms-and-caching.html

<comment><USER2> It gives a brief overview of more cache replacement algorithms than I ever knew existed. It is written in an unusual and somewhat irritating style. Each algorithm is written in the first person and tells its "story." Worth bookmarking though.

<comment><USER3> Here's two he didn't mention.

LIRS: [http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.2.43...](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.2.437)

CLOCK-Pro: [http://www.cse.ohio- state.edu/hpcs/WWW/HTML/publications/abs...](http://www.cse.ohio- state.edu/hpcs/WWW/HTML/publications/abs05-3.html)

Disclosure: Zhang was the head of my old department, and I took a caching class from him.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> English is clearly not this guy's first language, so the grammar and spelling are very rough, but the information is good. I learned a few things!

<comment><USER5> This sometimes results in a bucket full of charming though:

 _Cached Object: no no please let me live, they still need me, I have children.

Programmer 1: all cached entries say that before they are invalidated and since when do you have children? Never mind now vanish for ever._

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> imho, a better (generic) definition of caching would be that it is based on carrot-and-stick princple. locality-of-reference being the carrot, and amdhal's law being the stick...</comment>


Hire the Best People, and Let Them Work from Wherever They Are - <AUTHOR> https://hbr.org/2016/02/hire-the-best-people-and-let-them-work-from-wherever-they-are <comment><USER2> Remote working only works for some people. Why? It's so easy to get distracted and not get your work done.

Many people also miss the social interactions of an office.

I was the hiring manager of an entire virtual development team some years back and we had a very difficult time finding employees that could actually work like this.

It would always start out fine and then progressively get worse after a couple of weeks/months. I have found that the same type of people that can make it work are self-starters and could also run their own business.

<comment><USER3> > It's so easy to get distracted and not get your work done.

>the social interactions of an office

On the rare occasions that I work in an office most of what I see is people getting distracted by social interactions. I don't know how anyone works that way.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Entrepreneurs/co-founders in the UK? - <AUTHOR> I moved to the UK recently from Canada and hoping to extend my entrepreneurial network in the UK with the potential of finding a co-founder. I'm based in Scotland and would love to get connected to the startup scene here. <comment><USER2> Techmeetup[1] is probably a good place to get started.

[1] [http://techmeetup.co.uk/](http://techmeetup.co.uk/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks!</comment></comment>


Foreign Minister Taro Kono to ask media to switch order of Japanese names - <AUTHOR> https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/05/21/national/politics-diplomacy/foreign-minister-taro-kono-ask-media-switch-order-japanese-names/ <comment><USER2> English should adopt the French convention of capitalizing the family (last) name. For example, this would make it ABE Shinzo, which would remove ambiguity. When encountering _East_ (thanks for the reminder) Asian (or Hungarian, for that matter) names in emails for example, I'm usually worried about if their "last" name in the directory is their given name and what they should be addressed by or their actual last name.

<comment><USER3> Fun fact: some German names (e.g. Strauß) change spelling when capitalized. The letter "ß" is a ligature that only exists as a lower case letter and has to be written as "SS" when capitalized.

Names are fun. I recently had dealings with a company that assumed in its employee roster that the last word entered in the name field was your last name (i.e. anything beyond the last space). One of my coworkers was from Spain and had a last name consisting of two words separated by a space. She was the very definition of a failure case for that system.

<comment><USER4> > One of my coworkers was from Spain and had a last name consisting of two > words separated by a space.

It's two last names, father and mother first last names. I guess the same definition works, but it's worth noting that any last name might contain a space.

<comment><USER5> Not necessarily. My last name is Ferreira De Almeida. "Ferreira" comes from my mother, and "De Almeida", with space, comes from my father.

I started spelling it "Dealmeida" to avoid confusion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> My wife is a Mongolian Chinese from Xinjiang, and she doesn't have a last name like other Mongolians follow single name convention. That brings lots of mess to our life in Japan.

Firstly I should note that her Chinese passport records her first name as the last name, which I think is a widely adopted way; however, whenever I purchase a boarding pass for her, I need to inquire the company how to fill a required first name field in the form. Most commonly, they let me use a placeholder "MS" in the first name field. Still, even following their instructions, we face minor trouble at ticket counter sometimes. That is fine because the airline offers us compensation such as free first-class seat conversion. So boarding pass is a frequency-wise problem for us.

In severity-wise, the social security system in Japan frightened me. Oh dear. Very soon after I started my career, their representative called me that they would input whitespace (I guess it's in multibyte) as her last name, and told me that they could not guarantee it won't cause any trouble. Imagine you work for 30-40 years and the government's mother-AI sentences that you are not eligible for the national pension as your residential profile doesn't match with the whitespace! Not quite surreal to think about it if the AI learned the less diverse culture in Japan. But I digress. Currently, my wife and I consider registering the legal FBN to use my family name to prevent upcoming troubles.

Software developers, please have a moment to think of the NULL name when your product owner tries to set the first name as required.

<comment><USER7> Burmese here, we don't have family names as well and run into this similar problem in all other countries.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> There is an impressive amount of variation regarding personal name formats even within Asia.

In my culture (Thai), I put my given name first and then my family name (inherited from my father), like in most of the west, but actually my name of formal address is my _first_ , given name, and my family name is hardly ever used except as a differentiator. [1]

In Vietnamese culture, I believe the given name is also the name of formal address, yet the family name comes first as in China and Japan. Hence Nguyen Anh would be called "Anh".

[1] [http://blog.jclark.com/2007/12/thai-personal- names.html](http://blog.jclark.com/2007/12/thai-personal-names.html)

<comment><USER9> I have seen the following variations in Pakistan. Given name is what people prefer to be called informally. * marks if people strongly prefer to be referred to by this name in a formal setting. Prefixes are usually religious in nature (Muhammad/Syed) and then you are never supposed to use them except when reading out the full name.

FamilyName GivenName*

<optional prefix> GivenName FamilyName

GivenName* Father'sGivenName

GivenName Father'sGivenName FamilyName

Father'sGivenName GivenName FamilyName

Prefix GivenName*

My name is of the third type and as a scientist it annoys me immensely that my work is referred to by my Father'sGivenName in western culture when no one has ever called me that in real life in my culture.

<comment><USER10> > My name is of the third type and as a scientist it annoys me immensely that > my work is referred to by my Father'sGivenName in western culture

By what would you prefer your work be referred to, assuming a formal setting?

<comment><USER11> Not OP. But similar situation. My name is of the form <given nane> <father's given name> (a bit more complicated than that, see my other comment). So if my father's given name is Jack, my name may be Michael Jack. In my native setting I am always referred to as Mr Michael. Very rarely Mr Michael Jack. Never Mr Jack, because that is how my father would be referred to as. So in a western setting I am almost always called Mr Jack and in my mind it is my dad, not me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I think this is the start of the hockey stick graph in the _unicode-ification_ of the world

We are becoming a closer more integrated world and we will find it waaaaay easier to have common shared conventions and regulations - but that does not mean we all choose an existing one, (ie cultural hegemony) we just migrate to a new one, more complex perhaps but one that fits (more or less) everybody.

It's fascinating (been fighting unicode legacy issues today so it's top of mind)

<comment><USER13> Factoid: reminds me of a strip in a recent superman comics, I quote a villain getting his message broadcasted on every devices of the planet: "You really should settle on a common language or you'll never achieve anything significant as a specie".

<comment><USER14> Mi pensis, ke ni havas unu.

<comment><USER13> On en a plusieurs. Et c'est l'opinion d'un vilain qui est ici citée.

(I suggest we get back to english for the sake of the rest of the conversation since this exchange between us served its purpose of being insightful with a bit fun thrown in)

<comment><USER15> This results in the "15 competing standards" situation of the present where none of them is actually _the_ common language.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'd love to see names always included once in their native script.

>Foreign Minister 河野 太郎 (Kōno Tarō) said Tuesday he plans to ask overseas media outlets to write Japanese names with the family name first, as is customary in the country.

Implicitly that would be a declaration that the English isn't authoritative.

<comment><USER17> That kinda makes them seem all the more alien, inserted in the middle of an English sentence like that. You could maybe flip it with the native script in parens.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Did this article put his given name first, despite being about him asking that the media put the family name first? I wonder if he finds that as frustrating as I do.

<comment><USER19> It looks like it. From his wikipedia article [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar%C5%8D_K%C5%8Dno](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar%C5%8D_K%C5%8Dno)

it looks like his father's name is Yōhei Kōno which which suggests that Kono is his family name.

<comment><USER20> Taro is also a very common Japanese male name. Think of "John".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I deal with the reverse of this problem all the time. Living in Japan, my bank cards (and other ID) all have my name in the Japanese order, with my surname first followed by my first name and my middle name last. Without fail, the staff at the counter will address me by my middle name, on the assumption that foreigners' names have the family name last, so that must be the right name to use.

</comment><comment><USER22> FWIW, many Hong Kong people have both a Chinese name and a Western one, and then it works quite nicely, respecting both conventions:

FirstWestern Family FirstChinese

Such as Andrew LEUNG Kwan-yue, Tommy CHEUNG Yu-yan, etc.

<comment><USER23> Is that western name official (on birth certificate or passport) or informal?

<comment><USER24> Could be both. Some have it in their formal identifications, but many don't.

<comment><USER22> Yeah, and some get their Western name early, while some choose it as a teenager or so. Which sometimes leads to weird choices - I met a guy called "Nose", and a girl called "Money".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> There is an excellent Chinese singer (of German _Lieder_ , as it happens), who used to go by the name of Shen Yang (with Shen being the family name). Now, quoting Wikipedia:

> he went on to win the 2007 BBC Cardiff Singer of the World competition.[4] > After the win, noting confusion in the Western press over the name "Shen > Yang", he decided to change its spelling to "Shenyang".

So that's somewhat unexpected, because while now the order is fixed, it really looks like he only has one name.

(BTW, Indonesians frequently have only one name (even in their official papers/passport), creating difficulties when booking flights, for example. Obviates difficulties with ordering the names, though :-)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_(singer)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_\(singer\))

<comment><USER25> I learned this fact when reading about Thant:

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I was working on a personal project recently which involved importing lots of Japanese names into a database for my app. I had originally made a "person" table with columns for "given_name" and "family_name" – but ended up going with a combined "name" column because I couldn't find a reliable way to determine if data from different sources was using the given-first or family- first convention (and I was automatically importing some of it, so I couldn't make case-by-case decisions).

This was just a fun app for personal use, so it wasn't the end of the world to just punt on the data, but it was frustrating nonetheless.

<comment><USER27> Whenever I'm on a team building something new, I've fought hard to stop people from splitting names into first/last. There's simply no right way to do it. In addition to conventions like family name first in Japan, Spanish naming conventions create confusion (First Paternal_Family Maternal_Family), and there are rare outliers like mononyms as well. There is almost no use case-- aside from perhaps a genealogy site--where splitting the name provides any benefit.

<comment><USER26> Interesting! I wouldn't have thought that would be best practice, but in spending a little time trying to learn more (this page from W3[0] was really enlightening), it makes perfect sense why "only split if you absolutely need to" is good advice.

[0][https://www.w3.org/International/questions/qa-personal- names](https://www.w3.org/International/questions/qa-personal-names)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> What I find interesting is that there are exceptions to the current practice in English. Yoko Taro (family name: Yoko) is known widely as Yoko Taro, yet most other Japanese game developers are known as GivenName FamilyName (in English).

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

<comment><USER29> Hatsune Miku and her fellow vocaloids also seem to be an exception. They're not real people of course, but they may as well be here.

<comment><USER30> I always thought Miku was her given name.

<comment><USER29> It is, that's why she's an exception (to the practice of writing Japanese surnames last in English).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> As a person, who tries to be polite and correct in conversations, especially also written ones, I am completely lost. For me it is usually impossible to find out in which order a name was written as both orders are being used. I would desperately love to have a clear typographical hint, like all caps, with smallcaps for the non leading letters, for which the family name is.

Pro tip for email communications: please sign any mail you send off. This gives the recipient a clear idea, how he could address you, by just copying from your signature.

</comment><comment><USER32> In terms of Chinese names, my observation is that in English media, if your name is printed as "first_name last_name" then you haven't made it yet. But if you are somebody, your name will appear as "last_name first_name". E.g. Xi Jinping, Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping. When was the last time you heard "Ming Yao the former Rockets center"?

<comment><USER33> Jack Ma seems like a counter example.

<comment><USER32> Not really a good counter example as "Jack Ma" is his English name (i.e. not his legal name, not the one printed on his passport. more like a nickname that can be easily remembered by westerners).

If you google his legal Chinese name, you will find that it's never "Yun Ma" in English media. Instead it's always "Ma Yun"...because he is a big shot.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> This is unexpected and quite interesting. I think we totally gloss over the fact that we've just been writing Japanese (and Korean) names incorrectly.

I've always thought it to be quite odd, and there are exceptions too. Mun Jae- in, Kim Il-Seung, Kim Jong-Il are written correctly, so you might think political figures get a pass, yet Syngman Rhee is backwards.

<comment><USER35> I think for Syngman Rhee the reason he is known that way in English is because he spent a significant amount of his life living in the US and interacting with Americans; In America the convention followed by most people with Asian names is to use the English order in English.

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

<comment><USER34> He didn't move to the US until he was ~29, in 1904. So even back then we got their names backwards.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> As a Japanese, first we MUST stop pronounce Chinese names, both place and person, in Japanese on-yomi rule. e.g. Beijing(北京) is called "Pekin". Xi Jinping (習近平) is Shu Kinpei. It always confuse me when first heard those name in English.

<comment><USER37> So that might be why Beijing is called Peking in German... Although the (generally closer to original pronunciation) English romanizations of some Chinese names are becoming more common.

<comment><USER38> It's called ~"Peking" in most European languages.

<comment><USER39> Most of Europe probably got it from France, who used the Cantonese pronunciation: bāk-gīng

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I'm an English speaker who about a year ago got interested in a young Japanese drummer,佐藤奏.

The standard English translation of her name is Kanade Sato. However, when I use google translate on links in Japanese like articles that mention her, it is amazing how often it comes out quite different, including putting the Sato first.

I would also like to mention that Japanese writing has several different systems. First there is Kanji, which is straight from Chinese script. Then there are a couple of syllable-based systems, and finally they use Roman script for many foreign words. Sentences tend to be a mix of Kanji and syllable-based words. Also interesting is that there are usually no spaces between words, and the reader is expected to figure it out on their own. But if this might be too confusing, then a dot is added in between.

One more oddity. Kanji characters can,as I understand it, have more than one word associated with them. As a consequence, there is a drummer in Japan whose given name is usually translated as Senri, but sometimes Chisato.

Kanade and Senri together (skip the first minute, it's just the MC lady talking) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sf3DgS3LEA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sf3DgS3LEA)

</comment><comment><USER41> Personally I think this is a matter of translation. In English the personal name comes first followed by the surname. In Japanese honorifics come after the name but it would be quite silly to ask foreign media to call Abe Shinzo "Abe Shinzo Mr." instead of "Mr. Abe Shinzo" or for an American to ask British media to not refer to American mothers as "mum". Sometimes localizing a name means altering it.

<comment><USER42> I don't think it's just a matter of translation preference. I think it's also to be respectful to the people whose names are being mentioned.

When Chinese or Japanese concert Roman names to Hanzi/Kana, they try to observe the FIRSTNAME LASTNAME convention if preferred by that culture. Such as スティーブン・ポール・"スティーブ"・ジョブズ (Steven Paul "Steve" Jobs)

<comment><USER43> This is something that is hard for me to understand because I wouldn't think it was disrespectful to be called Barney James in another language.(honestly I wouldn't care if they called me Barney James in English)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> How should they be addressed, then?

Suppose we have FAMILYNAME Firstname, what is the way to correctly convey

Dear Mr... (formal opening ) Dear... (casual opening) ?

</comment><comment><USER45> Best thing would do is to have a single field for name and surname and other legal variations. Like many pointed out the cultural differences are way too many to pull up with more than one field and manage them all algorithmically. That's a recipe for disaster when the culture changes the way they use the identity.

I'm a developer and I'm not gonna fall for that.

</comment><comment><USER46> So does this mean the Minister's name is Tara KONO or Kono TARA? I can't tell from this article. I totally understand people wanting to have their names written correctly, but if the reader is confused, is that going to help people to understand one's name correctly? In the US, I don't think it would.

<comment><USER47> Represented as the Minister proposes, it would be KONO Tarо̄. This relies on a bit of cultural knowledge; 太郎 (Tarо̄) is a _very_ common first name for males in Japan.

The article is a smidge ironic, though; in this article about proposing a Last First standard, the Times refers to the promulgator via First Last. I suppose they're technically in keeping with current standards by using First Last, since the Minister's proposal is brand new.

<comment><USER48> _> The article is a smidge ironic, though_

It is reporting an _intention_ from a minister. When and if the minister actually acts on it, by extending an official request from the Japanese Government, I guess they will respond officially in some way. There is no need to drop one's pants just because a minister opened his mouth.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Why can't we just write names as "Smith, John" when it's in the Asian order and "John Smith" or "John·Smith" if its in the Western order? It would remove all the ambiguity using already existing conventions.

<comment><USER49> It disregards the cultural history of names to suit what's easiest for Western Europeans to understand.

<comment><USER50> When a Western newspaper writes in the English language for a Western audience, isn't the most important thing to make articles clear and easy to understand? I understand that it's also important to respect the culture and language and the background of the person that you write about, but I guess unless you really want to have the Japanese characters in your English newspaper, it's a trade-off.

I live in Japan, my children are half-Japanese (with my foreign family name), but I have to say it'd be weird to see an article that writes about, say, "Tom Smith and his daughter Smith Hanako". Similarly, reading a Japanese text, seeing "トム・スミスと娘のスミス花子" (tomu sumisu to musume no sumisu hanako) would feel weirdly inconsistent.

<comment><USER51> Other "problems" for Japan foreign residents: * I'm of Japanese ethnicity but not Japanese, so must use katakana. Confuses everyone. * My wife, also not Japanese, kept her maiden name; breaking all kinds assumptions on forms. * Recently my wife has taken on Japanese citizenship and now uses the kanji form of my katakana last name. More confusion from various institutions. * My kids did not take on the Japanese citizenship and pretty much stands on school rosters. * And what about the katakana romanization of the names!? My first name has two different variations...

I could go on... but for name ordering problems, my bank credit card allows choices on how the name is to be used on the card. I naively picked FirstName MiddleInitial LastName for the credit card. This does not match any form of Japanese identification. So when I'm trying to buy say a SIM card, inevitably an exception is thrown and some crazy Japanese style escalation ensues.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Yea, I have always this problem with people from Japan coming here. When they tell their names, I'm not sure if they do as they do in Japan or they do for me to understand. I always have to ask them.

</comment><comment><USER53> Coincidentally I was recently working on a project of localizing my company's product into Japanese, and the client who had requested the project asked if we could also address the name ordering issue. It turned out to be pretty non- trivial and we ended up not doing it, but a cursory search of our competitors showed that not many western SaaS products who localize to Japanese seem to do it either. I wonder if this policy stance will change that trend.

</comment><comment><USER54> Working with Japanese colleagues and customers, you calling everyone by their last name with the suffix "-san". In discussions even when the person is not present, Americans still say "Abe-san" since it is how you always address them. Is "-san" only supposed to be used when you are addressing the person? I'm unsure on the correct way to use it.

<comment><USER55> You should -san the outgroup (including when speaking about them in the 3rd person); you should not -san the ingroup. Whether someone is outgroup or ingroup depends on who you're talking to and can change.

There are other options as well.

In general, Americans who are rubbing up against Japanese people in a not- specifically-Japanese context get lots of leeway on this question. (One has to be good if one works as a full-time employee of a traditionally managed Japanese corporation; if one is entertaining a delegation from Japan at a US event, one gets a lot of kudos for trying.)

Note also that there are some people with preferences here, including some preferences which aren't necessarily socially normative.

<comment><USER56> > you should not -san the ingroup

I'm not sure but in that case it would be Abe-tachi?

<comment><USER55> No, -tachi is plural rather than an honorific.

If I'm talking to you, who does not work at Stripe with me, and I promise a call from a named coworker, I would call them by their last name with no honorific. This is because my coworker is an ingroup when speaking to anyone outside the company in a business context (the outgroup).

If I were talking about that coworker with a member of my team, in most plausible cases the 3rd party coworker is the outgroup in that discussion, and I would refer to them as $NAME-san.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> Personally I support this.

I think Japanese names sound wrong in western name order: most family names have a distinctive sound and construction.

</comment><comment><USER58> Japan has a group oriented culture so the family (group) name takes precedent over the individual's name. However a little more individualism might be a small step in the right direction. Certainly the Japan I know has much more in common with Europe than it does with China at this point.

</comment><comment><USER59> This is fantastic. Living in both the English and Japanese-speaking worlds, it'll be nice not having to go through mental gymnastics to remember how to call somebody in whichever language. I think consistency is preferable; it's surely not impossible for people to be educated on name order.

<comment><USER22> > This is fantastic. Living in both the English and Japanese-speaking worlds > [...] I think consistency is preferable

If I'm not mistaken, his suggestion would make the Japanese convention _less_ consistent with the English convention (while making it more consistent with the Chinese convention).

<comment><USER59> It would make the English rendering of Japanese names consistent with … well, themselves. 安倍 (Abe) 晋三 (Shinzo) will be Abe Shinzo, not Shinzo Abe.

The Japanese don't reverse Western names, so Steve Jobs is never Jobs Steve.

<comment> frosted-flakes > The Japanese don't reverse Western names, so Steve Jobs is never Jobs Steve.

Do the Japanese write Western names in the latin alphabet ("Steve Jobs"), or do they transform it into their own script based on how it sounds? If it's kept in the latin alphabet, of course they don't reverse it, the same way we wouldn't reverse it if we kept "Shinzo Abe" in Japanese script ("安倍 晋三").

<comment><USER59> I think you're missing the point. Whether in katakana or in romaji (Latin script), the Japanese don't reverse our names, so there's no reason for us to do that to theirs whatever script is used.

As I said to someone else, transliteration doesn't come into it. After all, the writing system doesn't matter when _speaking_ a name when the pronunciation is known but the orthography isn't; it still must be said in the right order.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> I'd personally love to see romanized Chinese/Japanese names contain a space between all characters. Westerners would still botch them, but would do a better job discerning where to divide the pronunciation.

</comment><comment><USER61> What about this kind of names? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNoS2BU6bbQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNoS2BU6bbQ)

</comment><comment><USER62> Seems they get Korean names right more often than not...see a lot of Kim Jong Il (and similar)....except if they have a westernized first name like Gloria Kim.

</comment><comment><USER63> Unfortunately they'll have to get 51% consensus to change the algorithm, thanks to Nakamoto Satoshi.

</comment><comment><USER64> The names in the credits of Japanese films often vary from person to person. Is it just personal preferences?

<comment><USER42> In Japanese? It's almost guaranteed to be LASTNAME FIRSTNAME if in Chinese symbols (kanji/漢字) unless the name is written in kana.

金城 武 KANESHIRO Takeshi

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I really hope this become the Standard for all Japanese names in Western Media.

It is annoying when you hear how in Japanese Anime speaks and you have subtitle or online discussion using the name in totally different order. Or other forms of Media when you know that is not how the name was suppose to work.

</comment><comment><USER65> i understand using family name first for leader/president or public press, but iirc most of the asian country still using given name before family name in their passports

<comment><USER66> Passports have completely separate fields for "surname" and "given names". And the machine-readable representation at the bottom is always SURNAME<GIVEN< even for countries that have the opposite convention.</comment></comment>


Man accidentally drops first iPhone 6 on live TV - <AUTHOR> http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/09/iphone-6-break-opening-live-tv-fall-australia-video

<comment><AUTHOR> How ironic that this guy is famous overnight because of this incident. His twitter is bombarded now.</comment>