One Step Back For Mankind - <AUTHOR> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f748d4c6-128b-11df-a611-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check=1

<comment><USER2> If you've exceeded you free 1 article per month quota on ft.com, just register and you'll get 10 per month without having to pay them (these are the current limits for people in the US and every other country I checked besides the U.K. and are down from 3 and 17 respectively; see details at [http://www.ft.com/cms/275bc334-3063-11dc-9a81-0000779fd2ac.h...](http://www.ft.com/cms/275bc334-3063-11dc-9a81-0000779fd2ac.html?segid=70009&segsrc=fthome&countryCode=CHN&cpgid_sub=0302&cpgid_prem=0303&term=annually&)).

<comment><USER3> Or, because the dialog is done entirely with Javascript, just view the source of the page and read the article, and you can see it's yet another (short) rant on the decision to cancel NASA's shuttle program:

If we can put a man on the moon, Americans used to say, we ought to be able to solve our current problems. So the question of whether the US can still put a man on the moon matters a lot to national morale. Barack Obama's administration this week released a budget that would scrap Nasa's Constellation programme. That plan, announced by George W. Bush after the crash of the space shuttle Columbia in 2003, aimed to send US astronauts to the moon by the year 2020. It has failed. The new budget dresses up the demise of Constellation as opening the way to "a bold new course for human space flight", a more modern, "21st-century" space programme. But the bravado is that of a dog barking louder as he backs away from a fight. There is no indication of any alternative destination for manned space missions. Richard Shelby, the Republican senator from Alabama, called the Nasa budget a "death march for the future of US human spaceflight".

<comment><USER2> While I agree that Constellation was failing hard (or at least the Ares part of it, and that part _desperately_ needed to be terminated with extreme prejudice), the final paragraph it telling:

"That is what makes the debate over Constellation symbolic. The decision to abandon moon exploration has "decline" written all over it. Americans often profess astonishment that the Chinese of 600 years ago failed to take full advantage of their technological superiority. They invented gunpowder and, on the eve of Columbus's discovery of America, their ocean-going vessels were bigger and more seaworthy than Europe's. Perhaps now the process by which an innovative civilisation invents technologies that it is unable to exploit will be easier to explain. The failure of the latest US moon programme is a small disappointment for national pride, but it is one giant leap for historical understanding."

<comment><USER4> The Shuttle program has alwasy been a boondoggle. There has been not one significant piece of science that has come out of it. Robots are far better at space exploration than humans.

<comment><USER2> Without the ability to do maintenance on the Hubble Space Telescope it would have been an epic fail from first light (due to how ineptly it was ground and then not properly tested before launch).

The subsequent repair missions have keep it in operation a lot longer than would have been possible otherwise (replacing failed gyros, failed electronics, orbit boosting), plus the ability to put in new technology instruments has to have been very valuable. And the ability to put in instruments for a limited time, i.e. ones that could be justified for a period between maintenance missions but not for the lifetime of the whole thing.

Robots have their place and so do men.

<comment><USER4> This could have been done for way less than 175 billion (the estimated cost of the shuttle program).

<comment><USER2> You're shifting your argument: you pointed out correctly that the Shutte is a boondoggle, claimed it provided " _not one significant piece of science_ ", and finished by saying " _Robots are far better at space exploration than humans._ "

I pointed out just one example contradicting the last two points. Trying to apply the whole cost of the Shuttle program to just this one project is not to the point, nor is implying that we couldn't have done it in a manner that cost less and was safer.

<comment><USER4> I still say robots are far better than humans for space exploration. There was even a proposal for repairing the Hubble with them. It would have been better if they had designed it with this type of repair/upgrade mission in mind. But it is always easier for them to justify an incremental cost, along with the romantic notion of humans in space.

<comment><USER2> It probably wouldn't have worked for the last repair job, where they worked on things that had never been planned for repair (tiny screws and all that).

As an incremental cost, _assuming you have a manned space program_ , you can't justify doing robotic repair due to the extra costs and limitations.

On the other hand the next big telescope project (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope>) will be non- repairable, but that sort of goes with its mission, which is to sit at the Earth-Sun L2 point. Design life of 5 years, they hope it'll make it to 10. Note that the Hubble has made it to 20 years and they expect it'll last at least another 4.

And I'll certainly agree with you that if you want to explore beyond Mars for now, do it with robots. And to put humans on the Moon or Mars, send robots first (as we did for the Moon and are doing for Mars).

On the other hand, if I wanted to thoroughly play with an asteroid, I would want to do it with a manned mission (after suitable earlier check-out by robots).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> First time to ft.com and... wow, what a horrible experience.

<comment><USER2> Curious ... could you be more specific?

While I wouldn't rate its web fu all that highly, it seems to get the job done. It's certainly a lot less "busy" than its major competitor, _The Wall Street Journal_.

<comment><USER6> Well, don't know what his experience was but mine was: "Sorry, you have exceeded your 1 allowed article in 30 days..."

That's funny, as this was literally the first time I landed on that site (oh, and likely the last time, too).

<comment><USER2> Strange. Well, you could register and get 10 every 30 days; they _do_ publish stuff worth reading, especially in this "Great Recession".</comment></comment></comment></comment>


You're smarter than you think - <AUTHOR> http://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/youre-smarter-than-you-think/ <comment><USER2> _assume the brain dissipates 1/10 of this; 200 kilocals per day._

The human brain is pretty hungry. <http://www.pnas.org/content/99/16/10237.full> says around 1/5th of resting human metabolism is to power the brain. So double all numbers in that post.

 _This puts an upper limit on how much the brain can calculate, assuming it is an irreversible computer: 5_ 10^19 64 bit ops per second.*

It's one thing to put a theoretical upper limit on the human brain's computational abilities. It's another thing to claim the human brain actually performs anywhere near that level. Using the same math, a lawnmower engine puts out 1,000 joules per second, so the upper bound on its computational ability is 10^22 ops/sec. I think more than one equation is needed to get a good idea of the brain's performance.

Evolved brains are highly suboptimal. There's no evolution fairy waving a wand and selecting solely for brainpower. Much of the selection pressure is for basic things like famine resistance. Even when selecting for intelligence, evolution can only make incremental improvements. It's going to have trouble stumbling on something like the wheel or the impeller. And it shows. Brains have no API, no debugger, and they certainly aren't end-user modifiable. I can't, by thinking, dedicate a small group of neurons to mental arithmetic. I have to expend significant effort to do the math in my head, and even then I'm not always correct.

Neurons fire at a rate of only 20 hertz or so, meaning any mental computation has to finish in 100-200 steps for a person to respond in real-time. The signals sent by neurons only travel at around 100 meters per second. That's 0.0000004c. Less than one one-millionth the speed of light! And that's not going to change soon, because evolution can't change substrates. It's forced to use neurons instead of silicon or carbon.

>Even if brains are computationally only 1/1000 of their theoretical efficiency

Based on what I've said above, I think brains are far far less efficient than that.

</comment><comment><USER3> "People who get degrees in computer science like to think of computers as "Turing machines." I suspect this is because it is easier to prove theorems about Turing machines than Von Neumann machines. That's fine by me, though I will note in passing that I have never read a proof (or anything like a proof) that VN machines like you write code on are computationally equivalent to Turing machines. Someone smart please point me to the proof if it exists."

This trivial proof is usually left as an exercise sometime in the first couple weeks of an undergrad theory of computation course.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness>

This quote rhetorically implies that the author is deeply versed in computer theory, and has made a penetrating breakthrough that undercuts its entire edifice. In reality, he's "not aware" of such a proof because he is aware of very close to zero proofs in computer theory. It makes me reticent to bother engaging with the remainder of the article, which contains assertions in fields I'm less capable of evaluating skeptically.

</comment><comment><USER4> The title is somewhat misleading, as the article is about entropy, heat dissipation and the limits of irreversible computing. The title sounds like a silly motivation article that we've seen far too many of here lately. I was positively surprised.

<comment><USER5> Cf. the Fredkin gate, which has three inputs and three outputs, and in which the number of bits going out equals the number coming in.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fredkin_gate>

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> A++++++++++++++ WOULD READ AGAIN!!!!</comment>


Show HN: minimidi.world – A Simplified Guide to TRS MIDI - <AUTHOR> http://minimidi.world <comment><AUTHOR> Many MIDI instruments, effects, and modules released recently transmit MIDI over TRS or TS minijack cables. But, the specs they use vary, and are not always documented.

The more I tried to learn about TRS MIDI, the more confused I got, so I started taking notes with the intent to explain it to others as a reference guide.

I organized what data I could find online about these devices from sources like [https://www.muffwiggler.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3168946](https://www.muffwiggler.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3168946), along with my own research, and put together this web UI ([https://minimidi.world](https://minimidi.world)) to search it.

I'm also publishing the data under a public domain license: [https://github.com/audionerd/minimidi- data](https://github.com/audionerd/minimidi-data)

I'm trying to be thoughtful about respecting users time and privacy with my choices for this microsite, so I'm trying a few experiments:

\- one sponsor per month with a single, non-obnoxious banner

\- unobtrusive affiliate advertising with simple, helpful links

\- no tracking cookies (no google analytics)

\- data is open for others to use and improve

<comment><USER2> These ideas about your choices for this microsite, is good, I think.

However, why don't you use the square brackets syntax with the RDF data? The result will be the same, and the file will be a bit cleaner, I think.

<comment><AUTHOR> > the square brackets syntax with the RDF data

Can you give an example?

I picked the current Turtle syntax because it seemed like the least line noise, and hopefully easy for contributors to understand. I would like to learn more about RDF. I don't know if it was the right choice for this project to be honest though, I might end up switching to JSON.

<comment><USER2> As an example, the "alm-mmmidi" record can be written as:

      [
        device:make "ALM/Busy Circuits";
        device:model "mmMidi";
        device:inputs 1;
        device:typeB true;
        device:uri "https://busycircuits.com/alm023";
        device:eurorack true;
      ].

The names with _: are local to the file in which they appear. These names are not exported, so cannot be referred to by name externally, although the data is still exported (so, for example, if you ask for all nodes with a <[http://example.org/vocab/device/make>](http://example.org/vocab/device/make>) property, you will still retrieve them). So, the result will be the same. (The name "device:" is also local to the file, but it is a local alias of the exported name <[http://example.org/vocab/device/>](http://example.org/vocab/device/>), so other files can refer to it by the full name, or by defining its own (possibly the same) alias for it.)

I recommend not using the example.org namespace, but instead using your own. You could use the minimidi.world domain name, or, if you prefer, use a UUID (in lowercase, with "urn:uuid:" before, and "#" after).

However, for the kind of data you have, it does seem like JSON or TSV would probably do better, since it does not need the features of RDF (and the SQLite command-line shell supports both JSON and TSV (and with extensions, also RDF, but JSON and TSV are built-in)). The stuff I wrote above may still be useful if you find RDF useful for something else, though.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Amazon is getting too big and the government is talking about it - <AUTHOR> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/amazon-is-getting-too-big-and-the-government-is-talking-about-it-2017-07-13 <comment><USER2> Ofcourse, you should expect the government to talk about it. Amazon is growing at an unreal pace.</comment>


Wallaroo: We've heard your feedback, here's what's coming - <AUTHOR> https://blog.wallaroolabs.com/2018/05/wallaroo-weve-heard-your-feedback-heres-whats-coming/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hi all,

I'm the VP of Engineering at Wallaroo Labs and the author of this post. I'll be keeping an eye on the comments and aswering any questions that might come up.</comment>


Fighting Cancer - <AUTHOR> http://hintjens.com/blog:123 <comment><USER2> Just an interesting related tangent here: My father in law is dying of heart disease (will probably die in < 1 month) and we run into the same thing.

People see me upset and the first thing they say is he will get better, or, it will be ok. When I explain the situation, it's something like, "oh, well, I just KNOW he will get better. Don't worry"

What?

In case you are wondering: He has already had open heart 2 years ago, 4 of 5 arteries are completely blocked _again_ (and those are already bypasses that are blocked again) and the remaining 1 is at 40% blocked. He found all this out when he went to one of the best heart hospitals in the world and they sent him home: "There is nothing we can do." Again, the open heart to bypass all 5 was only 2 years ago, so the math is pretty straightforward on how long the one artery will last.

He has something in his genetics in his family that makes it so this will happen pretty much no matter what he does.

The advice is endless. He has done his research and I believe he has had some real success in delaying this, he has outlived his younger brother by ~20 years (who died in a similar situation at 34). But it's over now.

I am trying to help his family get everything in order. And while it's sobering, it can be a very positive experience. But I wish our friends would stop telling us he'll be fine.

<comment><USER3> i also hate saying and hearing platitudes, but recognize that it's only because people don't know what else to say. by telling them about this unfortunate situation, you're kind of putting them into that position.

these days i only tell my problems to people who have the ability to do something about it, or my closest friends who will commiserate without offering useless responses.

<comment><USER4> I have to agree with this. People can't be expected to know what every individual would prefer to hear in every conceivable circumstance.

Platitudes are often an oblique way of saying "I empathize and I wish you the best" while not being discouraging.

Actually saying the above might be preferable, but it's unfair to criticize the gesture, I think. If I mention this, it's because I think there are parallels to be drawn with other, more contentious, issues in which people take more serious offense.

<comment><USER5> It's absolutely fair to criticize the gesture. You know how SJW's tell outsiders to check their privilege when they make the discussion about themselves? Platitudes similarly make the discussion about themselves instead of the cancer patient. "Fight it." Wow, you're so optimistic! "Eat more fruit." You're so knowledgeable! Since you're a certified nutritionist, am I eating enough Quinoa?

[http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/12/funeral.html](http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/12/funeral.html)

> _(...) The hyena is caught awkwardly, so he rests his paws on the woman 's > shoulders, and now the sobbing woman must associate her last chance to be > with what is left of her father with the stale breath of a sycophant waiting > for his moment to be relevant._

> _And while that 's going on others are whispering to the quivering back of > her coat, "oh, I'm so sorry", "I'm sure he really loved you", "are you ok?"_

> _Why did any one of them think they had the power, the right, to interfere > with another person 's mourning? This was between her and her father and God > and no one else. Did no one notice that even the husband had given her > space? Did they just think he was being a jerk? "I just wanted to comfort > her." No, you didn't know what else to do, so you did that. "I didn't want > her to be alone." That's because you are a terrible person._

I.e. the woman struggled to spend her last moments with her father while the surrounding mourners (each vying for her attention) entered a pissing-contest to prove who had more empathy.

<comment><USER4> Making the discussion about oneself means its not really a gesture to begin with.

I agree with your example but I think it's a different thing altogether.

<comment><USER5> What a coincidence. Not only is the gesture supportive, it frames the speaker in a positive light! Just like how startups offer perks like catered lunches because the company cares about work/life balance, right? "How convenient, it just so happens that offering cheap-perks allows us to attract top-talent at half the cost". Notice how the CEO never has to consciously register that s/he's fooling anyone. From inside the mind, it all just looks like a convenient coincidence. Narratives are convenient because they can improve public relations without changing behavior.

Plausible Deniability is why these gestures are socially acceptable. "I'm sorry to hear that" or "that sucks" (i.e. acknowledgment) would suffice. But that's not what Pieter Hintjens' associates told him, is it? Instead, they went the extra mile by offering unwarranted advice. Notice that "I'm sorry to hear that" doesn't connote that the speaker holds relevant information, and is therefore important and worth paying attention to. Regardless of how we define gesture, it is not lost on Hintjens that the stock phrases he receives nudge the conversation in a particular direction.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I found out I had colorectal cancer 4 years ago at 33. It was a shock because I go to the gym 4-5 times a week and taught brazilian jiu jitsu nightly. There no living right or living wrong prescription that will spare you. It can catch anyone at any time just like the author states.

Aside from dealing with the disease, one of the biggest issues I found was disbursing information and managing the emotions of my friends and family. Everyone has questions on your daily status and a few think they can come in a provide the superman holistic miracle that will spare you from death. It's tough to balance it all.

Like the author, I hate this notion of "fighting cancer". Norm MacDonald sums it up best. [http://www.cc.com/video-clips/8kgu68/stand-up-norm- macdonald...](http://www.cc.com/video-clips/8kgu68/stand-up-norm-macdonald-- battling-cancer)

</comment><comment><USER7> This is a really important read.

Nobody really gets terminal illness until you're either terminally ill, or right on the fringe of it. Even those of us who are one degree away from it only have the vaguest notion of it. It seems like something on the order of 30% of human prose ever written struggles with this notion of mortality [1], yet very few words are devoted to how to care about someone who is terminally ill, and even fewer on how to be there for them, providing encouragement without some kind of cheerleading. Part of this is because everyone is different, and some people really do want some of that. But my experience with it in this day is that those people are in the minority.

Thank you Pieter, for sharing your words with the world on this most personal of experiences.

[1] Totally made up statistic based on my gut feeling, so please don't bother asking for a citation.

<comment><USER8> That might be your perspective but after being in hospitals and treatment for a lifetime condition, I saw enough of my peers die by the age of 10 that I think I have a pretty good handle on mortality. It's just a very uncomfortable subject, which I think hinges on our species not knowing "what happens" after the body dies. Well, there are lots of claims and plenty of options by way of choosing a faith, but I'm fairly certain we simply don't know.

<comment><USER7> It sounds like you might be on the fringe of it, friend. And I don't disagree with you—it _is_ an uncomfortable subject, and for those lucky enough to have it be merely a vague notion of something I'm going to have to deal with "one day", very few people really do know how to respond to it. But I am sorry that your condition gave you such familiarity with the subject at such a young age.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> A bit offtopic, but Hintjens has got the coolest activity graph on GitHub: [https://github.com/hintjens](https://github.com/hintjens)

<comment><USER10> Wow, that is really neat. Looks like he does this with his [waka repo]([https://github.com/hintjens/waka/blob/master/egg.pl](https://github.com/hintjens/waka/blob/master/egg.pl)).

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Powerful article. Something I can share from my own ordeal. When you first get diagnosed most people are strong and defiant "I'm going to beat this thing!". It is the following weeks and months, the follow up scans that show the darn thing is back or not reduced that eventually wear you down. If you know someone that's afflicted please keep in touch throughout or space out your acts of kindness. I found that initially everyone wanted to help (an outpouring) and in later months some help would have been useful.

</comment><comment><USER12> I've just saw my father die of cancer a week ago. Fortunately, he did this at home and was cared for by his own family, right to the end.

I wouldn't describe this experience as sad or tragic. We knew for a while that the moment was coming. I was lucky enough to be with my dad when he took his last breath, and to have been able to say goodbye. I learned a lot about what to do and what not to do in the face of imminent death.

<comment><USER13> Similar experience here. My otherwise perfectly healthy, vegan, athletic wife died of sporadic metastatic pancreatic cancer four months ago at age 36. She battled it for five months after discovery (this is how pancreatic cancer often works), and although it was an incredibly tough struggle, the fact that we both had lived with no regrets and taken the opportunities available to us (and made some new ones) helped when her time finally came. Although she was very ill the whole time, everything "at the end" happened inside of about four days. I didn't know until hours before that it actually was the end, and I'm not sure she ever did. But having lived well until that point somehow made it easier.

We knew it was terminal almost immediately from the outset, with a prognosis of a year if we were lucky, and we fought it with guns blazing the whole way while balancing a good quality of life during those months. In some small way, the duration of her fight was a blessing compared to some other cases I've heard (less than a month from diagnosis to death, or a terrible quality of life for a year or two).

Just as with my grieving now, everyone's handling of their own and their loved ones' preparedness for death is different and based on their own unique circumstances. I am glad that Pieter has shared his.

<comment><USER14> I am so sorry for your loss.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> My son fought for almost 5 years (Ages 7-12).

The outpouring of support was unbelievable. People I didn't know would do amazing things for my son and family. I saw this boy with one of the saddest stories (He was adopted) and a broken spirit before cancer became a amazing young man in the midst of his slow painful death.

His own biological family did very little during this time. Father murdered his mother less then a year after his diagnosis and family and close friends just didn't come around after a few months, "To painful to visit." I would flip out! Then I realized you just get to find out who is a true friend and family. So some will leave people high and dry others will see you all the way through.

</comment><comment><USER16> A beautiful read, for many of the reasons already mentioned here.

I'm inclined to rethink this one question, though:

> Can a single individual patient second-guess the medical machine? Is that > really their duty?

I don't know if it's anyone's _duty_ , but I think it's completely plausible for a single patient or small group of patients to arrive at a more patient- focused conclusion than the medical industry.

<comment><USER17> I was hesitant to write this, as I did. It's not a call for passive acceptance. There are a lot of moments when we patients need to prod and push our doctors and nurses. The machine tends to be slow and can miss important things. The patient has to provide feedback ("the pain is worse") and has to insist on the machine listening.

Yet given that, it seems highly risky to me to even be open to the notion that I can second-guess the machine. That is, to find a better treatment, using my own knowledge and that of the Internet, friends, family, etc.

The risks are well known: endless 'alternative' cures that prey on the most vulnerable, taking their money and time, and leaving them to die. It ranges from amateurish nonsense to sociopathic predation. The common thread is patients who don't trust the medical machine, and think they can do better.

So when people tell me that I can find a cure, if I look harder, my reaction is "oh piss off!," before I delete their email. That is not my duty, not within my power, not for a disease like cancer. I mean, even looking for a "better" clinic is such a major undertaking that it lives in a different universe than mine.

I do trust my doctors. They won't cure me, yet they will look after me, manage my pain, and when it comes to it, they will help me die smoothly and easily.

<comment><USER18> I agree with all of these sentiments but I would add a few from our own experience (not particularly terminal illness, but that's likely coming soon with my wife's mass in her lung that we still can't get diagnosed) but with the medical machine in general. We have several special and medical needs children so we're constantly dealing with doctors and hospitals.

I think it's important to do your own research on different treatments and therapies. But the reason we do so is not to get our hopes up but to inquire of our doctors about the treatments. We have two questions. "What about _____?" which is usually followed by "why not?" And once in a while we get the response of "I don't know, let me look into that" and end up trying something that they hadn't considered. It helps us knowing that no stone goes unturned and maybe it'll help the doctor even by learning about (always accepted, not alternative) techniques he/she hadn't really looked into yet.

While we generally trust all of our doctors, in two cases we've found physicians that were barely competent by this method. In both cases, they arrogantly attempted to dismiss concerns or questions but when pressed they made up answers simply to dismiss us. (we say "made up" because we were given responses that directly contradict research and even the monograph put out by the drug company. But fortunately, this is the exception and not the rule.

As for alternative cures, the only way (in my opinion) those can be believed is if you put on your tinfoil hat and believe that the medical establishment is evil, every last man. If alternative cures worked, they wouldn't be alternatives. My son is severely autistic. If only I'd spend more time listening to the Internet I could use these alternative cures and he'd end up being a heart surgeon, I'm sure.

I often wonder why people do that? Sometimes it's the patients (or parents of patients if minor) but it seems to me that it's almost always friends or relatives that try to hook you up with pipe dreams and fantasies. Why is it so difficult for people to accept our realities?

<comment><USER19> >I often wonder why people do that? Sometimes it's the patients (or parents of patients if minor) but it seems to me that it's almost always friends or relatives that try to hook you up with pipe dreams and fantasies. Why is it so difficult for people to accept our realities?

Lack of education and a (worrying) growing mistrust in science and the scientific method.

<comment><USER20> Also a factor is that some illnesses are awful and the treatments are inhumane. They're the best current medicine can do, but it's far from what you'd like the solution or paliative to be.

Thus, turning to alternatives is not necessarily mistrust in science, but a desperate search for something tolerable that could work.

Another possible factor that helps here is that many doctors are as inhumane as the treatments they recommend, and in some cases are not up to date in the latest science, so you end up having to educate them.

Although I agree that the decision to look for something else has to come from the person in the trenches, not as a well meaning (really?) suggestion from an outsider. Some people do want to fight that fight in addition to the normal fights Pieter mentions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> > The only way to beat cancer, really, is to die from something else first.

That was a short and pointed article.

More so after I read a short comic strip on PHD Comics about cancer [1], I can't help but think that "beating cancer" is a very tough (and impossible) goal for the ones suffering from it and the ones looking for better management or reduction of it.

That shining light of optimism after remission is tinged with a hint that a recurrence is just a little while away, and could possibly be the end of life. I also wonder if what happens before death is more painful than the heartbreak that death eventually brings.

[1]: [http://phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1162](http://phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1162)

<comment><USER22> > [1]: > [http://phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1162](http://phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1162)

So, forgive me if I'm being naive because I don't really have professional experience in the field of cancer research, but this comic makes it sound like a cure for cancer is impossible because it would have to deal with million different forms and shapes that it can take, but, theoretically, wouldn't it be possible to attack the root problem instead, and find a way to biologically enhance our dna replication "algorithm" to prevent mutations in the first place? Surely it's better to prevent the mutations in the first place than find a cure for them, since then it's a single problem.

<comment><USER21> I'm nowhere close to having much knowledge about cancer either, so anything I say is as a lay person. This comic made sense when considering how many cancers are "treated" and what people go through when they have cancer and undergo treatment. Of course, not all types (or targets) of cancers are the same, and we do have better outcomes for some and possibly no hope for others. I've also read in the past that with our current technology, we can detect cancers only when they become significantly big, by which time it's usually kind of serious for the person.

The root cause solution is very likely going to be through some sort of genetic engineering (which is again quite complex). Preventing (bad) mutations requires (in my ignorant opinion) observation over a longer period of time _after we find that there 's a mutation._ This would also need a lot of study and knowledge to be collected across races, genders, ages, etc. In summary, I think we have very less knowledge/information and need a lot more information, time and effort to get to solutions that would work for any human on the planet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> A important post for those of us that don't know Pieter since it reinforces that your personal attitude does not change the outcome of cancer [1]. Cancer is a horrific disease, but it is not one that bends to our will, only our science.

1\. [http://www.apa.org/monitor/jan08/cancer.aspx](http://www.apa.org/monitor/jan08/cancer.aspx)

<comment><USER24> I think the above comment accidentally omits 'not'.

This whole story is very moving.

<comment><USER25> What's really sad is that the state of progress in cancer treatment is extremely slow. Randy Pausch, for example, was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer about 10 years ago.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji5_MqicxSo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji5_MqicxSo)

There are people receiving the exact same death sentence today, with the same likely outcomes.

Anyway, there's a book and a PBS series for anyone interested in learning the more about the current state of cancer research:

[http://www.pbs.org/show/story-cancer-emperor-all- maladies/](http://www.pbs.org/show/story-cancer-emperor-all-maladies/)

<comment><USER26> Strange, from what I read (including interviews with oncologists) cancer treatment is massively improving, with new treatments available and many fundamental advances in the pipeline. The future is looking bright, with cancer becoming a manageable chronic illness in the next decades.

<comment><USER25> You're giving me anecdotal information that spans over 20-30 years? Yeah, I'm optimistic that by 2050, we'll be much better off. In the meantime, 7-10 million worldwide will die every year from cancer. We're racing to get self- driving cars to save a lot fewer people.

<comment><USER7> Its more than anecdotal information. In the last few years 11 new treatments have been approved for stage III and IV cancers that are immune-mediated, which includes melanoma, one of the fastest growing (in terms of incidence) as well as most aggressive cancers.

But the real truth is that cancer isn't a single disease. Treatments move slowly because its a host of different diseases which all exhibit the same symptoms of unrestrained growth and cellular immortality. So yeah, a lot of people are going to die of a lot of different diseases. "Curing cancer" isn't going to happen, because "cancer" isn't one single (or even a few) things to cure.

<comment><USER25> 'cancer isn't a single disease ". That's covered in the video, and it well- known by everyone? The immunotherapy drugs are in the video too. There were certainly a few successes but it sounds like we have a bit of work. It's one of the cancer moonshot projects:

[http://www.cancermoonshot2020.org](http://www.cancermoonshot2020.org)

Do you have to survival rates for the various cancers. That's the benchmark, right?

<comment><USER7> I don't know if I think survival rates are the best metric for judging progress here. The ones I'm most familiar with are melanoma's, but those are also a factor of many things besides treatment options. The only thing I can think of that its a good metric for is 'people not dying'.

I also don't know if 'cancer isn't a single disease' IS well known by everyone. In this crowd perhaps, but certainly not the population at-large.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I also read one of his previous posts on how to prepare the family, and talk with friends about dying. I've rarely been so moved by a post and had such an understandment of the situation, than from his posts. I think they are a must read for most people, as we'll most likely encounter it either through friends or family, or ourselves.

</comment><comment><USER28> This is a very touching and generous post. I remember the kinds of diet and treatment advice my partner would get when she was fighting cancer, all of it well-intentioned, and wish those people had read this article.

I came to the thread to recommend a recent book by Atul Gawande, Being Mortal, [http://atulgawande.com/book/being-mortal/](http://atulgawande.com/book/being- mortal/), which covers the difficulties of dying (from age or from illness) and touches on many of the same points as this amazing post.

</comment><comment><USER29> If you haven't heard it already, there is a really good and candid podcast interview with Pieter Hintjens over at Software Engineering Daily: [http://softwareengineeringdaily.com/2016/06/23/death- distrib...](http://softwareengineeringdaily.com/2016/06/23/death-distributed- systems-pieter-hintjens/)

</comment><comment><USER30> Related: A Protocol for Dying, an interview with him for The Changelog from June 2016.

[https://changelog.com/205/](https://changelog.com/205/)

<comment><USER31> Also, his previous couple of articles on the same topic:

* A Protocol for Dying: [http://hintjens.com/blog:115](http://hintjens.com/blog:115)

* Planned Death: [http://hintjens.com/blog:116](http://hintjens.com/blog:116)

* Living, in Limbo: [http://hintjens.com/blog:121](http://hintjens.com/blog:121)

I have also read his book titled Culture & Empire in the previous couple of months and quite enjoyed it. It's available for free here: [https://www.gitbook.com/book/hintjens/culture- empire/details](https://www.gitbook.com/book/hintjens/culture-empire/details)

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> An excellently written piece, with a perspective that can only be communicated by someone who is walking that path (so to speak). The thought that the whole "You WILL get better" or "keeping fighting!" notion highlights for me is how taboo of a subject death and dying is in many cultures (very much including Western culture). I truly believe the reason people say such cruel and selfish things is because they cannot bring themselves to talk about the topic of death. It's something we are taught to ignore until we cannot possibly do so any longer. I feel like we might live better lives if we talked about death and dying openly and throughout our lives.

</comment><comment><USER33> In a way, it's similar in nature to how people will, with best intentions, tell you to smile more if you have depression.

I think the issue is many people don't understand the problem and they can't see it. In fact, someone with a common cold can expect to get more sympathy and better advice than someone with a chronic illness. The second issue is that many people struggle to think of something to say, its quite uncomfortable and the automatic choice is to give advice.

<comment><USER34> Interestingly for people with colds the sympathy is also commonly misplaced, at least mistimed, namely the outer symptoms often only show up after the worst parts (sore throat, dizziness, nausea, headaches) are already overcome.

<comment><USER33> Almost like the old saying "out of sight, out of mind".

Personally, I was going through some rough stress at work. Minute someone comes down with a cold, they got "oh god you don't look well at all. Have you spoke to the boss?". 5 minutes later I would get "so why isn't x done yet?" by the same person despite it being a known fact I'd been holding the weight of a two man team on my own for 18 months!

That made me feel even worse but once I got a handle on things (and an extra pair of hands), I noticed the interesting pattern in general.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> " There are people who treat the dying as easy prey. " For some reason this hurt most. Maybe I expected way too much humanity off humans.

<comment><USER22> It's a sad reality, but when it comes to people I've come to accept that by default you should expect malice and selfishness unless otherwise is proven (not that I condone being an ass to other people, but just don't trust intentions by default).

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Very sensible read, just one question, he mentioned "avoid junk foods, especially sugar", is sugar that bad for causing cancer?

<comment><USER37> I hear this coming from a multitude of sources too. If true, is simple sugar metabolism oncogenic? What is the mechanism?

<comment><USER17> I'm aware of no evidence that sugar, as such, causes cancer directly. However excessive use (which means 'normal' consumption in our society) definitely damages your immune system and other systems. This cannot be helpful when fighting any disease.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I am not sure why cryonics are not in the menu of every reader here when he has the opportunity (you don't have it if you die in a sudden accident) to subscribe when it seems inevitable to die.

<comment><USER39> Not all of us want to live again in some unknown future without any sense of continuity or surviving relationships. Death is ultimately inevitable, even if a miracle like cryonics could postpone it the first time. The author's entire point is that we should accept this inevitability, not try to avoid it by any psychological means we can conjure. Only then can we respond appropriately.

<comment><USER38> If we manage to make cryonics work what tells you that people you know will not do it in the future or technology didn't make them live much (much) longer than expected? Why accept something as fact when there is an above zero chance that you can live longer?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Every time I see his posts I think about the book The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying. I would recommend reading it for anyone who might be having the discussion or dealing with death in their life.

[https://www.amazon.com/Tibetan-Book-Living-Dying- Internation...](https://www.amazon.com/Tibetan-Book-Living-Dying- International/dp/0062508342)

</comment><comment><USER41> I have the utmost respect for Pieter, wherever I encounter his work it always shows passion and quality. Recently I read The Psychopath Code which I highly recommend especially to those who think they've never encountered one. While you can still read this: thank you. You have improved my life in multiple ways.

</comment><comment><USER42> "..Yet you are only as strong as the work you do"

All the article is very inspirational, mundane things like not solved paperwork, can carry lots of head aches to the family, sadly I know it by experience.

</comment><comment><USER43> Yes, all deaths are tragic, but increasingly feel that humanity does not have a good measure for priortizing its efforts.

As an example, over half of those diagnosed with cancer are over 70 years old and 100s of billions have been spent on research.

What is an object way to decide if all the effort spent of cancer research is of value relative to other area of research where progress might be made?

</comment><comment><USER44> I want to say this story is personal for me.

</comment><comment><USER45> Some of this advice applies to people with chronic non-terminal health problems as well. We may not be dying, but the "helpful advice" from people who hear we have problems usually doesn't go over very well with us, even if we do smile and say thanks, to be polite.

</comment><comment><USER46> I've been appreciating Pieter's posts, and his occasional comments on HN (I noticed one a few days back, on technical topics). I'm also increasingly apprehensive opening them. Though the only fatal disease I'm aware of fighting right now is life, my hope is to pursue my interests so long as I can.

I wasn't aware of Pieter before his recent blog topic started appearing on HN, though I'm pretty sure I'd come across his work. We're focused on different areas of tech.

I have seen cancer though, and much of what he writes here hits home, hard. I lost a very good friend, far too young, several decades ago. I'm looking at their picture now.

And remember going through much of what Pieter describes, though not as the central participant.

There were the other patients we met through treatment. Some of whom made it, some of whom didn't. And it wasn't necessarily those who appeared strong who lived.

There was the cheerleading and denial and people who were meddlesome. Those of us around the patient and family did what we could to steer the away. As Pieter says: the doctors tend to know the medicine pretty well (though chasing after them when things _clearly_ aren't going right may be necessary). Unsolicited medical advice at this stage is almost always quite unwelcomed.

Small things can be huge.

What I remember, most, still: meals that showed up on the back porch with heating instructions. The neighbors had arranged amongst themselves a cooking schedule and coordinate this. No asking. No fuss. It just happened.

One less thing to worry about.

The other thing I remember was someone who, in all sincerity and good intentions, had forwarded information on a possible meracle cure. Laetrile. "The slickest, most sophisticated, and certainly the most remunerative cancer quack promotion in medical history," Wikipedia tells me today. We didn't have Wikipedia then, but I quickly established that this was in fact bunk.

It still makes me furiously mad: preying on sick people and those about the clinging desperately to any possible hope, in full knowledge that you're peddling bullshit. And those who get swept up in this and pass on the misinformation. Maybe that's why I've cracked down on online disinformation as well. It's not just duty calling....

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

Pieter's comments on how cancer is "fought" are also extremely good counsel. Some things can be manipulated and addressed directly. For others, you can only hope to set up the right set of circumstances to achieve the outcome you desire -- fighting cancer is more like tuning algorithms or seeds for some stochastic process -- a raytrace render or algorithmic music render, say, for those familiar with them -- than aiming a rifle at a target and taking shots. Our ability to directly influence events is limited, mostly you're managing the bits about you, your environment. Staying comfortable, staying sane. So much as possible.

In describing dealign with those around him. Pieter reminds me of a general classification I've used in other contexts for people:

* There are those who mean to do well, but are unable to. The cheerleaders and advice givers tend to fall into this category -- their harm isn't intentional, but it can be real all the same.

* There are those who cause problems through their own systemic operation. Healthcare insurance systems, vendors, legal processes, and the like. The issue's less one of having malicious intent, though here it's a lack of sensitivity to what their impacts on others are, or simply failing to care. The impacts on those who are sick or disabled are hugely magnified.

* Finally, there are those who are actively evil. Scammers, predators, sometimes even family or neighbors angling for what they hope they might be able to gain. This again makes me sick. There are no pits of hell deep or hot enough.

Many years after the experience I'd mentioned above (and after several others), I found a good model for offering care -- it's the concept of a kvetching order:

[http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/07/opinion/la- oe-0407-s...](http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/07/opinion/la-oe-0407-silk- ring-theory-20130407)

This consists of a set of concentric rings around a trauma, with the afflicted person at the center, and a growing set of less-affected care- and support- givers extending out. The basic idea is that care flows in, kvetches flow out:

 _The person in the center ring can say anything she wants to anyone, anywhere. She can kvetch and complain and whine and moan and curse the heavens and say, "Life is unfair" and "Why me?" That's the one payoff for being in the center ring._

 _Everyone else can say those things too, but only to people in larger rings._

Those who cannot (or will not) grasp and follow the concept are excluded.

The article also has another really wonderful piece of advice: that sometimes simply listening is the support that's needed. I've been on both the giving and receiving sides of that, and I'm not aware of when it's not been appreciated (though as with other advice -- people may differ, be sensitive to their needs).

One more thought: at least in Western cultures, there's often a profound lack of awareness of how to deal with death, impending death, or recent death. That's something which could use improving (and no, I'm not suggesting a YC opportunity). I very much appreciate Pieter's occasional communications for helping with that, at least here.

<comment><USER47> > It still makes me furiously mad: preying on sick people and those about the > clinging desperately to any possible hope, in full knowledge that you're > peddling bullshit. And those who get swept up in this and pass on the > misinformation. Maybe that's why I've cracked down on online disinformation > as well. It's not just duty calling...

Single thing that flips me off on social media is seeing my friends pollute my wall with memes claiming things like "cannabis cures 7 out of 10 cancer occurences, vote legalize!" or "vitamin b17 is scientifically proven to cure cancer, FDA & Big Pharma made sure those scientists are gone."

Most of time I let it slip, but sometimes I politely try debunk the meme in the comments, hoping that at least some fellow readers would follow on my arguments and use it to widen their knowledge.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> First, for the general Reader: Outside of really breast/ovarian cancer, getting most common cancers at a young age is fairly within your control. [http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/upshot/helpless-to- prevent...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/upshot/helpless-to-prevent- cancer-actually-a-lot-is-in-your-control.html)

Pieter doesn't have a common cancer and he's way beyond that stage within stage IV cancer. In general it's really rude to say "fight more" because he's right, what do you think these patients are doing instead, joining the circus? Fighting isn't a great metaphor. The reason it got introduced was so that Reagan would create the National Cancer Institute, a Division of the NIH. A full page ad was taken out by Mary Lasker and the American Cancer Society to convince him that researching the causes and cures for cancer was a US healthcare priority (and to be frank, at the time, it essentially was) asking him to declare war on cancer in the NY times because the US was in the middle of the cold war. The other thing that the add did (along with the creation of the Jimmy Fund) was it normalized discussions of cancer in the US at that time. To explain how much of a big deal that ad was, my maternal grandmother died around 1973-1974 of cancer. The ad came out in 1969. My maternal grandfather is only now settling the argument if it was metastasis of her internal breast cancer from when she was younger, new breast cancer that spread to the bones, or a totally new bone cancer, because now we talk about cancer, whereas in 1969 -73 talking about cancer was difficult if not possible.

\----

Aa a personal note to Pieter, if he sees this: 1) I'm extraordinarily happy you are doing as well as you are in your end of days and I hope you are enjoying them to your fullest. i hope, for whatever it's worth, you are still experiencing moments of joy too. 2)im slightly concerned as an American about your distrust of marijuna at this stage, especially since it seems like low pain and enjoying food is a high priority for you. In the US, marijuna is partially approved (don't ask) for cancer patients as an appetite stimulant and pain suppressor, and many of the chemicals in it are made synthetically and prescribed to cancer patients for the same purpose. Meanwhile, many opiates are appetite suppressants (that's the other reason behind the Medrol). Since you deserve to enjoy your time and have as many thalis as you want, just think about it. (Again, I'll totally admit that this is a bias of seeing Americans treated) 3)do you need help getting the paperwork done. On a percentage scale, how much is left? How much can be done by volunteers/family/friends? (And I hate asking this, how much is in English, because I'm happy to volunteer, but I'm an English speaker...) 4)thalis. Mmmm. Thalis.

<comment><USER17> I've no specific distrust of marijuana as a pain killer and appetite booster during chemo. If oil/butter was readily available I'd be using it rather than opiates. I'm not going to smoke marijuana because it's hard enough to breathe already (the metastasis is filling my lungs up). Yet I'd have to get it illegally here. While Belgium is ahead in some areas, it lags in others.

Paperwork... is just work. I've a complex situation, made worse by some, let's say, recalcitrant spirits. No pity for the dying, in some quarters. The summer months in Belgium are dead, which makes it harder to reach the necessary people. I do appreciate the offer of help though :-)

<comment><USER48> Are the derivatives in pill form legal? Are there any provisions to allow the dying in belgium (would your doctor or someone here on HackerNews know?)

You deserve to enjoy the time you have

And the summer months appear to be dead throughout the west. eh. It seems to be a thing

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Quitting Twitter. Not quitting Twitter.

Dying. Not dying.

Sustrik is God. Sustrik is Satan.

What's up with this guy.

</nasty-joke-from-big-hintjens-fan>

<comment><USER50> Cancer is a horrible disease that I would not wish on anyone, but getting cancer is not a judgement. It won't make you a saint. Nor the reverse. The inevitably flawed person is going to be is much the same as they were before the diagnosis.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> Unfortunately, despite what this article says, there _is_ a choice between fighting cancer or not: The best way to give up is stopping to eat (which probably isn't that hard if things like chemotherapy and severe illness pretty much remove any feelings of hunger).

<comment><USER17> Oh there are lots of ways to give up. I could refuse palliative chemotherapy, stop eating, overdose on opiates, drink a large glass of scotch together with my drugs, and so on. Yet when people say "you must fight" they don't generally mean, "take your meds and eat two full meals a day, and try to feel positive!"

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> I lost both my parents last year to cancer. Both were Christians, and so am I.

I know many people find Christianity and the subject of faith to be uncomfortable, even offensive. But that's because the Christian message _is_ offensive. It makes claims that exclude all other options, that evil is real and that we are responsible for it. To me, either the message is true or it isn't. There is no grey. Either Jesus Christ was a liar, a lunatic, a legend, or He is Lord God Almight.

Penn Jillette, the famous atheist and half of Penn and Teller had it right, that if we removed all the scientific research in the world we would be able to rebuild it all, but religions would be all different. I agree with him, and so does the Bible. It says that God reached down to us, delivered messages in ways that statistically rule out purely human effort, and gave us a choice to trust Him or not (have a look at [http://thebibleproject.com](http://thebibleproject.com)) . In the end, everyone's going to get what they want (if you want Jesus Christ you get him, if you don't you won't). That's why for my Dad and I, we both had to be convinced that the Bible was not simply human in origin.

Whatever your view, I can only speak to my own experience. The loss of my mom September 1st, 2015 to double-hit lymphoma was very, very painful (she was 68). But in the midst of the pain was a hope and peace as explained in Philippians 4:4-9 ([http://bit.ly/phil4_4-9](http://bit.ly/phil4_4-9)). Then, unexpectedly 120 days later, my dad died from lung cancer (age 72), leaving my brothers and sisters and I with a property and 47 years of marriage and memories for us to sort through and deal with.

We are all going to die. The question is not if but when. To put off the discussion about what happens after you die is to deny reality itself, and telling others not to have that discussion or that their position is stupid or foolish is really dumb. Oh, and in case you think the Christian message is foolish, the Bible agrees with you that it is [http://bit.ly/1cor1_18-25](http://bit.ly/1cor1_18-25)

<comment><USER53> In addition to unwarranted positivity, unwanted diet advice, and alternative medicine suggestions, I'd add one more to his list of "creatures skulking about": unwanted religious messages. As a non-Christian, if I were dying of cancer I'd really want to not spend my remaining time hearing about stuff like this. If it works for you, great, but to others who aren't sold on it, it comes off as univited at best and rude or offensive at worst.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Anyone else noticed very poor eBay desktop site performance? - <AUTHOR> I have noticed this across multiple devices. Works okay with ad blocking but without it is overloaded with adtech, affecting both load time and page performance (6 events attached to scrolling for example).<p>No idea why they run all these display ads, if many people are getting the same performance they would be shooting themselves in the foot with all the lost sales. <comment><USER2> Yes, I first noticed it about 9 years ago when I first created an account. It's been that way for so long that people just accept it.

As a work around I have starting 'sniping' a little earlier, around 24 hours before the auction ends seems to be the sweet spot, if I submit my final bid then the post and response resolves with about 10 seconds left before the auction end</comment>


Problems in Mathematics - <AUTHOR> https://yutsumura.com/ <comment><USER2> Ahh, "problems", not _problems_ :)

I thought this was going to be about the abc conjecture.

[https://www.quantamagazine.org/titans-of-mathematics- clash-o...](https://www.quantamagazine.org/titans-of-mathematics-clash-over- epic-proof-of-abc-conjecture-20180920/)

</comment><comment><USER3> There is also Problems in Analytic Number Theory, which teaches the field as a series of problems and exercises. It's a great way to learn, and one that I haven't seen implemented well in other areas (even the corresponding book for Algebraic Number Theory isn't as good) [https://www.amazon.com/Problems- Analytic-Number-Graduate-Mat...](https://www.amazon.com/Problems-Analytic- Number-Graduate-Mathematics/dp/0387723498)

</comment><comment><USER4> I would really like to see something like this for probability

<comment><USER5> [https://www.statlect.com/fundamentals-of- probability/probabi...](https://www.statlect.com/fundamentals-of- probability/probability-questions)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> For some reason, all of the links are opening in new tabs. Is there any way for me to configure my browser to ignore the html and not do this? (A way to revert to system default scrolling would also be nice.)

<comment><USER7> A link normalizing addon would be cool, add some safe rel tags and a setting to prefer new tab/same tab

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Don't recall learning Group Theory, Ring Theory, Field Theory, Galois Theory, or Module Theory in my undergrad math classes. Did cover linear algebra though.

<comment><USER9> All of those are typically in a single undergraduate course on abstract algebra. Depending on the specific course you might only touch on Galois theory and modules, but you'll definitely get exposure to both. Most undergraduate textbooks will have a chapter/section devoted to each of those topics.

<comment><USER10> Is this going by the quarter system or a semester system? I can't imagine doing groups, rings, and fields in a single quarter with significant rigor. That would suck.

<comment><USER9> Semester system. The first half of the semester would be groups and rings.

<comment><USER11> I haven't yet seen an algebra class that would start from scratch, define groups and rings for the first time, and do commutative algebra with modules, and fields with Galois theory in a single semester. Usually these take around 2 semesters.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The American Middle Class Is No Longer the World's Richest - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/upshot/the-american-middle-class-is-no-longer-the-worlds-richest.html?smid=tw-upshotnyt&_r=1 <comment><USER2> Doesn't comparing income _after tax_ make it a bit of an apples and oranges comparison to begin with? Those taxes don't disappear. Those taxes buy services (national healthcare and free education comes to mind) that US middle class citizens would have to pay for with their net income. Would be interesting to see a quality of life comparison (if such a thing can be reliably quantified)

<comment><USER3> But then I suppose you'd also need to compare the quality? Is the free healthcare paid for taxes as good as the paid healthcare after taxes? I'm not saying it is or it isn't, just makes it hard to compare. If someone doesn't take advantage of the free education what then?

Also so much of US taxes goes to military, which countries like Canada benefit from, in a sense our military spending subsidizes Canadian healthcare.

<comment><USER4> That argument might've held sway prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union, but I don't think that's been true for the past 25 years :).

<comment><USER5> No, it's certainly been true. Many world economics have avoided military buildups by piggy-backing on the back of the US buildup. In fact I've seen credible arguments that it has actually contributed to world peace significantly to have the US building up the way it has, yes, even despite the wars the US sometimes engaged in, by making it not worth it for anybody else of significant size. The rule about "democracies not going to war" may in fact have been false... it may merely have been Pax Americana happening to coincide with a lot of democracies.

As America becomes "enlightened" ( _heavy_ scare quotes) and withdraws its military umbrella, a strange world is left behind... how does Europe feel about having effectively no military with which to counter Russia's growing imperial ambitions? It's officially all smiles (or forced grins) while they're stuck depending on Russia now, but I'm sure wheels are spinning behind closed doors even now. If the US elects another President with ambitions to back off the foreign involvement even more, or if the situation deteriorates enough more on this one's watch, what are the odds that Europe has to start building up? And how many other places will have to follow?

And how will a social-benefit-addicted continent react to having to fund a military again? They certainly won't be able to maintain the current level of social commitments everywhere.

Maybe the US shouldn't be enforcing Pax Americana depending on your own personal values, but don't think for one second it hasn't had its benefits even outside of the US, and don't think that the end of Pax Americana is somehow going to occur with a burst of rainbows and puppies, where we go from one dominantly-powerful military to zero. The number can _only_ go up.

<comment><USER6> "effectively no military"

That's a slight overstatement - the countries of the EU spend 38% of what the US spend on it's military - which given the arguable massive overspend of the US doesn't look completely unreasonable to me.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_European_Union](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_European_Union)

Now of course what Europe doesn't have is strong unified leadership in these areas - which, given our history, is probably no bad thing although not the greatest thing to have at the moment.

Russia spends less that the UK and France combined on defense:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_e...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures)

<comment><USER5> The real difference between militaries is projection power. The US can credibly project most of its power all over the world. The European military certainly exists, but it's projection capabilities are greatly less than the US', even on a per-dollar/per-Euro basis. It could defend itself against a straight-up Russian attack (which is precisely why that will not be happening anytime soon), but it leaves Europe without pieces when Russia is playing chess on the world stage [1]. If Europe would be starting to assert itself more thoroughly in the world, against credible threats, it would need to spend a great deal more money to do so.

[1]: Diplomacy is not chess, but it has chess-like elements (along with the poker-like elements). Trying to play diplomacy without the ability to threaten anything, even with no real intent or prospect of following through on the threat, leaves you with a proportionally much weaker portion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> According to the graphs, the US middle class is actually still doing pretty good. I was expecting it to do a lot worse than that of many European countries, but there's only a few countries that have overtaken the US middle class, and then just barely.

Puts all those articles about the weak US middle class in perspective.

The real travesty is at the bottom. The worst 10% are actually doing worse now than 30 years ago. The few groups above that didn't benefit at all from the enormous economic growth of the past decades. The extreme growth of the wealthiest 10% is simply outrageous by comparison. But the middle class isn't doing quite as badly as I expected.

<comment><USER8> > The extreme growth of the wealthiest 10% is simply outrageous by comparison

Is the bottom decile worse off _because_ the top decile is better off? I don't think so, I think everyone is better off with Gates, Jobs, Page, Brin making tons of money. Wealth is not a zero sum game. Don't get me wrong, I want to see a world where everyone can support themselves and provide for their families. I just don't think having super rich people prevents that from happening, I think it is just the opposite. The Gates Foundation is a million times more effective than any gang of UN Bureaucrats.

<comment><USER9> Well, if you consider that the top decile is the reason why American factories close up shop and all of the bottom decile loses their jobs as a result of cost-cutting measures by the top decile to increase their own bonus package, then yes, the bottom is worse off because of the top.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I think the article should have compared the US with the Australian middle class, as it would be more relatable to Americans. Australia has the lowest tax burden amongst developed countries, a fair, means-tested welfare system that targets those who actually need it, and a highly innovative, effective government that remains smaller than the US government. Australia strikes a good balance between capitalism and social welfare, IMO. Link to sources below[1].

And Americans, especially if they live in the northeast or California, pay very high income taxes, and get almost nothing in return compared to other developed nations. We have to pay high university tuition in cash, and don't get healthcare, either. So keep in mind while an American will use that after- tax income to pay back student loans and purchase expensive health insurance (self-employed, anyone?), the Australians and Europeans et al aren't.

[1] How Australia's Low Tax Egalitarianism Confounds the World : [http://www.cis.org.au/images/stories/policy- magazine/2010-su...](http://www.cis.org.au/images/stories/policy- magazine/2010-summer/26-4-10-david-alexander.pdf)

<comment><USER11> This has always confounded me why people like to point to Europe as the best example for free social services. When in fact, both political parties here could be looking at Australia for their talking points.

I agree that Australia seems to have a very good balance of capitalism and social welfare programs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Comparing income after taxes doesn't seem very useful to me: In many countries, especially in Europe, things like health insurance, schooling and universities, pension and many more are "included" in the taxes you pay, so even if the available income in USD is lower, the effective purchasing power will probably be on par or even higher in my opinion.

Also, these income comparisons don't take into account that Europeans usually work much less than Americans: In Germany and France most employees only work 30-40 hours per week, and have usually at least 30 days of paid vacation per year.

I wonder if there are studies that try to take these things into account.

</comment><comment><USER13> As a Canadian, I would like to suggest an alternative title :)

"The Canadian Middle Class is Now the World's Richest"

</comment><comment><USER14> and why should it be the richest? anything special about it being "American"?

i would wager the the stats aren't the full truth. it lists german middle class below, which is hilarious - income alone doesn't mean shit in countries with top notch public infrastructure and well organised health care. that US middle class family needs to pay health insurance on top, if their kids want to go to college an ever increasing tuition, pretty likely need multiple cars to get anywhere and have less vacation time.

if more US citizens would travel their view on how much they're getting ripped off would change drastically. US immigrants from india, china, africa still get an improvement, but for northern Europeans, incl the Swiss, Austrians, moving here is a step down in a lot of factors.

"world's richest" \- haha.

<comment><USER15> Germany had to re-assimilate East Germany during the time of the graphs, as well. I suspect that accounts for the downward spike and then recovery in their incomes.

<comment><USER16> I have occasionally thought, not kidding either, that the only hope for the future for most Americans is being invaded by Canada, perhaps after one of our periodic financial collapses.

Other than the Hockey and Poutine thing, I can't imagine the general public having anything to complain about in that scenario.

<comment><USER17> Maybe three down football wouldn't go over so well either.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Wait until the divide between thee rich-middle/poor class becomes so great we turn into Mexico; where the rich are kidnapped while sipping coffee, and the police could care less.

The rich take so much for granted. By the way a lot of you tech guys are considered middle class now; but with the low barrier to entry of this world-- I see a vast shift to the poverty level in just a few years.

<comment><USER19> In the modern USA, the rich wield too much political power to be kidnapped and ignored by police. Also note that the USA doesn't have a severe gang problem like Mexico does.

And low barrier to entry? Maybe, but I keep hearing all the time about companies not being able to find the talent and experience in people that they need/want.

<comment><USER20> USA doesn't have a severe gang problem only if you look the other way (which is easy to do, as wealth is, it isn't distributed equally). Those Mexican gangs all have subsidiaries in the USA for a start...

Violence in the USA is not on the civil war level of Mexico, but still three times the level of neighboring Canada... See e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Canada's more liberal immigration policy, which is attracting educated and highly skilled immigrants, may have something to do with their doing so well. Over time the average education level and IQ of Canadians should end up higher than Americans.

Thankfully the US still attracts the very best immigrant entrepreneurs, such as Elon Musk.

<comment><USER22> Canada does not have a strong entrepreneurial culture, however. While there is a fairly new program for startups, the immigration policy is generally geared towards bringing in people for traditional jobs, which tends to have the opposite effect on incomes.

What did happen in the mid-2000s was a rise in commodity prices. By 2010 we were seeing record high prices for some commodities. Commodities are what Canada does and it stands to reason that incomes for everyone will tend to rise as demand for extracting those commodities increases.

<comment><USER23> I'm not sure how true this is anymore. There have been numerous changes in the last decade that have made the environment very entrepreneur-friendly. It's still a mixed bag, true ... but things do look like they're on an upswing here. Link below is to a 2013 report (Canada at a glance)

[http://www.ey.com/CA/en/Services/Strategic-Growth- Markets/G2...](http://www.ey.com/CA/en/Services/Strategic-Growth- Markets/G20-Entrepreneurship-Barometer-2013-Entrepreneurship-culture)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I see many comments pointing out that European nations spend more on public benefits like healthcare. This is demonstrably false. The US gov't spends more on healthcare - per taxpayer - than do European nations.

The US government is simply extremely inefficient and wasteful. But the money is spent.

Here's a chart. Note that in the US, public health spending accounts for 45% of total health spending:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Total_health_expenditure_p...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Total_health_expenditure_per_capita,_US_Dollars_PPP.png)

</comment><comment><USER25> The gap between the US and the rest of the West is clearly (if you look at the charts) closing due to rapid catch-up growth from the others, not decline in the US.

Wouldn't it be kind of odd if the rest of the developed world did not catch up to US lifestyle standards with the spread of technology and capital?

</comment><comment><USER26> It would be interesting to see these graphs for discretionary income, or at least income compared to cost of living. I moved to Europe and part of that means I no longer need to own a car, saving a good deal. I also find I spend less on energy and rent (but perhaps that's because I lived in very expensive places in the US before; the bay area and Santa Monica). I _feel_ much wealthier than I was before, but I wonder how much of that is due to lower overhead? Would the average person experience the same?

</comment><comment><USER27> I think it would be better to break up the data into a per state comparison with Europe countries. I think of the states as vastly different from state to state. NY vs Florida for example.

</comment><comment><USER28> How much of this can be explained by exchange rates, i.e. the falling US dollar vs other major world currencies in the last 10-15 years? Those plots are all in US dollars, so I would expect if all else is equal that non-US salaries would go up just from that.

I'm not an expert on this stuff, is the falling exchange rate in any way a symptom of the underlying issue, a cause, both, neither? Everytime I try to reason through exchange rates and the world economy I get a headache.

</comment><comment><USER29> My takeaway: our median income is still higher than pretty much everywhere except Canada, which has caught up with the US.

<comment><USER30> Hey yeah when you ignore all the results for the _50%_ of the population below the median, things look pretty rosy! USA USA!

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I had no idea that the bar for middle class was so low. Most of us here are nowhere near middle class status. Not that it matters, but before now I would've considered myself and most of us to be.

<comment><USER32> In the US, the mean annual wage across all occupations in 2013 was $46,440. (Source: [http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#00-0000](http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#00-0000))

My experience is that most college-educated people don't really understand this, because they look at themselves and everyone they know and extrapolate their definition of "the middle class" from what that population makes, which skews their perspective considerably. So you get discussions about how people making $100,000/year or $250,000/year are "middle class," when statistically speaking they are very much not.

<comment><USER33> One useful economic definition of middle class is obtained by applying Frederick Strobel's distinction between those who are labor-dependent those who are capital-enhanced.

The middle class are the ones who fluctuate between the two categories: They have to keep working, but as long as they do, they have some surplus income. If they spend too much and go into debt, their surplus income goes away, and they have to work more.

This is useful because it explains how some can consider themselves to be "working class" or "middle class" and yet have income that is both above average and above median. They still have working class (or middle class) anxieties, mostly because of their local economy or their bad spending habits.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Another thing besides taxes that the analysis doesn't take into account is that Europeans work less.

</comment><comment><USER35> I think measuring income using the _median_ income is too blunt.

So if the distribution for the US looks like this:

$10K, $20K, $30K, $50K, $100K

And another country looks like this:

$10K, $20K, $40K, $50K, $60K

We're going to say the US is "poorer"?

<comment><USER22> The people in the middle are still poorer in your example. The article doesn't suggest the richest Americans are poorer than the richest people in other countries.

<comment><USER35> My point still stands. I wouldn't define the "middle class" as the median salary. It's a band around the median. Throw in a couple higher salaries just above the median and a country could have a wealthier middle class, but the median is lower.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> "Median per capita income was $18,700 in the United States in 2010 (which translates to about $75,000 for a family of four after taxes), up 20 percent since 1980 but virtually unchanged since 2000, after adjusting for inflation. "

This is incredible. Since 2000, there is no increase in median per capita income after adjusting for inflation ? Statistics like this bring in the 1% question at times and the comparison between the really rich and the rest of the population.

<comment><USER37> Also multiplying the median income by four seems absurd. My children certainly don't bring home the bacon like that. I seriously doubt that the median family of fours income is anywhere near 4 times the median personal income.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> It's interesting that the graphs there exclude a few countries with higher GDP per capita than the US, such as Switzerland, Hong Kong and Singapore. I imagine the numbers for the US would look less favourable if such comparisons were made.

</comment><comment><USER39> I'm not sure why being #1 is so important. Who cares where our position is in the ranks as long as we are happy with our state. If we aren't happy we can make improvements, but again it's not a race so how we compare to others doesn't really seem significant unless we are far behind. I suppose the real significance is the trends, but I guess that doesn't strike at the heart strings of the common person as losing at some newspaper editor's arbitrary rules for a game nobody knew we were playing.

</comment><comment><USER40> I urge people to check out Sweden once in their lives, it's such an open and fair place in comparison to most countries in the world. Even though I'm reading a lot of anarcho-capitalist theory recently (yes, because I like Bitcoin) I still believe all of the liberals miss (or subconsciously omit?) some fundamental social truths which the Swedes seem to recognize pretty consciously.

<comment><USER41> Could you give some examples of the social truths? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm finding myself becoming less and less liberal and want to know what exactly you're talking about.

<comment><USER40> To me it ultimately boils down to fairness and having a sense of "being in this together". A very good example to me is the firefighter mentioned in the article, he probably does a much more productive job (saving lives) than someone like myself who might get lucky in playing the entrepreneurial / technologist bootstrapping game by striking it rich with some cost-reducing / profit-boosting tool-building. Alas, it's problematic to make these kind of comparisons though (you could argue some tool saves even more lifes, etc).

The "smells" of extreme ideology..

In any case I still believe it's fair to try to spread the wealth more evenly as you and I couldn't even build stuff without the solid framework of society.

I answered your question somewhat in another comment in this article's thread:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7628811](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7628811)

<comment><USER42> Can you give us a Swedish perspective on the Wallenberg family? Who apparently "In the 1990s indirectly controlled a third of Swedish GNP."

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallenberg_family](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallenberg_family)

<comment><USER40> Sorry, I'm actually from Austria I don't really know anything about that, interesting though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> The result here is pretty interesting, but the characterization ol of being about the middle class is wrong. Median income doesn't define middle class, middle class is generally defined as elite workers (professionals and executives) that are still primarily workers rather than capitalists. Median income workers are generally working-class, not middle class.

<comment><USER44> Middle-class is a fuzzy concept, but more-or-less of half of Americans consider themselves middle-class or upper-middle-class.

[http://www.gallup.com/poll/159029/americans-likely-say- belon...](http://www.gallup.com/poll/159029/americans-likely-say-belong- middle-class.aspx)

<comment><USER43> Yeah, but the days where that was arguably even approximately true -- when a majority or something reasonably close to it of Americans were in middle class (as well as professionals and executives, yeoman farmers -- a formerly very common thing in the US, but now vanishingly rare -- are part of the middle class -- as are others whose primary support is independent business that they own but which is still dependent on their labor [if it wasn't, they'd be straight-up upper class capitalists]) -- are past. Now, most of the Americans who identify as middle class are working class whose identification reflects aspiration rather than reality.

<comment><USER44> For me to agree with you, I would have to agree with the premise that we know better about class labels than Americans at large. I would not presume so much.

If 100% of Americans consider themselves "middle-class", it doesn't bother me. At the end of the day it's all semantics and disagreeing about what "middle- class" means is not interesting.

You clearly have some opinions about shortcomings of the American labor market. Perhaps there's a better way to phrase your concerns that would further the discussion in a more substantive direction.

<comment><USER43> > You clearly have some opinions about shortcomings of the American labor > market.

Not that are relevant to this discussion -- I just have a belief that there is a difference between _being_ middle class (the class between the working class and the capitalist class, at least, in the usual definition applicable in post-feudal economies) and _identifying_ as middle class.

Historically, the working class being larger than the other two combined is the norm and America's brief period with a very large middle class was something of an aberration resulting from the rapid application of agriculture by a small population to a large land area before that agriculture was effectively consolidated by large commercial entities.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I'd love to see a comparison between the U.S. and all of Europe. In a way Greece and Spain are the European version of our lower income brackets. There's no real equivalent of our upper 1% in Europe but I think Americans would be complaining a lot less if the distribution at the bottom was fairer.

</comment><comment><USER46> If this is truly the case, then we in technology must take much of the blame.

Over the past 30 years--even the past 15--automation of tasks which were once done by people in the lower-to-mid tiers of the middle class. Word processors have replaced secretarial pools. Robots have replace assembly line workers. Self-service web-sites have replaced data entry clerks. "On-line" (web, e-mail,etc) have replaced tellers, postal workers, etc.

I know I'm personally responsible (due to proposing and implementing automation projects) for replacing over 1500 people since 1995. Is this a good thing or a bad? I don't know. The Industrial Revolution killed off craftsmen, but created millions of other jobs. The question is, what will the Technology Revolution leave in its wake?

So before we start pontificating on taxes, social welfare programs, and ever increasing calls for "wealth distribution"\--remember to look in the mirror and ask how many people's jobs have you eliminated today?

<comment><USER44> > If this is truly the case, then we in technology must take much of the > blame.

Except technology also saves lives, keeps people connected across large distances, makes work safer, democratizes creativity, and innumerable other benefits.

The Industrial Revolution also killed off farm jobs and many domestic jobs but baling hay by hand and scrubbing laundry with a washboard are certainly steps backward.

If the problem is that some workers cannot earn a living, then let's look a policies that solve that problem directly (like a more aggressive earned income tax credit).

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> The graph/animation of inflation-adjusted after-tax income over time by percentile is one of the nicest data visualizations I've ever seen. Simple, pretty, descriptive.

</comment><comment><USER48> Another America-not-best-at-something,-what-a-travesty. Somewhere out there, there is a bald eagle crying his salty, manly tears.</comment>