Google Releases StumbleUpon Clone - <AUTHOR> http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2007/04/searching-without-query.html <comment><AUTHOR> "The first is a recommendations button on the Google Toolbar that looks like a pair of dice. / _Click on the dice, and we'll take you to a site that may be interesting to you based on your past searches. If you want another, just click the dice again and we'll show you a new one_. We'll give you up to 50 new sites per day that might be of interest. Just add the button to your Toolbar. (In order to use this feature, you need the latest version of the Toolbar.)"

Now that's timing.

</comment><comment><USER2> Seems more like Google is pissed than really desperate for StumbleUpon as a business threat. There must be a behind the door story to this. May be they weren't given a "fair" chance to make an offer?

<comment><USER3> I don't really get that. Corporations don't generally do things because they "get pissed", they do things because because it's economically advantageous in some way or another, no?

<comment><USER2> Usually sure. But how many times have you heard a corporation fighting for an acquisition with another corporation and then announce a similar function hours after losing the acquisition battle?

Point is the thing google has implemented isn't even close to StumbleUpon. But due to the timing it is getting labeled as that so it makes even more sense that Google might be trying to make a statement here rather than a stumbleupon killer. Of course it could be doing both but it has already done the former.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Best Text Adventure games? - <AUTHOR>

I feel like going retro for awhile. What are the best text adventures/MUDs you've ever played? <comment><USER2> The old stuff is fun, but I've gotta recommend the newer efforts for really high quality text adventure. The current interactive fiction subculture is doing some pretty keen stuff, both novel and retro-flavored.

I think Emily Short's list of recommended IF ([http://emshort.wordpress.com/how-to-play/reading- if/](http://emshort.wordpress.com/how-to-play/reading-if/)) is very good since it breaks up games by category. Nick Monfort also has some good recommendations ([http://nickm.com/if/rec.html](http://nickm.com/if/rec.html)).

Personally, if you're looking for the old time feel, I would recommend:

Anchorhead (big, Cthulhoid, genuinely chilling in places): [http://ifdb.tads.org/viewgame?id=op0uw1gn1tjqmjt7](http://ifdb.tads.org/viewgame?id=op0uw1gn1tjqmjt7) Christminster (puzzle-oriented, very tough): [http://ifdb.tads.org/viewgame?id=fq26p07f48ckfror](http://ifdb.tads.org/viewgame?id=fq26p07f48ckfror) Curses (puzzle-oriented, great setting, time travel): [http://ifdb.tads.org/viewgame?id=plvzam05bmz3enh8](http://ifdb.tads.org/viewgame?id=plvzam05bmz3enh8)

How to play these: [http://www.ifwiki.org/index.php/FAQ#How_can_I_download_and_p...](http://www.ifwiki.org/index.php/FAQ#How_can_I_download_and_play_IF.3F) Easy entry point: [http://pr-if.org/play/](http://pr-if.org/play/)

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't know if this counts but: [http://adarkroom.doublespeakgames.com/](http://adarkroom.doublespeakgames.com/)

<comment><AUTHOR> A dark room is what turned me on to the idea, actually. Awesome gameplay and such a subtle conception.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Deadline [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadline_(video_game)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadline_\(video_game\))

Easily one of the best detective games ever created, and also my favorite Infocom game. Time passes as the game goes by, things happen in the game world independent of the player, multiple-endings, its got it all.

</comment><comment><USER5> A Mind Forever Voyaging

</comment><comment><USER6> If you feel like going "neo-retro", try some modern text adventures / interactive fiction [http://www.ifwiki.org/index.php/Recommended_games](http://www.ifwiki.org/index.php/Recommended_games)

</comment><comment><USER7> HellMOO ([http://www.hellmoo.org](http://www.hellmoo.org)) is a fun MUD I've played on and off over the years. If you're in to post-apocalyptic scenarios and pop culture references, this game is for you.

</comment><comment><USER8> [http://www.shatteredkingdoms.org](http://www.shatteredkingdoms.org)

Of course this is a MUD and not a standalone game.

"Where Roleplay and Tactics Collide" \-- highly addictive, beware!

</comment><comment><USER9> If you're feeling adventurous _(zing!)_ consider looking at games developed out of the interactive fiction compo: [http://ifcomp.org](http://ifcomp.org)

</comment><comment><USER10> I recommend Gateway and Gateway II, based on Frederik Pohl's science fiction series.

There's graphics and sound, but the interface is classic text adventure.

</comment><comment><USER11> The Pawn, Guild of Thieves and Knight Orc were pretty fun to play... Of course the classic Zork Series and other Infocom games.</comment>


Computer virus leads to $20m Da Vinci code-inspired scam - <AUTHOR> http://news.techworld.com/security/3247975/man-loses-20-million-after-taking-laptop-for-repair/ <comment><USER2> You couldn't make it up

</comment><comment><USER3> More money than sense</comment>


Facebook Hemorrhaging Cash, Runs To Dubai For Money - <AUTHOR> http://www.alleyinsider.com/2008/10/facebook-hemorraging-cash-runs-to-dubai-for-money <comment><USER2> I've never really understood Facebook from the business side at all. I generally like the service they offer (generally, though it is really lacking interesting and helpful aspects) but I've never understood their thinking on business moves. They've got a very popular software platform, one of the most visited sites in the world and rising, and some how 700 people can't figure out how to make a buck.

I agree with most of the other people here... Zuckerberg promises a business plan in 3 years? What the hell? I can see having your product and company out there and be selling things or providing a service and not necessary have the business plan down and taking some time to find one that really does work well, but when you have 700 people, corporate offices, and a widely popular product/service, a business plan seems to me to be something you put at the front of the line. Not: "hmm, we'll get to it later, lets just enjoy the fame!"

Most of what goes on at Facebook could be ran by 70 really good people. That's not including investors/shareholders at all. That's 70 people that are just in charge, server/network managers, system engineers, accounting (do they need one?), and marketing. It appears Facebook got the idea that it needed to have its own in-house Microsoft Research or something.

</comment><comment><USER3> If they can cut jobs rather than raise (too much) more money then they probably should.

Spewing money that fast is BAD all round (and no amount of shoring investment will help long term). Either they need 2 or 3 years capital or they need it fixed now...

Cut hard and deep now, refocus, reassess and build on current revenue streams.

But they wont....

</comment><comment><USER4> I realize that Facebook gets enormous amounts of traffic, and so requires the resources for scaling/high availability and all that. But how in the world have they gone through most of $500 million? What the hell are they doing over there?

<comment><USER5> They do have ~700 employees (<http://www.crunchbase.com/company/facebook>)...

<comment><USER4> That's sort of what I'm getting at. Why do they need so many resources? I mean, looking at the software and its requirements, I don't see the necessity.

<comment><USER6> My guess is they're a victim of cargo cult thinking: Hugely successful companies have lots of employees and spiffy offices, right?

<comment><USER7> Yeah. And Google has done the exact same thing. They're just fortunate that their business model is so much better that it can support their massively inflated head count. At least with Google it kind of makes sense in an evil way: hire every programmer who could be a serious competitor.

<comment><USER8> Difference being that Google recognizes that one of their strongest growth areas is capitalizing on innovative ideas. Gmail, Apps, Gtalk, Chrome... all innovations that build the company.

I'm not sure what facebook has done, or whether this should really be what the focus on, to be honest.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> As impressive as Facebook is, I truly think it is ridiculous that they have ~800 employees. How many does Craigslist have? Wikipedia? Granted, FB needs a few more to manage ad sales/delivery, but... 800?

<comment><USER10> That's one of the advantages of simplicity: far lower overhead.

craigslist is very simple, so they have something like 23 employees.

<comment><USER11> 25 according to CrunchBase.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> why is it taking these guys so long to come up with a business plan? Why is Zuckerberg promising one in 3 years, and not coming up with one now. Hell they have 700 people, not one of them can figure out how to monetize 1 of the most visited sites in the world?

<comment><USER13> I think what they're doing is daring, but it makes sense. Creating a business plan narrows the companies options; as long as they don't have one, they're flexible enough to bring in new users (and keep old users coming back), which could open up more possibilities.

If Zuck had monetized when Facebook was at Harvard, Facebook would have been cash-flow positive. And he would have graduated with a few thousand dollars extra in the bank, rather than dropping out and ending up with a billion- something net worth.

<comment><USER14> _Paper_ net worth.

<comment><USER13> The kind represented by stock certificates, as opposed to the kind represented by green pieces of...

<comment><USER14> Indeed. The same kind of net worth represented by Pokemon cards, Beanie Babies, and my vintage Flooz collection.*

(*I don't actually have any Flooz. Oh, but if it were so....)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Can facebook possibly make as much money as has been invested in them?

<comment><USER16> Sorry for stating the obvious, but they generally have to show that they can make the money back (about 10x) to investors before taking the money... its much harder to comment on whether they can or not when your not involved with the company.

<comment><USER8> That type of thinking led to the first dot-bomb, the housing boom/bust, and hell, even the depression.

Lot's of people do very stupid things.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Rather a spun title.

</comment><comment><USER8> Hear that? It's the ghost of .com past sneaking up on you... timing might be right too. :-)

</comment><comment><USER18> Apparently Zuckerberg didn't read the Sequoia meeting notes ...

<comment><USER19> Or he did, which is why he's trying to raise money now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> They need to hire Paul Bucheit. Hell, he came up with adwords for google, he can do it again.

</comment><comment><USER21> Someone please tell me what is Facebook's USP?</comment>


Ask HN: Difference Between Computer Science vs. Software Engineering Majors? - <AUTHOR> I'm going back to school, to get a degree, I'm hoping I'd fill the gap in my knowledge and to take advantage of an internship (hard to get internships if you're not a student) to pave the way for me into a job in software security (I'm interested in vulnerability research and reverse engineering).
I had two choices: 1) Computer Science. 2) Software Engineering.
I got accepted into the second one. and I've been thinking about it a lot for sometime, they both seem similar, but they're different, I'm not sure if its good or bad for my career plan to continue in the SE major.
Given What I said above is software engineering a good choice? Will I be viewed differently compared to CS students?
Does the content of the Software Engineering program cover a decent amount of knowledge?
The Software Engineering Program: https://webapp4.asu.edu/programs/t5/roadmaps/ASU00/TSSERBS/null/ALL/2019
The Computer Science Program: https://webapp4.asu.edu/programs/t5/roadmaps/ASU00/ESCSEBS/null/ALL/2019 <comment><USER2> So computer science is about computation as an abstract idea - the study of computation, which in its basis is discrete math (with formal models like state machines, etc) and complexity theory.

So expect to understand discrete math and its manifestation in practice - compilers, programming languages, databases. You would also learn about algorithms, their properties, and what cannot be computed.

The goal of SE degree is how to introduce computer systems into the real world. where the real world is composed of both humans and machines.

So expect to learn about software project management, software process, estimation, requirement gathering, design.

At the end of the day, CS degree is more fundamental and has better long term value. However, most of programming in practice today is using existing tools and composing existing software system, so either one is good.</comment>


A talented creative research team on-demand for a reasonable price - <AUTHOR> https://brewwlab.com/ <comment><USER2> You're wedged in quite a spot with this. You're like a think-tank, but not. Companies can easily partner with some university to get their students to do this sort of thing for close to free, but many don't. So you're basically consultants, but presumably without domain expertise working on the easiest part of solving a problem: brainstorming.

But no one is a prophet in their own city...so getting ideas from the outside looks nicer...

I could see quite a big market of bozos for this if you market it right.

<comment><AUTHOR> How would you market it?

Just curious :)</comment></comment>


Vint Cerf's Tripping Penguin - <AUTHOR> http://youtube.com/watch?v=rUaPG9FpDXs <comment><AUTHOR> This is the clip he ended his presentation with last night, at his talk in Google's NY offices.

</comment><comment><USER2> Cerf is always a fun speaker to watch.</comment>


A letter to guys in 'safe spaces' - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@ErynnB/a-letter-to-guys-in-safe-spaces-9a9170361b17#.o3cg0qlze <comment><USER2> Ha ha ha. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I am not sure what type of self-respecting guy would go to one of those things. The lady organizing it thinks your a "potential rapist in a pack"

Dudes, go grab a case of beers, go back to your frat and come up with the the next snap chat.

Men don't need safe spaces.</comment>


Ask HN: Disqus authentication? - <AUTHOR>

I sometimes visit blogs I've never been to before, and they have IntenseDebate or DISQUS. What's strange is that these comment systems already know who I am, and my facebook uid, even though I have never been to that domain before.
Doesn't that violate http://www.insidefacebook.com/2008/12/26/widget-entrepeneurs-await-clarity-from-facebook-on-4th-party-connect-policy/
According to this policy,
"The widget developer can have a relationship with the site owner, but not directly with the user… The user has established a relationship with two parties: Facebook and the website. A widget developer should not create a third connection."
But it seems that somehow, DISQUS is saving the facebook uid it obtains, probably in its own session. That is my guess. So when I visit a new blog the widget recognizes me. I want to do the same, but I am just wondering if there was something I was missing.
I guess it's fine, but if someone else signs in on my facebook, DISQUS will continue to have the old identity for me on the blogs, not that of the person who signed into facebook. <comment><USER2> Disqus sets a login cookie. If you logged into Disqus using Facebook on any site you will be logged into Disqus even if it is embedded on another site.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah but how did you log into Disqus using Facebook?

I guess the 2008 policy for 4th party widgets isn't in effect anymore?

That's fine, but also... how does DISQUS get around Safari's 3rd party cookie problem? I guess they don't...

<comment><USER2> Disqus makes a request vio OAuth to authenticate you via Facebook. It then stores the authentication token which will authenticate you to Facebook in the future until you revoke it.

Also by putting the Disqus javascript widget on your page you will probably have cookies for: example.com disqus.com and example.disqus.com (if example was your disqus site name).

<comment><AUTHOR> But how is disqus able to store the fbs_<appid> cookie which is returned, under safari?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


An amazing crossword puzzle - <AUTHOR> http://kottke.org/11/07/an-amazing-crossword-puzzle <comment><USER2> Cool. My dad is a big crossword puzzler. When I was a kid I asked him if he thought it was possible to start with a wrong word and then finish the whole puzzle. We both thought the odds would be tiny but then he decided to design a puzzle that could be done two ways consistently.

He worked on it like a maniac for a few weeks and then came up with two puzzles, one with North/South (or maybe East/West) themes, one with Goethe/Schiller themes (this is all in Germany.)

The clues were a bit contrived and I don't remember how big the puzzles were but he submitted them to the weekly "Zeit Magazin" which runs a popular puzzle and published it in the New Years issue.

</comment><comment><USER3> These crosswords are called "schizophrenic", and there are more examples here: <http://www.xwordinfo.com/Schizo>

Truly brilliant.

</comment><comment><USER4> From the Guidelines:

 _Please submit the original source. If a blog post reports on something they found on another site, submit the latter._

<comment><AUTHOR> I kinda liked that the explanation was hidden behind another link, but it led to a literal violation of the guidelines, and for that I apologize.

I'll strive to do better, but hopefully I can be forgiven.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This puzzle is mentioned in the lovely documentary Wordplay[1], which ostensibly follows a cadre of competitors in a year of the American Crossword Puzzle Tournament. Well worth a watch, and I believe it's on Netflix.

[1] <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0492506/>

</comment><comment><USER6> It's easy to call it amazing now... I'll be amazed when I see a proof that the auther of this traveled through time or something.

<comment><USER7> You need to click on the "Click through to see how they did it link" to see why this is cool.

They used ten ambiguous clues so "CLINTON ELECTED" and "BOBDOLE ELECTED" were both valid solutions to the puzzle. For instance, the down word intersecting the intial C/B is CAT/BAT with the clue "Black Halloween animal".

Since they publish the solution the next day, they can publish the right solution no matter which way the election goes.

[edit: I didn't downvote you, btw]

<comment><USER6> Mea maxima culpa -.-

I upvoted you both for my sin.

What can I say, I have one of those extra-short attention span...

When opening the link I first thought maybe the black squares pattern was a game-of-life automata and thought "that'd be clever if it was that, added bonus for related words and definitions" and then my blood just boiled so fast when it turned out (wrongly) to be such a basic predicted-afterward parlor trick that I didn't bother noticing the link... (I'll dig myself a bit deeper but I can't help it but say that this click-on-the-link-to-get-the-meat trick is annoying me too, but that's another story (go ahead, I have 64 more karma bits to loose before the ground))</comment></comment></comment>


The U.S. wind industry now employs more than 100K people - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/04/19/the-u-s-wind-industry-now-employs-more-than-100000-people/ <comment><USER2> I live in a school bus, traveling the country. I think wind turbines are absolutely beautiful; I always marvel at them when we drive by.

Does anybody here know how to break into this industry, working on a mobile, on-site basis? Maybe with embedded tech?

<comment><USER3> Windmill technology is fairly low tech. there are a few things around the wings but besides that it's not really a "tech" business IMO.

<comment><USER4> How did you reach that conclusion? Those things scream "advanced material tech" to me. Almost as much as space rockets.

<comment><USER5> The towers are just lots and lots of steel.

A lot of them are made in facilities that were built to make railcars (including big tank cars).

<comment><USER6> > The towers are just lots and lots of steel.

And a lot of engineering is involved to optimize that design, to build the towers as strong as is necessary to survive high wind loads while using as little material as possible so as to minimize cost. You're trivializing something that has a lot of thought put into it just because you don't really understand it well. I can guarantee you that more thought, simulation, and calculation goes into the design of windmill towers than goes into the average software project.

<comment><USER5> And from a material standpoint they are still just lots and lots of steel.

If it helps, I'm not a software engineer and have an unused degree in mechanical engineering.

<comment><USER6> From a reductive material standpoint, everything is just a collection of ingredients. Processors are "just" silicon. That doesn't make them trivial to engineer. What is your point?

<comment><USER5> It's thick, rolled plate steel. The manufacturing process isn't amenable to the exquisite engineering you are imagining and steel is cheap.

They are pretty damn sure it is strong enough. It isn't the minimum material necessary to ensure that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> According to the EIA [0], wind energy reached 5.6% of total electricity production.

Having worked with raw EIA data I can say that the inputs are not very reliable: a) a lot of smaller farms are not included in EIA data b) reporting is voluntary and 30%+ of wind sites stopped reporting data in 2016, for example [1], and c) reporting is based on surveys which means errors, delays, etc.

The US is really lagging behind when it comes instrumenting and monitoring its energy infrastructure.

[0]([https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3](https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3))

[1]([https://www.eia.gov/opendata/qb.php?sdid=ELEC.PLANT.GEN.5214...](https://www.eia.gov/opendata/qb.php?sdid=ELEC.PLANT.GEN.52143-WND- WT.M))

<comment><USER8> As someone who is working with global powerplant data I can say that the US is the global leader. It is not perfect, but it is miles ahead of 170 other countries.

<comment><USER9> Bollocks.

The UK has a live feed of the makeup of the power plants that is updated on this website every 15 minutes.

[http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/](http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/)

<comment><USER10> Not only is the generation instrumentalized, but real time consumption by heavy electricity users (steel mills, rail operators and so) has been A Thing since the early 1990s. I know because I built very early versions of consumption dashboards* for the sales/billing department of National Power, one of the major UK generators.

* in fucking Lotus 1-2-3, of all things

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I love this -- and many of those 100K jobs are maintainatory jobs, permanent and not tied to continual production and growth.

I always hate how projects are touted as 'bringing X many jobs to the region' when a majority of cited jobs are in the construction or building of whatever the project is, and then evaporate away once it's built.

<comment><USER12> That's the way construction happens. It's a temporary thing.

*Except for the Sagrada Familia building in Spain which started construction in 1982 and is expected to be finished in 2026.

<comment><USER13> > which started construction in 1982

I think you mean 1882.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> tuna-piano When something is cheap, people buy more of it. If you are someone who wants more wind power to be produced, you want it to be cheap. You should be rooting for cheaper wind prices, which come with increased efficiency (including less employees per unit of energy produced).

Of course, less employees per unit of energy could equate to more total employees if the increase in energy produced is greater than the increases in efficiency.

As far as I can tell, the types of energy policies we have in the US do a pretty good job of incentivizing increased efficiency in all types of energy, including renewables. I'm definitely not knowledgeable about this though, so maybe someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

<comment><USER14> >If you are someone who wants more wind power to be produced, you want it to be cheap. You should be rooting for cheaper wind prices, which come with increased efficiency (including less employees per unit of energy produced).

This is a pretty good point, and it also leads in to an argument to be made for an important distinction between productivity and jobs.

People like jobs. Politicians and corporations talk about creating jobs. They're seen as universally good, but that is not necessarily the case. Especially as tech becomes more capable of automating more tasks, which may displace labor at a rate in which people have increasing difficulty in retraining quickly enough, it's appropriate to have a cultural shift in perhaps still valuing jobs, but not over valuing human dignity and economic productivity. An example I witnessed: The very grumpy woman in Paris who took a Euro from me to use the toilet could be given the same amount of money generated by an automated toll while she does something productive. Or even she could just do something which she enjoys and would be happier doing, but is non-productive, and that would still be Pareto efficient: it makes one better off without making anyone else worse off.

Policy should not seek to create jobs just for the sake of creating jobs. With appropriate, just and fair economic policies, it really shouldn't matter how many jobs an industry creates: it matters how much utility, and at what utility per dollar the industry is capable of. That is, assuming you care most about human welfare. I think most politicians care most about money and power.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> For comparison, coal employs about 77k people. About the same as the bowling and skiing employment numbers.

<comment><USER16> That 77k is only the mining/fuel side, if you include the power generation side of the coal industry the number is a little over double that at 160k

[1][https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/01/f34/2017%20U...](https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/01/f34/2017%20US%20Energy%20and%20Jobs%20Report_0.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I've always wondered why we don't combine wind and solar on the same land. The shadows from the turbines would be negligible and you could reuse the same electrical hookups and wiring.

In fact you could raise mushrooms under the solar panels and get triple use of the land.

<comment><USER18> Uninformed speculation: maybe because the places where it's windy are not necessarily the places where it's sunny (and vice versa).

<comment><USER6> That's definitely part of it, but as solar panel prices continue to fall I suspect that the marginal cost of adding on solar panels to a wind installation will be low enough to justify it even in sub-optimal sunlight conditions. You've already got the land and the power transmission infrastructure taken care of, so it's just the additional cost of the panels. It could start making sense.

<comment><USER12> Exactly, anywhere plants grow you can put solar, Germany has one of the highest concentrations of solar but pretty dismal sun. Germany stopped building Neuclear Plants and didn't like buying Natural Gas from Russia, so they basically invented the modern Renewable industry.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> From a programming/hardware hacker perspective, are there any opportunities in wind generation worth exploring? Perhaps mini-turbines, or a turbine array with wind positioning?

<comment><USER20> There was some hype around microturbines a few years back but a lot of the ROI claims were found to be, um, "optimistic." I assume that today's PV tech makes them even less interesting even if some of the assumptions that go into pricing solar can be questionable as well.

<comment><USER21> Because a wind turbine is limited to the area of the swept blades, and larger turbines can reach the faster winds that occur higher off the ground, large turbines are MUCH more effective than small ones. Turbine blades that are twice as long can capture four times as much wind, and the tops of those blades capture faster wind, too.

On the other hand, ignoring integration and installation costs, solar panels scale linearly with size. So small solar makes much more sense than small wind.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The article does not respond to the claim of the president that windmills kill birds. Do they really in a significant way? Is it worthy of being called an environmental disaster?

<comment><USER23> [http://www.audubon.org/news/will-wind-turbines-ever-be- safe-...](http://www.audubon.org/news/will-wind-turbines-ever-be-safe-birds)

I didn't realize that was such a big issue. Over time, humanity will figure out ways of making wind turbines less of a danger to birds.

In the mean time, I would assume that wind power still remains a net positive for the overall environment versus coal, etc.

<comment><USER24> >Over time, humanity will figure out ways of making wind turbines less of a danger to birds.

Or the birds will evolve to dislike wind turbines.

<comment><USER25> I'd assume this is the case, as birds already use the earth's magnetic field for navigation and wind turbines generate a significant magnetic field.

<comment><USER5> Detecting a small field while flying at 10-15 meters / second (30 miles per hour) might not be possible with whatever they use to detect the wider field.

<comment><USER25> Bookmarked to research.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> The figures appear to come from an "Energy and Jobs Report" on energy.gov: [https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/01/f34/2017%20U...](https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/01/f34/2017%20US%20Energy%20and%20Jobs%20Report_0.pdf)

See page 29.

Solar, for example, employs 373,807. Natural Gas: 362,118 Nuclear: 76,771

</comment><comment><USER17> I still think kite based systems have a ton of potential.

I've also designed a super low cost wind power system anyone can just stick in their yard. Basically a flat wide pole you stick in the ground that the wind blows up and down. (Think wind blowing across a grassy field). I need help with engineering to make any more progress though.

<comment><USER27> That sounds pretty cool. Do you have any details/photos/specs?

<comment><USER12> Google X backed startup using kites for wind energy.

[https://x.company/makani/](https://x.company/makani/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> So how many jobs is that per kilowatt of power? Or vice versa?

</comment><comment><USER29> Anybody has a good link to compare TOC of solar vs wind?

From what I've heard, solar panels have a definite lifespan, but are maintenance free until then.

Wind could last longer provided you maintain it right.

<comment><USER30> See figure 3-6 in this report:

[https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/01/f34/Electricity%...](https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/01/f34/Electricity%20Generation%20Baseline%20Report.pdf)

The EIA thinks that the levelized cost of energy from utility scale solar PV in the US is still above wind. NREL and Lazard seem to think they're about at parity now. PV is lowering costs (both initial construction and O&M) faster than wind, so I expect it to start underpricing wind in the US. Of course there are going to be places where wind remains cheaper for a long time just because they have much better wind resources than sunshine resources.

Utility scale solar farms and wind farms both require maintenance labor, though little compared to coal, hydro, or nuclear facilities. Gas based power plants also require little maintenance relative to the power they produce.

I'd generally expect a PV module installed this year to have a longer useful lifespan than a wind turbine installed this year. Turbines have to endure much more mechanical stress. I'd say a typical rule of thumb right now is 20 years for a turbine and 25 years for a PV module. Both numbers are creeping up over time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> The future, where everyone involved in a major industry can be fitted into an SEC football stadium.

<comment><USER32> 500K for oil in us jobs, at 36% of energy. It's 4% for wind. By 2050 it's projected wind could support 600K jobs so we aren't talking orders of magnitude difference.

<comment><USER33> But with more powerful political clout by then.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Number of jobs, by itself, is a worthless statistic. What's the median wage? If it's $10/hr then it's like reporting on how many people are employed in fast food.

Reality is that most jobs, in most sectors, pay crap. Wind energy is no exception.

<comment><USER35> Did you check the linked BLS statistics page from the article? Median is $25/hr

<comment><USER36> For reference, the median US hourly wage is $22/hr. [http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united- states/wages](http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/wages)

<comment><USER37> Are you sure that is not the _mean_ wage?

1\. The link says average, which usually implies mean.

2\. The mean yearly income for an individual in the US is ~$45,000[1], which, assuming 2080 working hours per year is ~$22/hr. That seems almost a little too coincidental.

3\. The median yearly income is ~$30,000[1]. If the median wage is truly $22/hr. it must be for part-time work, which still comes up about $20,000 per year short compared to the numbers from the article.

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I recall some years ago T Boone Pickens had a plan for a large scale wind project throughout the midwest, but it fell through for various reasons.

At what point will solar efficient enough to lay out massive solar grids in Texas, Arizona, and SE California?

<comment><USER39> in terms of efficiency not for the foreseeable future. hydrocarbons are essentially condensed solar power. when will it become more economically efficient to move and assemble all the materials for a solar panel vs extracting hydrocarbon stored energy (sapiens living in poverty can't care about the environment of tomorrow if they are struggling to thrive today, admittedly this is my global view)

<comment><USER40> Now ish

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> For comparison a recent Vox article had coal mining jobs at 50,000 employees. Another reason to favour renewables. [http://www.vox.com/energy-and- environment/2017/2/21/14671932...](http://www.vox.com/energy-and- environment/2017/2/21/14671932/donald-trump-coal-mining-jobs)

<comment><USER41> Why would a technology being labor-intensive be a reason to use that technology? Human labor is an extremely expensive resource.

<comment><USER42> Still it is cheaper to outsource to third-world countries than to use robots to do many simple tasks.

Human labor may be extremely expensive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> What's the quality of these jobs? Stable long term employment with good pay?

</comment><comment><USER44> Vaclav Smil has written extensively on the embodied chemistry of Wind- turbines, I figure it's worth sharing here because it seems relevant to the conversation. Chemical, petroleum, and nuclear engineers are scarce in Silicon Valley.....

"Wind turbines are the most visible symbols of the quest for renewable electricity generation. And yet, although they exploit the wind, which is as free and as green as energy can be, the machines themselves are pure embodiments of fossil fuels.

Large trucks bring steel and other raw materials to the site, earth-moving equipment beats a path to otherwise inaccessible high ground, large cranes erect the structures, and all these machines burn diesel fuel. So do the freight trains and cargo ships that convey the materials needed for the production of cement, steel,and plastics. For a 5-megawatt turbine, the steel alone averages 150 metric tons for the reinforced concrete foundations, 250 metric tons for the rotor hubs and nacelles (which house the gearbox and generator), and 500 metric tons for the towers.

If wind-generated electricity were to supply 25 percent of global demand by 2030 (forecast to reach about 30 petawatt-hours), then even with a high average capacity factor of 35 percent, the aggregate installed wind power of about 2.5 terawatts would require roughly 450 million metric tons of steel. And that's without counting the metal for towers, wires, and transformers for the new high-voltage transmission links that would be needed to connect it all to the grid. A lot of energy goes into making steel.

Sintered or pelletized iron ore is smelted in blast furnaces, charged with coke made from coal, and receives infusions of powdered coal and natural gas. Pig iron is decarbonized in basic oxygen furnaces. Then steel goes through continuous casting processes (which turn molten steel directly into the rough shape of the final product). Steel used in turbine construction embodies typically about 35 gigajoules per metric ton.

To make the steel required for wind turbines that might operate by 2030, you'd need fossil fuels equivalent to more than 600 million metric tons of coal. A 5-MW turbine has three roughly 60-meter-long airfoil, each weighing about 15 metric tons. They have light balsa or foam cores and outer laminations made mostly from glass-fiber-reinforced epoxy or polyester resins. The glass is made by melting silicon dioxide and other mineral oxides in furnaces fired by natural gas. The resins begin with ethylene derived from light hydrocarbons, most commonly the products of naphtha cracking, liquefied petroleum gas, or the ethane in natural gas.

The final fiber-reinforced composite embodies on the order of 170 GJ/t. Therefore, to get 2.5 TW of installed wind power by 2030, we would need an aggregate rotor mass of about 23 million metric tons, incorporating the equivalent of about 90 million metric tons of crude oil. And when all is in place, the entire structure must be waterproofed with resins whose synthesis starts with ethylene.

Another required oil product is lubricant, for the turbine gearboxes, which has to be changed periodically during the machine's two-decade lifetime. Undoubtedly, a well-sited and well-built wind turbine would generate as much energy as it embodies in less than a year. However, all of it will be in the form of intermittent electricity—while its production, installation, and maintenance remain critically dependent on specific fossil energies.

Moreover, for most of these energies—coke for iron-ore smelting, coal and petroleum coke to fuel cement kilns, naphtha and natural gas as feedstock and fuel for the synthesis of plastics and the making of fiberglass, diesel fuel for ships, trucks, and construction machinery, lubricants for gearboxes—we have no nonfossil substitutes that would be readily available on the requisite large commercial scales.

For a long time to come—until all energies used to produce wind turbines and photovoltaic cells come from renewable energy sources—modern civilization will remain fundamentally dependent on fossil fuels."

<comment><USER45> What a long row of impressive numbers. But what counts, is only one single number: how long does it take for the wind turbine to produce more power than it took to produce. And as far as I know, it is a rather small amount of its life time. After that it starts to improve our carbon balance. And all of this does not take into respect, that with the raising ratio of our energy being produced by wind or solar, the production of windmills and solar cells becomes more and more carbon free too.

<comment><USER6> Exactly. This litany of numbers without meaningful comparison is just an attempt at obfuscation. Of course wind turbines require resources to construct; no one ever claimed otherwise. But they create _a lot_ more energy over their lifetime than they cost to create, which is the whole reason they're built at all.

And as impressive as those figures sound, they pale in comparison to how much fossil fuels are being burnt simply to provide energy, at a complete dead loss, with no future energy dividends paid whatsoever (as you'd get with wind turbines). Constructing turbines is like buying stock in a good company, whereas burning fossil fuels for energy needs is like frittering away all your income and living paycheck to paycheck.

<comment><USER13> Actually, the little point that undermines this litany is buried right in the middle: "Undoubtedly, a well-sited and well-built wind turbine would generate as much energy as it embodies in less than a year."

So, do turbines last more than a year? Much more than a year? Ok then!

<comment><USER45> I missed that in the huge bunch of less relevant numbers. This makes the article an even bigger troll, trying to hide the true number. Also the talk about "intermittent" is quite misleading. Yes wind power depends on the wind. But that is quite well predictable in those places, where you would install a wind generator. With a reasonable electrical grid, this can be quite well managed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> That's quite a few people flapping wings :)

</comment><comment><USER47> Very nice considering the fan in office.

</comment><comment><USER48> This is NOT a good thing. Producing the same amount or less with more resources is generally considered a very very bad thing. It is the definition of being less efficient..

<comment><USER49> That's the beauty of capitalism. You can just let it run its course and not worry about it. If something is less efficient, it will not be able to compete in the market for very long.

<comment><USER50> Yes, but in the U.S. case we don't have theoretical free markets like that. There's too complex a network of government subsidies, unequal taxes, and corporate lobbying putting many things on the market that would not survive normally. I'm not saying this is inherently bad, just that we shouldn't think we can just let things run its course and the less efficient things will be weeded out.

<comment><USER51> I would argue that if human beings and their well-being is important, a theoretical fee market system would not be ideal. Thats fine if you are willing to suffer as a result and the system is more important than you (or others) but because that will generally not be true we have to kludge it together and make the market as free as we generally can with exceptions to not ruin too many lives. Once you kludge it here and there you can start introducing kludges just for your own gain.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> I haven't seen this many people employed by hot air since Theranos.

<comment><USER53> Technically all of the gas turbine industry lives by making hot air.

<comment><USER54> Nuclear, coal, and geothermal all use steam, so there's a bunch more hot air for ya.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> I worry many of these jobs will be temporary. We're just ramping up production of turbines and other equipment. Installations will peak within the next (maybe) 10 years and from then there will be less and less demain as maintenance will be the only thing we will require.

<comment><USER56> Won't our energy requirement keep increasing, requiring new turbines?

<comment><USER57> US energy requirements peaked in 2007 and have been on the decline, we use less energy in 2016 than we did in 2000, thanks to gains in efficiency.

[https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=30652](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=30652)

[https://www.statista.com/statistics/189723/us-energy- consump...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/189723/us-energy-consumption- per-person-since-2000/)

<comment><USER58> As we electrify our transit sector, there will be a bump in consumption.

<comment><USER57> Those stats are not for electricity, they're for total energy consumption including transportation.

<comment><USER59> In fact it wouldn't be surprising if much of the savings is actually due to efficiencies in transportation

<comment><USER60> This thread got me curious, and while I didn't find a lot of sources talking about it, this one[0] gives some likely possibilities: urbanization means less transport energy costs and less domestic manufacturing means less industrial energy usage.

It doesn't talk much about why residential energy usage has dropped. I'm guessing it's people moving from their giant houses into smaller homes or apartments following the recession (combined with the general trend towards urbanization). I'm assuming it's not just that LED bulbs changed the landscape.

[0] [http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-10/why-capita- energy-c...](http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-10/why-capita-energy- consumption-recession-levels-after-six-years-recovery)

<comment><USER30> I believe it's mostly efficiency measures. Americans are collectively driving more now than in 2007:

[https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M12MTVUSM227NFWA](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M12MTVUSM227NFWA)

Note that petroleum consumption by transportation is nonetheless lower now than circa 2005 (eyeballing the graph):

[https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=30652](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=30652)

Coal-to-gas switching in electrical generation (and increased renewables generation, to a smaller extent) also reduces the primary energy consumption for a given level of generation. You might need 3 megajoules of primary (thermal) energy to produce 1 megajoule of electricity using coal-fired generation. It's more like 2 megajoules of primary energy using gas-fired generation in a modern combined cycle plant. And it's just 1 megajoule of primary energy to deliver 1 megajoule of electricity with wind power or PV (they're not heat engines; the electricity is the whole of the energy). Someone can consume exactly the same amount of electricity now as in 2007 but the changing generation mix would still reduce the primary energy input required to generate that electricity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> This "clean" energy sources are nice, but we all know how do we resurect a dead transmission network [1]. Remember EU, Nov '06 [2]. And pray to have water in accumulations. It's all cool, this wind and solar, but it must be strategically globally built to be effective during major blackouts in one part of the globe.

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

[2] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_European_blackout](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_European_blackout)</comment>


Did Google Maps's "consistency" help it climb to #1 in maps? - <AUTHOR> http://www.41latitude.com/post/1059847167/consistency <comment><USER2> Really? Is the author too young to remember that Google maps was the first company to not do maps horribly?

Before google maps, online maps were an insult to the user. You would get a 200px by 200px image of a crappy map surrounded by 10 ads that flashed at you. If you wanted to scroll to the right you had to click an arrow. It would then take about 30 seconds for the map and adds to reload.

Google did maps right, and eventually yahoo and map quest followed, but by the time they did it was too late everyone was using google maps and had no reason to switch.

<comment><USER3> The author updated the article with a special message for us: He basically appologizes that somebody submitted his blog post with a misleading title to Hacker News and emphasized again, that consistency isn't the reason that Google Maps is still #1 on the market.

<comment><USER2> Okay, now I feel bad. I skimmed the article and posted a reaction. I am wrong for doing that. (Honestly, it was probably a reaction to how much I hated pre 2005 online mapping software and not the article. I guess it is such a strong hate that to this day it gets a reaction out of me...)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> For me, and many I know it was speed. Scroll speed, zoom speed, search speed. Even today GMaps wins in that category.

I barely ever use satellite view for anything but casual amusement.

<comment><USER5> yeah.. never used satellite view except for "shit, i can se e my house on google maps!" type of amusement.

Also before Google and Google Earth, online maps for many countries were not very good. Those with the data was not very interested in creating online maps.

Speed and ease of use is what made maps a killer product for me

<comment><USER6> Satellite view's actually really useful for mountain biking. You can see a good number of trails on it (though sometimes its out of date).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Love the attention to detail and animated visual aids; don't buy the thesis at all.

I don't expect feature labels to remain identical between views; the background intensity and purposes of the views are so different it makes sense to change their labeling. For example, there's less room for text if people are looking at the photographic detail between roads. (This also explains why some of Google's competitors move the road labels over roads on satellite views: it is reasonable to assume that people switched to satellite view to see non-road details, which you wouldn't want to obscure with labels.)

I also don't rapidly toggle between map and satellite views, and tend to look at the satellite views at a greater zoom than the map views.

Once you drop the idea such consistency is optimal, the causality could be the reverse: because the other services are behind in usership, they're being more innovative in optimizing satellite labeling.

</comment><comment><USER8> Based on the first paragraph, it seems the author already realizes this, but he needs to claim less and show more. His argument:

1\. The most popular mapping site also has the most consistent satellite/street maps. 2\. The inverse is true with the least popular mapping sites. 3\. Because there's correlation, there's causation.

</comment><comment><USER9> I don't really agree with the author's proposal, although it is well explained. As many others pointed out, Google's usability was (and maybe still is) much better than the others.

Another big point in Google's favour is how their maps _look_. Back when Google Maps came out, the other maps were bitmapped and horrible to look at on the screen and in print. The quality of Google's maps is much more like what you see in a proper street directory. And they've made it look that good at every zoom level. Quite amazing.

I've never used Bing Maps, so it was interesting to learn in this article that they've improved the design of their default map view recently. It looks good. If the appearance of Google's maps was some part of their success, we should see Bing's market share rise in the future if they can convincingly beat Google in this area.

<comment><USER10> Bing Maps does a lot of cool stuff but always feels perpetually in beta to me (and not in the way that Gmail used to always be in beta). The end-to-end UX is never quite all there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I bet you most of the users did not notice this difference. What they noticed probably is speed, and the fact that you can scroll and move around the map without clicking the side arrows (mapquest style).

</comment><comment><USER12> Hate to be contrarian, but I actually agree with the author. It's often a collection of little things like this that puts one site over another.

</comment><comment><USER13> Looking through all the comparisons, Google Maps is also the only non-ugly one.

</comment><comment><USER14> I would actually like to see one of them have an updated ariel view of some rural areas. Something in the last 5 years would be nice.

</comment><comment><USER15> Remember he is not saying consistency is the _only_ feature that make GoogleMaps #1

<comment><USER16> Honestly, I doubt it's got anything to do with it.

The reason Google Maps is #1 is that, at the time, it was _far_ better than anything else. And nobody has offered an equally compelling leap since.

To move masses, you need equally massive advancements in usefulness (also, marketing).

<comment><USER15> You are not wrong.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I use google maps because it has the most usability IMHO.

</comment><comment><USER18> Google maps won because they provide accurate directions and maps in a really simple, clean, fast interface. Competing products have caught up quite a bit, but I still cant bring myself to go to mapquest because of how much it used to suck.

I don't think most people switch to satellite view, or care if those views are consistent.</comment>


The BBC Internet Distribution Infrastructure - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/internet/entries/8c6c2414-df7a-4ad7-bd2e-dbe481da3633 <comment><USER2> Maybe more experienced people can see the effects of various architecture decisions, but it would be great if the diagram explained how adding a node in the diagram adds or subtracts to user wait times, or speed or something.

Can experienced users tell: oh yeah, that extra caching layer will let them handle a million more users at peak time keeping lags below 2 secs?</comment>


Autism diagnoses are up 78% in 10 years. We're dramatically overdiagnosing it - <AUTHOR> http://www.salon.com/2013/09/21/thats_not_autism_its_simply_a_brainy_introverted_boy/ <comment><AUTHOR> OP here (FYI - I am not the author).

My big concern with misdiagnosing autism in high-IQ children is that it conflates autism with introversion -- a conflation that has been progressing for some time now, and which has been accelerating in recent decades. This is bad for the legitimately autistic, and it's bad for introverts.

It's bad for the autistic because it lumps a fairly heterogeneous set of children into the same spectrum, confounding our best efforts to get to the true roots of autism. If we're treating too many nonautistic children as "autistic," then by nature, we're diluting the actual pool of people we should be studying and helping. We're throwing too many red herrings and exceptions into the data set.

It's bad for the introverted and highly intelligent because it further stigmatizes both of those things, especially in combination. By establishing extroversion and median IQ as "ideal," we're insinuating that the introverted and gifted are somehow defective. We're behaving as though our gifted children should be bent and twisted into acting more like everyone else, when in fact, we should be nurturing their gifts.

While autism-spectrum disorders, introversion, and high IQ can certainly overlap, they are not by nature the same things.

<comment><USER2> > It's bad for the introverted and highly intelligent because it further > stigmatizes both of those things, especially in combination. By establishing > extroversion and median IQ as "ideal,"

Let's be honest. Intelligence is widely regarded as a good thing to have, better than the alternative. People are regularly lionized for it. Nobody says, or thinks, "I wish my child was a little dumber" (whereas "I wish they weren't so shy" is common).

There's a class of intelligent people that other people find off-putting. But those other people aren't being put off by the intelligence, nor are they attributing it to the intelligence.

The concept of an acceptance campaign for introverts at least makes sense. The highly intelligent are already accepted.

<comment><AUTHOR> I would disagree slightly. The _idea_ of high intelligence is lionized, but society does a pretty spotty job recognizing it when they come across it in real time.

In _practice,_ the highly intelligent themselves are often stigmatized. They're often misunderstood. They can have a hard time communicating with others, because at their level, their minds work very differently.

For the record, this article is specifically about kids with IQs at a level several standard deviations above the norm. It's not talking about those simply above average.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is a complex issue and is essentially being boiled down to "smart people are misunderstood." A topic that garners a lot of empathy here.

Autism Spectrum Disorder isn't just that the child is introverted. They must show several signs in order to be diagnosed. According to my partner (with a Master's in Social Work), it's also not something one can diagnose or counter in minutes like the author states he did with one child. That seems like a large credibility strike. Here information on how a diagnosis is made: [http://www.autism-society.org/about-autism/diagnosis/](http://www.autism- society.org/about-autism/diagnosis/)

Further there's nothing but anecdotal evidence given in the article for making the leap from "diagnoses went up" to "we're misdiagnosing it." This is really just an opinionated fluff peace that resonates with our community.

<comment><AUTHOR> Did you read the whole article? I'm curious, because I don't think you're actually disagreeing with the author on many of your points. For instance, "Autism Spectrum Disorder isn't just that the child is introverted." That's basically one of the core arguments of the piece.

 _"...there's nothing but anecdotal evidence..."_

No, the author actually points out that a lot of the current methodology used to _diagnose and test_ children is limited and at risk of observational or situational bias.

For example:

 _" Of the two hundred autism assessment programs his team surveyed across the country, many of which were located in prestigious medical centers, only 10 percent emphasized the need to observe a child along with a parent or guardian for more than ten minutes as they spontaneously interacted together. He tended to observe children playing with a parent for forty-five minutes or more, waiting for choice points to engage a child to determine if he or she was capable of more sustained eye contact, elaborate verbalizations, or shared emotional reactions. Dr. Greenspan believed that these conditions of safety and sensitive interaction were essential in order to obtain an accurate reading of a child's true verbal and social skills."_

Here is he saying that we're not spending _enough_ time with children to make conclusive diagnoses, one way or the other. Autism or otherwise.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> And so the backlash against autism spectrum begins...

There are many things wrong with the article, but my main gripe is how the author totally ignores the Asperger's end of the spectrum. Calling it a spectrum provides great insight (there are a large number of behaviors, and individuals have various combinations of each to a varying degree), but the author uses it to blur the line between what I would call functioning and non- functioning individuals (and seemingly on purpose). "Full" autism causes people to be unable to cope with the regualar world and all its stresses (see article about how autistics can take an airplane[1]). The author is exploiting the fear of parents whose children are found to be on the "autistic spectrum" (but more likely on the more functioning Asperger's end) and justifying a refusal of the diagnosis.

My perception is that Asperger's individuals (and the William in the article seems to fit--though I am not a doctor) have quirks and are difficult to raise. They have emotional issues and are socially maladapted. But they can lead fully independent lives and often contribute greatly to society. My issue with the author is that I believe Asperger's children can benefit greatly from psychological help, to teach them emotional and social skills in a way that parents can't. I believe that in certain cases, this help is critical to making the difference between the Asperger's person leading an almost normal life (including getting married and having kids), and leading a miserable life as a social outcast (bullied, unable to be in a relationship, unable to deal with child-raising).

So I think more nuance is in order, more distinction between autism and Asperger's (even though they are on the same spectrum), and more help for Asperger's children and adults, not less.

[1] [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23989422](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23989422)

<comment><USER5> Asperger's has been pushed off of the Euphemism Treadmill by the APA from their DSM book, the same organisation that had homosexuality down as a mental illness. It's replacement: "Autism spectrum disorder".

Now when you put something in a 'spectrum' it allows you to talk about somebody with a very mild tick, and someone with an extreme condition in the same breath. Some examples: "homosexuality"(sic), "perversion", "alcoholism", "racism" and "substance abuse". You can put any of those on a spectrum and it will allow you to make some very unfair comparisons between two very different people.

I disagree that putting anything on a spectrum provides a great deal of insight. I think it's intellectually lazy and actually quite dangerous an idea. I find as you found, that people can use it to blur lines that should not be blurred.

A relative once said that the autism spectrum helped her understand that her son's and husband's predisposition to use logic to justify their behaviour was a genetic fault. She found that concept comforting, because otherwise she couldn't understand why they don't agree with her on certain matters. Neither of them have been diagnosed, and they seem perfectly fine to me. I pointed out to her that that didn't represent a huge leap in understanding them.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Psychiatric_Associati...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Psychiatric_Association#Controversies)

[1] [http://www.aane.org/about_asperger_syndrome/as_dsmv.html](http://www.aane.org/about_asperger_syndrome/as_dsmv.html)

[2] [http://englishcowpath.blogspot.com/2011/06/euphemism- treadmi...](http://englishcowpath.blogspot.com/2011/06/euphemism-treadmill- replacing-r-word.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Hello, author. Meet me. I was much like the boy in your article--except in one way.

I was thrown into tests at a young age which showed a high IQ. I had difficulty in school with outbursts. I did not easily read social cues from others. I had strange interests, like an obsession with the Civil War or (in sixth grade) a personal God that I carried around with me because I liked the word "polytheism."

I was an obsessive and voracious reader, but always an outcast. I was ridiculously pedantic--in first grade I refused to write "Mr." with a period at the end of it (I'm American) because in Roald Dahl books, he didn't use the period after "Mr".

I still write my periods outside of quotes, and I argued with a teacher in college regarding two sentences after a period. These and other arguments eventually led me to dropping out of college. Fortunately, I found computers and entrepreneurship--plus a lot of books on how to read body language--and I've done pretty well for myself since.

Oh, and did I mention I'm a woman? Yep, born female, with every issue you describe.

FTA: "Jordan secretly confessed to me that his English teacher must be dumb because she referred to certain assignments as "homework" when she allowed them to be completed in class. She should have renamed them "schoolwork," he said, because they were being completed at school. In twenty-five years of therapy practice, I've never known a girl to make such a comment."

Well, good news for you, then, sir: There's an entire subreddit of us. [http://www.reddit.com/r/2x_intj](http://www.reddit.com/r/2x_intj) Perhaps you should come visit sometime. Or are you too busy making gendered statements and deciding that it must be "masculinity" that causes these issues, instead of diving deeper into the issue?

I certainly could have benefited from a class on how to understand facial cues. I could still benefit from a class on tact. I still make people uncomfortable sometimes when I talk to them.

I'm a female, an introvert, and I have been diagnosed with ADHD. (A diagnosis which unequivocally changed my life for the better.) Making light of issues like this, or narrowing them to "boys will be boys", is a sad misinterpretation of a real issue. Do I have Asperger's? It's certainly been suggested to me several times by others, but ADHD more fits who I am.

To those of you reading this, I hope you don't take it too literally. There are kids out there who need real help. I wish I would have had more of it. Asperger's/autism or not, school was pretty much miserable for me, and I would have been grateful for the opportunity to learn how to really connect with others.

<comment><AUTHOR> Indeed, it's unfortunate that he's insisting on "boys" and using the masculine pronouns in this piece. This is, however, an excerpt from a book, focusing specifically on one case study. I would hope and expect -- though I cannot confirm -- that the book looks at children of both genders.

 _" Making light of issues like this, or narrowing them to "boys will be boys", is a sad misinterpretation of a real issue."_

I didn't read either of those things in the article. Agree completely that his focus on "boys" in this excerpt is limiting and probably misguided, but I don't see him "making light" of any of these subjects. Nor did I see him categorically tying these behaviors to masculine behaviors ("boys will be boys"). Again, keep in mind that he uses one case study to illustrate the points made in a much longer book. And the headline, while certainly gender- limited, may not have been written by the author (Salon's editors, like the editors of many other publications, probably wrote it).

<comment><USER6> > I would hope and expect -- though I cannot confirm -- that the book looks at > children of both genders.

I haven't read the book either, but the article doesn't give me much hope.

All of the following are direct quotes from the article:

"That's not autism: It's simply a brainy, introverted boy" <\--This is the title.

"How boys communicate and socialize" <\--This is one of the subheadings.

> Nor did I see him categorically tying these behaviors to masculine behaviors > ("boys will be boys").

FTA: "As educated people, we don't want to believe in overarching differences in communication styles between the sexes. When I was in college in the 1980s and '90s, "essentialism" was a dirty word. To believe that males and females might be different in essential ways was akin to admitting that you were unenlightened. There's still a pervasive sense in our culture that to be educated is to be gender-blind, and there is something of a taboo against voicing aloud explanations for a child's behavior in terms of his or her gender. If you don't believe me, try uttering some version of the following statements at your son's next parent-teacher conference: Jamal is so logical and brusque when he talks. I know he needs all our help to ease up. But these are traditional masculine behaviors, after all, and we might need to accept him more for who he is. Or, Billy overtalks and really needs an audience, especially when he has a new favorite hobby or interest. He needs to be a better listener. But he's not unlike a lot of boys I know.

It's this public discomfort with discussing children's gendered behavior that gets many traditionally masculine boys inappropriately labeled as high- functioning autistic. Poor eye contact, long-winded monologues about one's new favorite topic, being overly serious and businesslike, appearing uninterested in other's facial expressions, and restricting friendships to those who share one's interests, may all be signs of Asperger's syndrome or high-functioning autism. However, these same traits typify boys who are traditionally masculine in their behavior. Parents somehow have to ask the uncomfortable question in the doctor's office: Is he high-functioning autistic or really a more masculine-identified boy?"

Or...you know...a girl. Who just so happens to have strange interests, be introverted, and struggle socially.

<comment><AUTHOR> _" "That's not autism: It's simply a brainy, introverted boy" <\--This is the title. "How boys communicate and socialize" <\--This is one of the subheadings."_

As I mentioned, it's entirely possible, if not highly likely, that both the title and the subtitles were chosen by editors at Salon and not by the author himself.

For example: I've rarely been able to write my own headline whenever I've been published. I've also been heavily edited, and occasionally even pigeonholed in a certain direction, by my editors. It depends on the publication, the editor's chosen focus, etc. (Curiously enough, in fact, I didn't even write _this_ link's headline for HN; I submitted this article under a different headline).

 _" Or...you know...a girl. Who just so happens to have strange interests, be introverted, and struggle socially."_

But discussing a particular aspect of masculine behavior that's misunderstood does not necessarily imply that _only_ masculine behavior is at issue, nor does it imply that only boys exhibit such behaviors.

It may well be the case that boys are more often disciplined or misdiagnosed for these issues in classrooms. I don't know. There are any number of reasons why he could have chosen this focus -- and while that focus is a limitation, I am choosing to give him some benefit of the doubt until reading further.

If indeed his focus in the book is purely on boys, then that's a very serious limitation. And it would be a very unfortunate one. I have not read the book, so I cannot say for certain whether his book itself is only about boys. I hope it's not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Sometimes a jump in diagnoses just means we had previously been misdiagnosing or under diagnosing. Don't just call an increase an over diagnosis. If we suddenly had an increase in obesity or cancer we wouldn't say "i call bullshit, doctors are cashing in on this". Maybe there is something else going on but automatically calling over diagnosis is just as bullshit as anything else.

<comment><USER8> Indeed. Where I live, Asperger was diagnosed by only a couple of university hospitals ten years ago, with waiting times counted in years. Today it's diagnosed by hundreds of local psychiatry clinics around the country, and a study is usually initiated within months. We also have a bigger awareness about the issues, which may drive more people to be diagnosed; people that we wouldn't "find" otherwise.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I am very happy to see this topic opened for discourse by a longstanding professional.

Some of my closest friends in elementary school fell into the above-average + introverted group. To teachers they stood out like sore thumbs. To those of us with similar interests and abilities, but more extroverted, they were just kids who double checked their answers before blurting them out.

In an age where there is a tendency toward pills and therapy as solutions for almost anything (not trying to spawn a pharmaceuticals debate), articles like this feel like a breath of fresh air. Being intelligent does not a disorder make.

<comment><USER10> If the DSM doesn't have something to qualify you to be classified, medicated, or even monitored today -- they will, tomorrow.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Personally, I would like to see a move away from the approach of putting labels on everyone, which is made worse by treating the DSM-V as dogma. The DSM has kept back legitimate science in the area by forcing everyone into discrete boxes instead of recognizing the continuity of many symptoms. The NIMH is already moving away from it and most organizations except maybe the APA should move away from it. This would promote an environment where we spend more time measuring and researching body chemistry to better understand the relationship of what is happening in the body that produce undesirable psychological symptoms. Every person that is diagnosed and sent off with drugs is a lost opportunity to collect information about the state of their body and their symptoms and using computing to discover other leads on how to better treat or cure those specific symptoms instead of a broad classification which imperfectly characterizes many people.

</comment><comment><USER12> I dont remember the exact numbers but this reminds of a story in Norway recently where overnight they went from 30% of the population being vitamin D deficient to 90%. The cause of this was a change in the official definition of vitamin D deficiency

</comment><comment><USER13> Put it this way. Everyone is somewhere on the autism spectrum. I don't think we're over diagnosing it as such, but more diagnosing it at a lower level.

<comment><USER14> > Everyone is somewhere on the autism spectrum.

Just because it's a spectrum doesn't mean it's all-encompassing. At some point, it's clear that someone is _not_ on the spectrum. I am willing to bet you're wrong, most of the autism cases are not fringe.

<comment><USER15> I'm willing to bet that the post your replied to was considering "No Autism" as a point on the spectrum, even if that's misguided.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Autism diagnoses are up 78% in 10 years. We're dramatically overdiagnosing it*

Look at the funds being thrown at autism. If your child ain't autistic, no funds and job for all those special ed teachers, schools and psychologists.

<comment><USER17> Don't forget the cost of all those drugs.

<comment><USER18> What medications do they prescribe for autism?

<comment><USER17> Adderall, Ritalin for ADHD, Asperger's and such.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Ten years ago it was ADD, now it's autism. Psychiatry is bullshit, and the pharmaceutical industry it drives is dangerous.

<comment><USER20> Why was this being downvoted?

<comment><USER10> Because 90% of geeks have /self-diagnosed/ themselves as having aspergers and they take any criticism of it as a personal attack on them and their "illness".

Don't worry, something else will come along that is way more trendy in a few years and these same people will move on to claiming they have _that_ , instead.

(Obviously not claiming autism itself is not real and not a legitimate and difficult problem to deal with. I shouldn't have to disclaim this, but I'm obviously talking about the Slashdot type crowd that has convinced themselves that because they are detail oriented and are sometimes awkward in crowds, they have aspergers and constantly talk about it.)

<comment><USER15> Or you could just chalk it up to the fact that the post was a "shoot from the hip" post that was channelling a bunch of rage against Big Pharma and psychiatry while containing very little in the way of facts. Not only that, but Big Pharma has no horse in the race as there is no drug to sell here.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Why Electronic Voting Is a Bad Idea [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting points, but I think these are all solvable problems. More appropriate title: "Why Electronic Voting Is Hard".</comment>


Monsti – a free and open source CMS written in Go - <AUTHOR> http://www.monsti.org/ <comment><USER2> As someone that have worked in the CMS space for quite a while (and ended up implementing a couple from scratch) I welcome any new solutions that are not antiquated.

One thing that I've learned during that time (and does not apply only to CMS's but that the time I fully realized it) is that everything you build in your CMS should always keep in mind who is the main user and who is the main consumer. The first one I've developed focused on the consumers. And every content creator hated me sooooo much. I went back to the drawing board... no actually I sit with almost each editor and looked at how they bitched and tried to find workarounds. It was an eye opening experience.

<comment><USER3> Can you recommend a starting point to building your own cms?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Recently I've noticed a kind of a strange fashion in the way of advertising new software projects on HN.

The most important information is not what cool things given project does, or what unique features it has but what programming language it is using.

There is a lot of posts "New blog engine in Clojure", "Amazing email server written in Haskell", "Text editor in ECMA Script version 9", etc.

Sometimes there is more to that: new project comes with better performance, easier code maintenance, clever algorithms used, novel architectural solution developed - stuff that really matters, but Monsti is an pathological example.

The first sentence on their web page says that it is written in Go, as if it mattered for their potential audience, that is "personal, small business, or small NGO websites".

Why should I choose Monsti over Wordpress? Is the installation easy? Does it work on a cheap website hosting? Can it survive Slashdot effect on that cheap hosting? How about comments spam protection? Is creating templates/themes super easy, maybe I can reuse the ones created for Tumblr? And so on.

Programmers might want to know if the GO API is particularly well designed or maybe we can create hooks to customize some functionality or maybe there is some utility to monitor Monsti site statistics.

Who cares that this stuff is written in Go and WordPress in non-fashionable PHP, while the latter offers something that is actually important for programmer, admin and site owner?

<comment><USER5> A couple of years ago, we moved off of wordpress precisely because it was written in php. Once you're trying to do anything reasonably complex in a CMS, the architecture and the programming language matter, because you have to extend the CMS in some manner. For us, wordpress wasn't extensible enough - and php wasn't pleasant enough - to justify continued use of it. I imagine people in a similar position who want to use Go would give this a serious look.

<comment><USER6> Don't confuse Wordpress with how PHP can and should be written.

<comment><USER5> I'm not. We weren't fans of php either. Even if you buy into the philosophy that all languages are technically equal, that still doesn't make them pragmatically equal.

It was probably our network, but we had a very hard time finding good php engineers, and a much easier time finding good python engineers. So that won.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Offtopic: a free open source Email server (SMTP, POP3, IMAP) written in Go would be awesome.

I always hate how complicated and time consuming the configuration is of the good old postfix and the various other packages.

<comment><USER8> Not written in Go but look into OpenSMTPD[1].

[1]: [https://www.opensmtpd.org](https://www.opensmtpd.org)

<comment><USER9> Seems to be only SMTP...

The issue with most Unixy mail kits, is it's a collection of software that isn't always well coupled, and bundled together in really haphazard ways...

Many people want a simple interface that gives them administrative control (separate from physical accounts on the machine) that upgrades as a complete set...

With Unixy mail systems, you update dovecot, crap, something else breaks.. you have an older mysql backing it, crap, everything breaks when you upgrade... there's too many disconnected pieces for someone that isn't a full time mail admin to effectively keep up with.

I believe the original request is for something similar to say SmarterMail but open-source and free... something easy to setup, cross platform and packaged in a modern approachable language.... If I didn't have to work, I've often thought about doing something similar with Node.js

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Can anyone explain the significance of the @@ characters in some of the urls here? I've not seen these in urls before and wonder if there's a specific reason why they're there.

Example: [http://demo.monsti.net/@@login](http://demo.monsti.net/@@login)

<comment><USER11> Not saying that is the case here, but Zope used to use @@ in the URLs for view lookup. Like in /folder/item/@@editWithFancyForms.

<comment><USER12> That's the case. Monsti is influenced by Kotti which is influenced by Plone which is based on Zope which uses @@ for "actions" (or whatever they call them). Monsti uses @@ to distinguish actions from regular URLs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Good luck!

By the way, there is a rather popular static site generator written in Go: [http://gohugo.io/](http://gohugo.io/)

<comment><USER14> Check out Journey too: [https://kabukky.github.io/journey/](https://kabukky.github.io/journey/)

I'm the creator, I hope it's OK to post it here. It seems fitting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Reminds me of [http://monstra.org/](http://monstra.org/)

</comment><comment><USER16> Haha! Love the logo - [http://demo.monsti.net/static/img/logo.png](http://demo.monsti.net/static/img/logo.png)

I wish I could come up with such cute logos for my side projects. Would make life all the more interesting :D

</comment><comment><USER17> Great job. I'd recommend a design/UX overhaul though, it is quite antiquated. Check out some of the awesome "admin" designs on [https://wrapbootstrap.com](https://wrapbootstrap.com).

</comment><comment><USER18> I am more interested in performance part of it actually.

\- What is the memory and cpu usage when you get something like 500+ concurrent users?

<comment><USER19> CMS's are one of the easiest pieces of software to naively throw a beefy caching server in front of.

Not saying performance should never be a consideration, but for the vast majority of websites, especially "personal, small business, or small NGO websites" that should be all you really need.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> > No database required.

Filesystems are the new database.

So does this CMS support search?

How does it manage permissions?

I found the docs to be a little light on details. I guess that will change in time.

<comment><USER12> For "heavy" stuff that requires indexing (and where indexing using directories doesn't fit), Monsti might use a technology like Xapian. It might even use a database for this. But always on top of the "real" data that stays on the filesystem. But it's not impemented yet and plans might chance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Great work ! I can use it for learning :)

</comment><comment><USER22> Application Error when trying to add a new node:

        curl 'http://demo.monsti.net/@@edit?New=1;NodeType=core.Document' -H 'Accept: text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8' -H 'Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate' -H 'Accept-Language: en-US,en;q=0.8,fr;q=0.5,fr-FR;q=0.3' -H 'Cache-Control: max-age=0' -H 'Connection: keep-alive' -H 'Cookie: monsti-session=MTQzMjg4NzIxOXxEdi01QkFFQ183b0FBUkFCRUFBQUpQLTZBQUVHYzNSeWFXNW5EQWNBQld4dloybHVCbk4wY21sdVp3d0hBQVZoWkcxcGJnPT18j8xqXJd7vkXLPEt-9PuzVGLpyUkPiar9vmT9j7Bv5qE=' -H 'Host: demo.monsti.net' -H 'Referer: http://demo.monsti.net/@@edit?New=1;NodeType=core.Document' -H 'User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 10.0; Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; Trident/6.0)' -H 'Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded' --data 'NodeType=core.Document&Node.Public=true&Node.PublishTime=2015-05-29T10%3A13&Fields.core.Title=sdfdfdsfdsfdsfds&Name=sdfdfdsfdsfdsfds&Fields.core.Description=&Fields.core.Thumbnail=&Fields.core.Body=%3Cp%3Esdfdsfdsf%3C%2Fp%3E%0D%0A'

<comment><USER23> Before you enter the demo they say "(Read only! You'll get an error if you try to save anything. A complete and fully working example is included in the source distribution.)"

<comment><USER22> Right, sorry I've missed that.</comment></comment></comment>


Triangle of Secure Code Delivery (2014) - <AUTHOR> https://defuse.ca/triangle-of-secure-code-delivery.htm <comment><USER2> _Can we build a secure code delivery system for the web, too? If we had a one built into our browsers, security would be a whole lot better. There would be no more compromised websites serving malware, and we could finally bring usable crypto, like LastPass, Cryptocat, miniLock, and GlobaLeaks to the masses._

Cyph (cyph.com) has exactly this; see cyph.team/websigndoc for more detail.

Cryptographic signatures are implemented, reproducible builds are on the way in the near future, and a very basic non-decentralised userbase consistency verification could be included in our planned reproducible build script by comparing the package in one's local browser to the one on github.com/cyph/cyph.github.io (which could eventually be migrated to a blockchain or something).

<comment><AUTHOR> I've heard of Cyph, in passing, before. I haven't had a chance to look at the code yet. I presume [https://github.com/cyph/cyph](https://github.com/cyph/cyph) is the repo for the actual app?

<comment><USER2> Yep, that's it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I'd start with the requirements for secure SCM's in general. Wheeler has those:

[http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/scm- security.html](http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/scm-security.html)

Then add endpoint security. Then add certified compilation to know compiler passes don't add vulnerabilities. Then add reproducible builds, cryptographic signing, and so on. Now one sees the scope of the problem. At this point, most people will just ignore most of the problem in favor of implementing a subset and saying they "secured the build and deployment process." ;)

<comment><AUTHOR> On that note, definitely check out boringcc: [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/boring- crypto/48qa1k...](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/boring- crypto/48qa1kWignU)

<comment><USER3> I was definitely glad to see that when he posted it. Getting some mainstream attention. Meanwhile, CompSci has been doing things like CompCert C compiler, strong analysis showing absence of common issues, and so on. We have stuff to use right now at varying stages of completion. People just have to heed the call and build on it.</comment></comment></comment>