The Socratic Method: Teaching by Asking Instead of by Telling - <AUTHOR> http://www.garlikov.com/Soc_Meth.html <comment><USER4> The Socratic method as practiced by Socrates and described by Plato was used with a handful of interlocutors at most and often with only one. The responses were individual not collective.

That's what bothers me about the article. It's about instructing a class, a way of going through motions, not about teaching any individual. What about the third grader who doesn't know Roman numerals? What about the one who can't read "ten"? What about the one who has only eaten a bag of Cheetos in the past 24 hours? Or the kid on the autism spectrum and the one who saw his mother beaten by her boyfriend last night and just about every other night for as long as he can remember?

How does this work when the 11 year old third grader hits Jamison in the back of the head with a book and the quiet girl wants to use the restroom because she is sobbing just like yesterday?

The reality of third grade isn't theoretical. Yeah there are little pods of protected well cared for children. There may even be a sweet spot where none are smart asses and love the call and response and each is equally bright and learns the same way. Just look for the full pony rack by the school front door and the M&M truck backed to the cafeteria loading dock.

The fount of well meaning amateur pedagogy is not the solution to the woes of public education. The lesson of the article is that kids can be incredibly kind and polite to adults.

[Edit: None of which is to say that I think trying to teach the ideas of boolean algebra to 3rd graders isn't a good idea. I'm all for pushing the limits of children's intellect.]

<comment><USER5> I think public education is completely broken and has gotten worse over the years. Other countries seem to achieve better outcomes for a lot less money. Perhaps they do not have such poor parenting that allows their children to hit others or to sob all day.

The reason for amateur pedagogy is that the professionals have completely screwed it up. Look at the controversy over "no child left behind" or "common core" or "STEM." The experts do not agree on anything, which means the body of knowledge is very weak. I think it is time for amateurs to step in.

<comment><USER6> >Look at the controversy over "no child left behind" or "common core" or "STEM." The experts do not agree on anything, which means the body of knowledge is very weak. I think it is time for amateurs to step in.<

In the case of Common Core, the amateurs _have_ stepped in, in the form of politicians, parents and media who fail to realize that the standards were developed and agreed upon by a team of professional educators representing nearly every state in the country. Those same amateurs are stoking fear and paranoia with baseless claims about "the federal government deciding what my kid should learn". They even fail to recognize that the CC is not a curriculum.

<comment><USER7> To be fair, every example of Common Core I've ever seen only succeeded in confusing the hell out of me. I understand that everyone should have the same foundation, but not everyone learns the same way and Common Core seems to gloss that over.

Basically, I think it's gone a little to far by saying "how" something should be taught.

<comment><USER4> I didn't understand common core. But I have observed it working well for my child. I had the same experience of questioning the content until I saw the results when my child was at a Montessori preschool years earlier. That's how I know I'm an amateur.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> After reading Plato's dialogues I went through a phase of having Socratic dialogues with people instead of arguing with them. I found, as had the Greek citizens 2.5 millennia ago, that having someone question you Socratically is super annoying and condescending. At least I didn't annoy them so badly that they sentenced me to death.

Which isn't to say that the method can't be used profitably in some settings. Just not general life. The moment where the people you're talking to have an epiphany and thank you for it is a fiction.

<comment><USER9> I think the challenge is to ask people questions in a way that isn't condescending, where you're not necessarily trying to corner them into some preconceived position.

My boss has a great way of asking questions– he precedes them with "just out of curiosity...", and I always get the sense that he's really, genuinely curious. He's gotten me to think about things that I hadn't even considered before, and I'm very thankful for it. I've grown to adopt it myself, and I've found it helpful even in my marriage and in my friendships.

There are many different ways to say something like, "Hey, I notice that this happened– any idea why that is?"

With the right tone and body language, people just open up. It's wonderful.

<comment><USER10> > With the right tone and body language, people just open up. It's wonderful.

Also, your boss might be genuinely curious. A lot of people who employ this technique precompute trajectory for arriving at their conclusion. They're often right, but the times when they're wrong are really interesting.

Bottom line - I agree with you. Don't be condescending, because you might learn something from the people around you. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Of course the Socratic method is effective, but it is also _subversive_ \--it encourages people to think for themselves, an endless source of trouble for those preferring that we do not. It must have been the issue in ancient Greek times, recalling the incident with Socrates and the hemlock...

A great example of the method's use in teaching programming was/is the "Little Schemer" series (by Freidman and Felleisen). As a book for beginners it goes amazingly deep, if only the reader will follow. Once in a while I enjoy going down that path again, and it never fails to stir me to _think_ and learn.

Isn't that what an excellent teacher or book is supposed to do? Sure, present it in a "sneaky", fun way, it's even better, and all the more dangerous.

<comment><USER12> I was about to write a comment about The Little Schemer series myself. It is one of the most captivating CS books I've read.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Socratic method is quite effective in introducing new subjects or "ways of thinking" that are new to someone, by making them ask questions about what they know. But there's no need to generalize everything in Education and say one method of teaching suits all things, it works in some stuff and fails in others or is less intriguing when the answers are more obvious. But the material can revolve around questions sometimes.

</comment><comment><USER14> Socratic method is the typical way of teaching classes in law school, and I personally found it a lot more engaging than lecturing. It's easy to think you understand a concept by reading it, then realize when the professor prods you to think about the corner cases that your original understanding was superficial.

That said, you need small class sizes for it to work. It's impossible for the professor to have a proper dialogue with 60 people in a room, much less the 100+ you might see in an introductory undergraduate course. Which is unfortunate because it's those introductory courses, where students are learning how to think in a new field, where Socratic dialogue is the most helpful. In my opinion, class sizes trends in higher education are backwards-- massive lecture halls for freshman and small collegial classrooms for seniors.

<comment><USER15> It will work in a large group IF most of the people in the group are as attentive to the responses of (and to) others as they would be to their own responses and to responses to them. That is often, but not always, the case. And as others have pointed out here, the questioner has to be engaging and personable in ways that help make it stimulating, over and above just the content of the topic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I believe that the socratic way could really big the next revolution in education... Not the iPad...

The point is, how do we bring that into books ? (And this is the wrong/easy way to look at the problem, the one that we cannot really solve, and will be pretty meaningless to solve anyway.)

Or even better, how can we apply the socratic method without a Socrate ? (where with Socrate I mean somebody who keep asking question)

<comment><USER17> The part that the article leaves out is that when you go home after having been led so magically to a place you could've not gotten to yourself - <USER2> still have to sit down and comprehend it and work through it by solving similar problems and re-tracing your steps.

Just because you were able to grasp it temporarily in class, does not mean you'll get to keep it when the excellent teacher is not around.

It is a lot like when somebody guides you through cooking something step by step with you doing all the work. It is definitely great because it inspires confidence in you doing new things. But when you are by yourself and you try to repeat the experience, you'll stumble and fumble quite a bit.

So in short - teaching anything using logical steps makes a lot of sense and is a great way to do it. Caveat: you still have to put in the work to solidify that knowledge.

Problem being: solidifying things is oftentimes tedious unless the task you're learning is intrinsically interesting/pleasing (solving math puzzles is just fun for some folks), so there is no revolution around the corner. People will put up with a lot if they have the natural dexterity for it, good teachers/methodology makes the whole experience more pleasant is all :)

<comment><USER16> Hummm...

I am not sure I agree completely, what you mean by "knowledge" ?

Let's suppose I don't know how to multiply numbers, however I do know how to add numbers and I also know what multiplication is... Do I know how to multiply numbers ?

The real caveat here is another one, the author prepared a sequence a question, for what I can recall from my philosophy class Socrate did not...

It was more a random exploration...

Finally we all know that some work is necessary to retain knowledge (again, what we mean by knowledge ?), but a logic, inductive work is way more enjoyable (read easier) than a mere mnemonic one.

<comment><USER17> The point I was trying to make is very simple - the article presented a way to teach kids by getting them to a place using questions.

He/she left out the part where you have to go home and solidify what you learned in class. That's where kids will struggle.

That home part is not solved by socratic method or otherwise. Nothing solves it, except doing the work.

All the socratic way of teaching in a classroom does, is make it more fun and interactive than a traditional lecture. If it gets people excited about learning, they may feel more inclined to put in the work at home.

Hence what you were proposing - putting the socratic method in a book, doesn't make sense to me. In a book, you want concise explanations. In a lecture, you do want more interactivity to get people excited to go home and look up the concise information.

That's my take on it anyway. I don't know where you were going with defining 'knowledge' \- I don't find defining words useful, as long as we both know what we're talking about, we should be fine :)

<comment><USER15> This was about one lesson, and yes that lesson needs reinforcement. But part of that was being done by those students who were inspired to try it with other mathematical "bases", such as base 3 -- a system with 3 digits. Also, in a full course, if you consistently and frequently use the Socratic method or any method that questions students' logic, many of them begin to do that on their own about their logic or, usually, the logic of other people, even the teacher. I have had students come up with good flaws in my own logic, by the middle or end of the term. But yes, it takes reinforcement.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> That guy's whole website is incredibly interesting. I may not agree with all of his viewpoints, but it's hard to deny that he argues them in a more unbiased and rational way than almost all writings I've encountered.

</comment><comment><USER19> IMHO, I really do believe how Socratic Method can improve teaching. Coming from a computer science degree and then studying Law, this method was really an eye opener on how to learn in a school room setup. It has been long used in Law schools and I believe if it can be implemented partly or fully in all schools, we might see good results. It tests the knowledge of the person being asked, whether he/she really understands the subject.

<comment><USER20> I do believe in it too, but so far it's only a belief. I accept the question first method because it avoids the rote learning since it doesn't give a lot of information to the student, and merely drives him through ideas. Which was the case every time I learned something, being left mostly alone in a concept and poking at it until something clicks. That said, I never experienced a real Socratic class.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> This is an awesome example. What would be an example of teaching the socratic method itself using the socratic method? Bootstrapping teaching methods works as a test of their validity :)

</comment><comment><USER22> It's a good interactive method to constantly challenge yourself into remembering and learning material.

Basically, what you're supposed to do when you're actively reading material. I never really learned how to study until later in life but apparently this is how you're supposed to do it.

I think we don't see it a lot in many classrooms because of economy of scale. When I was in school, we had a professor who did this with his smaller class on computer networks but seems like maybe didn't in his larger classes. He'd ask questions but so many people trying to answer, less time for personal answers (which was fine with me since I was always the slowest person in the room).

<comment><USER23> I was fortunate in my schooling. From 6-11 I was at a boarding school in the country, and we had classes of 12 or so at the most.

The three science and geography teachers (overlap, in the most excellent fashion) were autodidacts who believed everybody else could be too - <USER3> proved it in shovels. I recall the phrase "now why do YOU think ...?" being almost percussion in lessons - almost everything was "you figure it out and then let's bash heads and figure out what's right".

Nothing beat first hand experience. If we were studying population density, we'd be taken to a nearby town and would spend a Sunday measuring frontages and documenting usage, to then graph the data and draw our own conclusions. The fascinating takeaway on that was that houses nearer water were usually poorer - rich folks could afford to live up hills and have water carried to them. Properties get rebuilt, frontages have a habit of staying the same, or in multiples of their original size. Stuff I would not know or even think about were it not for this experience. Chemistry was always "here's the thing you need to do. Here's a mystery bag of reagents and kit. Figure it out. I'll keep an eye in case you stray into danger." Two examples, but it was the core of how they taught sciences - make us do our own investigations, and ask us the right questions to precipitate the correct lines of thought. They nudged me into coding the same way - "there are some dusty old BBC micros and some magazines about how to use them in the basement. You guys figure it out.". We figured it out so well that we got the machine with the vocaliser to cuss at the teacher when he entered input into a fake basic prompt, and went on to make a "Hugo" clone set at the school. Also just recalled being taught normal distributions by being told to go count car colours outside the school gates.

Anyway, the upshot is that from that class, of those I've kept in touch, all still have a childlike curiosity about the world, myself included.

I think we were taught to think for ourselves in the most earnest way - something which is increasingly missing in education today. Fuck, we were allowed access to guns, a deep lake with floating islands, abandoned underground cool stores - all on trust alone - and if you violated that trust you lost it, and you were _punished_. The bog-eye. Shudder.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> A philosophical comic on Questions vs. Answers, [http://kiriakakis.net/comics/mused/a-day-at-the- park](http://kiriakakis.net/comics/mused/a-day-at-the-park)

</comment><comment><USER25> That was interesting. It was also bizarrely coincidental. My son is also in third grade, and I also explained binary to him today. During the conversation, which arose adventitiously, I found myself contemplating the socratic approach -- so the author's considerations resonated.

That said, I think the author's idea of 'only asking questions' is perhaps overly rhetorical. If you read the dialogue, he clearly injects statements without questions, and he also asks questions of the form, '<STATEMENT>, right?'. I have no problem with that, and found myself doing the same for the same reasons. My point is only that I think there is a 'truth' behind the approach which is better encapsulated than 'by only asking questions'. I think the more important consideration is that there be true _dialog_.

Just because it's such a completely weird coincidence, and because I think it demonstrates my point, I'm going to try to write out our conversation from memory. The whole thing probably took about ten minutes. As you'll see, it transitioned smoothly from questions my son was asking me. I think that's important, and it's why I think an asymmetrically 'socratic' emphasis on only asking questions is also stifling.

S: Why does the computer go faster after you restart it?

Me: The likely possibility is that there are memory leaks.

S: What is a memory leak?

Me: Imagine someone who got a new plate every time he had another serving of potatoes, instead of putting more potatoes on the same plate.

S: Okay.

Me: I guess he would make a lot more dishes than someone else.

S: I see that.

Me: Now imagine you had this guy over for dinner every day and you never did his dishes.

S: [Laughs]

Me: Pretty soon, you would run out of plates. You're _supposed_ to reuse your plate within a meal, and you're _supposed_ to wash the dishes between meals. But if you don't, you can run out.

S: So what does this have to do with computers?

Me: Computer programs are supposed to clean up after themselves too, but if they don't do it correctly, then they are like weird guests who make too many dirty dishes.

S: What are the dishes?

Me: Computer programs use memory. Remember we've talked about RAM, and different computers have different amounts of RAM? Well, when a computer program needs to hold some information, it asks for memory from the operating system. This is called 'memory allocation'. Asking for memory so you can store some information is like asking for a plate for your potatoes.

S: Okay.

Me: Normally a computer program doesn't ask for too many plates, and it lets you clean them up when it's done, but not always. That might be why restarting speeds things up. Sometimes you have to kick all the guests out and do the dishes.

S: Okay, so how much memory does a program ask for?

Me: That depends. How big are your files [that we were transferring]? A few K? K stands for kilobytes, so that's a thousand bytes. Actually it's 1,024 bytes -- but memory might be allocated in smaller units too.

S: What's a byte?

Me: A byte is eight bits.

S: What's a bit.

Me: It's a one or zero. Well, actually it's one piece of information, like a yes or a no. But it works out very well to call it a one or a zero, so we can do math with it.

S: How does that work?

Me: It's just like normal math, except instead of having ten numbers, you just have two: one and zero.

S: So you only have two numbers? What good is that?

Me: No, I mean you only have two digits, instead of having ten digits. You still have all the same numbers.

S: I don't understand how that works.

Me: Well, if you just have one bit, you have either a one or a zero. How many numbers can that be?

S: Two.

Me: What if you have two bits, or two digits, each of which is either a one or a zero. How many numbers now?

S: I don't know.

Me: Think about it. What if you have a one then a zero? [Note, we are in the car, so we can't write anything down.] What number would that be?

S: Ten.

Me: Yes, in base ten -- which is what we call it when there are ten digits. But we don't call it that in base two, which is what we call it when there are two digits.

S: What do you call it?

Me: TWO!

S: What!?

Me: Think about it.

S: I don't get it.

Me: How many two-digit numbers are there in base two?

S: Two zeros. Two ones. One zero. I'm not sure.

Me: What about one-digit numbers?

S: One and zero. Two numbers.

Me: Right, so can you combine those two?

S: I don't understand what you are asking me.

Me: Can't you create two-digit numbers by adding a digit onto all the one- digit numbers?

S: Sure.

Me: So can't you create two two-digit numbers for each one digit number? [I feel guilty for leading him so much, but hey, I'm arguing here against overly rhetorical socraticism.]

S: [Pause followed by evident lightbulb.] Yes, so it's four!

Me: Yep, you can represent two numbers with one binary digit, and four numbers with two binary digits. How many numbers can you represent with three binary digits? (Binary is another word for base two.)

S: Eight.

Me: Because eight is two to the third power.

S: No, four.

Me: What?

S: Two times two is four.

Me: Wait, let's go back. Two times two _is_ four. That's two squared or two to the second power. Two times two times two is eight. That's three twos multiplied together. That's what 'to the third power means'.

S: Right, sorry, I got confused.

Me: So how many numbers can we represent in four binary digits?

S: 16.

Me: Because 16 is two to the

S: Fourth

Me: Right. What about two to the fith, five binary digits?

S: Thirty-two.

Me: And six binary digits, two to the sixth?

S: [Quickly] Sixty-four.

Me: And seven binary digits, two to the seventh?

S: [Quickly] One hundred twenty-eight.

Me: And _eight_ binary digits, two to the eighth, _which is one byte?_

S: Oh! Let me figure this out. [Pause then triumphantly,] two hundred fifty- six.

Me: Correct. So a byte can be one of 256 numbers, expressed in base two.

S: I get it.

Me: Do you? Okay, so how would you write one?

S: One.

Me: What about two?

S: I can't.

Me: Why not?

S: Not enough numbers.

Me: But we just went through this. There are plenty of numbers.

S: But this part is too confusing.

Me: Normally you only have ten digits, but you can write numbers much larger than ten, right?

S: Yes.

Me: So when you write numbers down, there's a trick, right? [See, I'm doing this [<STATEMENT>, right?' thing too.]

S: Yes.

Me: Why is eleven eleven? It's a one in the ten's place plus a one in the one's place, right? You know about the ten's place, right?

S: Yes. So…

Me: So in binary, there is no ten's place because there are not ten digits. There are only two digits. So instead of the ten's place, we have a two's place.

S: Right! So it's one one.

Me: Yes! Instead of having a ten's, hundred's, thousand's place multiplying by ten every time, there's a two's place, a four's place, then what?

S: Eight, sixteen, thirty-two, sixty-four.

Me: Correct! So do you think you understand this now?

S: I think maybe I do.

Me: What is one one zero?

S: One in the four's place, plus one in the two's place equals six.

Me: Okay, how would you write seventeen?

S: [Long pause.] One in the sixteen's place plus one in the one's place.

Me: One, zero?

S: zero, zero, one.

Me: I think you _do_ understand.

S: So how does the math work?

Me: You can add and multiply them just like normal numbers, but we probably need to write that down.

S: Okay.

Me: There's also a trick for negative numbers that computers use. It makes subtraction work like addition.

S: How does that work?

Me: It's called two's complement, but I can't remember the details well enough to explain it correctly in the car. Let's look it up later.

\---

Although I quibble slightly on the value of what I'm calling rhetorical socraticism, my main point is agreement. It's just a remarkably weird coincidence that a fairly similar discourse (teaching binary to a third-grader through investigative dialog) would have come up in my daily life today. That's the real main reason I wrote it out while it's fresh enough that I remember most of the details.

I am not a school teacher, but I am a parent -- so I'm more concerned with the issues involved in communicating with a single individual (at a time). The reason I think a more symmetrical approach is probably most reasonable is that information needs to come from somewhere. Why not provide it in as appropriate a form as necessary, and _exactly at the point of need_? Otherwise the 'socratic' teacher has to be an outsider to the process who swoops in to work magic on the vessels which have been primed by the faceless dead fact-giving of the their non-socratic counterparts.

From that perspective an emphasis on the 'question-asking' side of what might be a more balanced whole is understandable, though. That orientation is a useful counterbalance to the usual approach, even if it can't possibly (even in theory) replace it completely.

</comment><comment><USER26> > How come we have ten numerals? Could it be because we have 10 fingers?

Objection! Counsel is leading the witness, Your Honor.

Rhetorical questions are really statements in disguise: "The fact is such and such, don't you agree?"

The students should be given an opportunity to form their own hypotheses about why there are ten numerals, otherwise that particular element of the dialog is not genuine "teaching by asking".

<comment><USER15> Yes, the questions are logically leading. That is pointed out as what the method is about. That particular question was just to get the discussion started so we could get into "aliens with two fingers" to make it fun for the students to discuss two-digit math (no pun intended, of course). It was not really part of the logic of teaching. It could have been done without reference to fingers at all; e.g., "Could we have a math system if we only used two numerals, 0, and 1?" but that would not likely have piqued the interest of third graders very much. And actually some students might have taken issue with the ten fingers/ten numerals idea, since "zero" as a numeral screws that up. E.g., our number groupings in written, columnar form really go from zero to 9, and then 10 to 19, 20 to 29, etc. You don't count zero things on your fingers....

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> This is how children need to speak with adults. This automatically helps them to do this by nature and it helps children's behavior.

I raise my child with me all ways saying, "Are you asking or are you telling?" If they tell I ask for a re-do and than 90% of the time it is all set.

</comment><comment><USER28> Donation was broken for me

"An error occurred while processing your request.

Reference #102.a68e1402.1428827623.1ff08e60"

</comment><comment><USER29> Albeit I completely agree with the approach, and ideally would want kids to respond with this kind of respect, I find the need for a complementing article which describes how to mould kids' attentiveness, and respect of the elderly, in order to enable such fruitful discussions.

I'd argue that this is a form of coaching. From my experience and research (paper: "Self-organizing teams and the coach's adaptive role") the efficiency of Socratic methods depend on the mapping of past progress. Meaning that: by creating a system which is best at incrementally visualizing progress of the topic at hand, the efficiency of the method will be positively affected.

</comment><comment><USER30> The author should have made the donation link more clear, because I had to search in order to find it. Why not make the word "contribute" as a link to the corresponding page?

</comment><comment><USER31> Using the Socratic Method in teaching science to creationists is interesting. They will follow each step but reject the conclusion, every time.

Even when you preface things with "I am not trying to get you to believe what's in textbooks, I'm trying to get you to _know_ what's in textbooks, instead of stuff like MY GRANDPA WAS A MONKEY".

Creationist educators and even publishers have developed a unique narrative about what they think science textbooks teach.

</comment><comment><USER32> I tried this out last year in my daughter's third grade class, and it was a total hoot. I still hear back about the event from time to time.

</comment><comment><USER33> This is seriously cute! And by the way, asking questions is also an excellent way, I would even say the best, to learn yourself while you are teaching, or thinking you are. At bottom, knowledge is somewhere between the teacher and the student. Or the good therapist and his patient. Or the world and the researcher. It doesn't reside with anyone, it builds itself up in the middle.

</comment><comment><USER34> From the article: > Try to get used to it; the alien children do. What number comes next? I'd love it if a teacher told me that!

</comment><comment><USER35> Combined with sarcasm, you find yourself with trolling.

</comment><comment><USER36> Be careful of the Socratic method if you are attempting to teach those who perceive themselves to be higher up in a social hierarchy.

When I try this it often ends up in confrontation as the person who feels they are being asked for knowledge realises I am trying to teach them. These days I just flat out state my position and if they don't grasp the argument I forget the whole thing. This is a much better approach than attempting to subtly nudge people along a path to knowledge. It's a common problem for me as I look a 10 years younger than I am.

<comment><USER37> I would be careful also with those who perceive themselves to be lower down in a social hierarchy as they lack the force to confront you. (I mean: maybe you cause the same effect always, but only get push back from ppl. higher up)</comment></comment>


Git Tower Goes Annual Subscription - <AUTHOR> https://www.git-tower.com/pricing/mac <comment><AUTHOR> Personally a bit frustrated to see desktop applications go to subscription models where years can now go by without upgrades but I'm forced to continue to pay to use the app.

If I'm unsure on how long before there will be a worthwhile upgrade, am I paying $80 for this app, or $400? Its a bit like being told that you can buy an item but won't know its real cost upfront.

I understand subscription models where they offer something that's ongoing (remove disk, sync, whatever) but I find this model annoying and its forced me to change software I use quite a bit in the last few years (most recently moving off 1password).

Charge me more if you have to, but stop this "keep paying forever" madness.

</comment><comment><USER2> I'm also disappointed by Fournova's decision to go subscription, especially since they are choosing a pay-to-play subscription model.

According to Julian Rothkamp of Fournova, Git Tower is moving to "standard subscription: you'll have access to Tower as long as your subscription is active. Access to Tower ends when a subscription expires", [0] which in my opinion is not an appropriate model for software that leverages open source technology such as Git.

I think a more reasonable model would be what Drew McCormack calls the "cash cow" subscription model where users pay for a 12-month subscription and will

> get new features and bug fixes for one year, but after that you are on your > own again until you make a new purchase. You won't get any new features, or > even bug fixes, but you can keep using the last copy of the app that you > downloaded. [1]

With the "cash cow" model users pay only after they've decided from themselves that the developer has provided enough value to justify the cost of another yearly subscription. Instead, Fournova has chosen a pay-to-play subscription model which means that after the first year, users simply have to trust that another year's subscription fee will be worth it.

Additionally, pay-to-play turns Git Tower's users' workflow familiarity into a financial dependency/liability and this seems ill-advised in a world where software and platforms can shift with little to no predictability.

For my part, I am going to wait 12-18 months before even trying Git Tower 3 because I don't want to become dependent on the new features with no recourse except to pony up US $69 in 12 short months. As a side-note, I think this would not be as much an issue if Git Tower's annual pay-to-play price was closer to US $30.

[0] [https://www.producthunt.com/posts/tower-3-0](https://www.producthunt.com/posts/tower-3-0)

[1] [https://medium.com/@drewmccormack/a-cash-cow-is-on-the- agend...](https://medium.com/@drewmccormack/a-cash-cow-is-on-the- agenda-138a11995595)

EDIT: Remove first sentence. Add comma to second sentence. Move first citation marker.

</comment><comment><USER3> I have been a long time user of Tower, and am supportive of and maintain annual subscriptions for several pieces of software that are essential to my workflow. I am a software developer and I understand the need for a subscription model for certain applications and businesses. There is not a single application on my computer I have not happily paid for a license fee or subscription to if required.

I will not be purchasing a subscription for Tower. This model does not make sense for this application.

<comment><USER4> I don't think it matters if model make sense. It's about giving money to developers so they keep making great product.

<comment><USER5> I agree with this but I think the price is a bit high (I bought it, because I like it).

I don't feel like I got a lot of value for the money because Tower 2 was so great, and I had to pay more to use Bitbucket Server. Hopefully, new features will change my mind on this.

<comment><USER5> Stuff you can't do: \- Add reviewers to pull requests \- Approve pull requests

This is the main new features so its a bit disappointing to not be able to do this. I find the UI for PRs to be a bit hard too, compared with the rest of the app.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm also disappointed, it seems there will be no software soon with perpetual monthly fees. It especially doesn't feel right in this case, because it's basically UI for open source tool and it doesn't offer (and need) really any server/sync/multi device features. I will look for alternatives, SourceTree maybe.

</comment><comment><USER7> Really dissapointed with this approach... Hope they'd release a standalone version later down the line. This is literally forcing the customer to pay whether they use it or not.

r.i.p standalone software licenses

</comment><comment><USER4> Saying that I have a problem paying $60/year to support product that I'm using daily is kinda ridiculous. Of course if it doesn't have value, don't pay. I've been using tower daily for last few years. While I can do everything I need from console, there are cases where using UI is just faster. So yeah, I'll be happy to pay.</comment>


Ask HN: What service can I use to setup a number that receives text messages? - w-ll

I'm working on a project and would like for my users to be able to send stuff via text message.  What services/companies should I look at that would allow me to handle the data coming in? <comment><AUTHOR> <http://www.twilio.com/>

I haven't used them in production, but I've started playing around with their voice API and it's pretty neat.

Also, you get $30 credit (for free) when signing up for a test account, so that should be more than enough to fiddle with tests and get your integration up and running.

<comment><USER2> Twilio really does rock. Super easy to use and get started and there are other providers that provide Twilio API compatibility in case you ever need it.</comment></comment>


Best Laid Plans - <AUTHOR> http://www.futilitycloset.com/2015/12/05/best-laid-plans-2/ <comment><USER2> Github should do this for pull request comments. :)

"Your pr probably have about 5 bugs left"</comment>


China's new 'social credit system' - <AUTHOR> https://nypost.com/2019/05/18/chinas-new-social-credit-system-turns-orwells-1984-into-reality/ <comment><USER2> The implementation is somewhat disconcerting, but I'm not sure the underlying policy isn't a good idea. Culture matters. When I go to Tokyo and see people walking a couple of blocks to cross the street (there isn't necessarily a cross walk on every block), or carrying their litter with them, versus what I see in say New York, I'm astounded. Similarly for the fact that nobody has ever asked me for a bribe in the US, versus what you might see in Bangladesh. These virtuous behaviors are a better way to live and make life better for everyone. China seems to realize that and be trying to change culture in a systematic way. It should probably be done more by carrot than stick, but there is a a kernel of a good idea in there.

(I should note that Western countries had their own large-scale nearly universal social indoctrination and social credit systems—organized religion. Indoctrinating virtuous behaviors is a social function that needs to happen, the question is how do you do it. Note also that Chinese cities exist at a scale where the informal mechanisms for social credit break down. If you litter on my street, people will see you and they will notice. We regularly talk about neighbors who display antisocial behaviors. In New York? Outside maybe your condo board there are no such mechanisms.)

<comment><USER3> I live in a very clean city and we don't need social credit systems to handle litter.

The jump so many people take to encourage strong enforcement for bagatelles is astonishing.

Greece also has a lot of bribes but if you would know anything about the culture, you probably wouldn't conclude that you have to liberate the country. Well, I at least hope so...

You can use the stick of course, but loosing that, all benefits it brought you would be lost too. And you would have stripped any opportunities to develop any understanding.

<comment> village-idiot The Greeks are a fascinating case of the utter break down of social trust. Greeks no longer trust each other, and the level of corruption and tax evasion is mind boggling.

I think it's a false equivalence to compare the belief that a country needs something fixed and saying that it needs to be "liberated" with the force of arms.

<comment><USER4> > Greeks no longer trust each other

Citation super needed here. Nobody trusts the state because it's corrupt, but that hasn't changed in centuries. The main problem Greece has is that everyone puts their own interests above the common good, from littering and double- parking to appropriating state funds.

<comment> village-idiot [http://www.ekathimerini.com/232870/article/ekathimerini/news...](http://www.ekathimerini.com/232870/article/ekathimerini/news/survey- finds-low-levels-of-social-trust-in-greece)

The highlight is that more than 9/10 Greeks disagreed with the statement that people could be trusted.

<comment><USER4> I can't find any numbers on this, or the article source, but I'd be surprised if this were new. Cyprus went from 13% trust to 10% trust since 1994 and I bet Greece is along those lines. It's just how Greeks are, so the "no longer" part isn't accurate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> China currently doesn't have a "credit score" like most of the rest of the world. They also don't have a national police database so this is their attempt to do both at once. If you look at the information these two things seem to make roughly 90% off your score.

Everything else is basically an experiment. Each district is doing it differently to find out what works the best and that will then be merged into what the country does. (The scientific process ... using data to inform policy)

I visited Guangzhou in 2018 and was expecting it to be crazy since it has "the worst levels of noise pollution in the world" [https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/mar/08/where- world-n...](https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/mar/08/where-world- noisiest-city) but it was almost crazy how quiet the city was. After the report come out they went around the whole city putting in traffic lights and fixing up all the intersections. There is still traffic but it is now more organised than any Chinese city I have been to. I ask the locals about it and they love the cameras, the order and the reduction in noise pollution. They freely admit that without the cameras most of the other Chinese people would just not obey the road rules so they are glad that the cameras are there.

I image "social credit" will be similar. Lots of people here just don't pay bills because there is no credit history and there are no debt collectors (well not like in the west anyway). If you owe money to the wrong people then it is better to just disappear but for most companies, they have no power and they cannot do anything.

<comment><USER6> > _They also don 't have a national police database so this is their attempt > to do both at once_

China needs a national credit score. And China needs a national police database. What it doesn't need is both tied together with a political component layered on top.

(I think there is a good chance these experiments will backfire. We tried isolating felons amongst themselves in the United States. It just led to better-networked criminals who had no choice but to return to crime.)

<comment><USER5> I'm still on the fence. A lot of the time when you run a credit score you also run a police check. Not always but often enough. I expect most of the other stuff will be too much effort to be kept in the score at a national level unless it is a token amount.

China doesn't have the same incarceration rate that the US has (I don't think anyone does). I also don't know how long the score will be impacted by a criminal history.

I'm not saying it will work. I'm just saying that because other countries have done it one way does not mean that every other way of doing it is automatically wrong.

As an expat here my current score is "B" but I'll move up to an "A" next year. I don't know if that score means anything...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> How can they not see treating people this way will push them lower and lower?

<comment><USER8> Believe it or not, majority of the people actually like the CCP and the system, they just hate corrupt officials.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> We've seen with Leica that China is willing to punish outside companies, they are willing to reach outside China and threaten Uighurs in Australia.

I wonder if we see the social credit system exported / applied to those outside China under the guise of security or good behavior as a sort of pay to play deal.

</comment><comment><USER10> Does anyone have visit China and presence the social system in first person?

I've heard that some people like it (Chinese co-workers), as they feel everyone acting better, but they don't live in China at the moment.

<comment><USER11> I guess they do not realise what is coming?

> '...one of the ways that people can improve their own social credit score is > to report on the supposed misdeeds of others.'

<comment><USER12> Now, that's Orwellian. As described in the book.

It's not the cameras, the government agents in the shadows or the spying technology... It's the end result of everyone spying on each other that made the world of 1984 so inescapable to Winston.

<comment><USER13> I would argue the key aspect of something being Orwellian is the redefinition of language such that arguments against the government's position cannot be made anymore.

The idea of people being spied on by their neighbours in 1984 comes from real- world examples that Orwell was drawing on at the time (the Hitler Youth and the purges under Stalin). While it is very dystopian, I would classify it as being extreme totalitarianism and not Orwellian. Almost all recent totalitarian regimes I can think of had people informing on their neighbours.

<comment><USER14> I would say that having people feel that it is acceptable to inform on their neighbors is a key element of a proper totalitarian society.

This is why I routinely go off on people when they suggest calling the cops (or some other external authority) over petty differences. I don't want to see that kind of behavior left unchallenged let alone normalized.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Are the rules of what costs you social credit score available?

<comment><USER16> Probably (although it makes more sense for them to be vague) but you shouldn't really care about the paper rules anyway, instead here are the real rules:

Rule One: there are no rules.

Rule Two: you must pretend Rule One does not exist. Instead pretend that there is a set of clear, objective, and just rules that apply to everyone equally and fairly; that it is possible to live without ever violating a rule; that no one is above the rules; that the rules aren't made up on a need-to basis by the powerful.

Rule Three: arguing against the rules is against the rules.

<comment><USER17> You forgot some people are going to be more equal than others.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> In a society that does not put enough pressure on people to grow up and function, it is tempting to look at this as a possible solution. Coupling it to government power, though, is an outright horror. Any social credit system needs to be run independently, by society, not by the state (not least because of people's unfortunate tendency to remember that there is a difference).

<comment><USER3> Your comment suggest you are from the first world and that your parents did not put enough pressure on you. Otherwise your reflection upon your wealth wouldn't result in this tirade.

You have been credited -13 social $$$.

Authorities have been informed. You will also need to clear your room, because your social credit indicates that it is just a bit too nice for you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> the media bias score of nypost base on adfontesmedia is only 20,selected Story. [https://www.adfontesmedia.com/](https://www.adfontesmedia.com/) . [https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york- post/](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-post/) [https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias- ratings](https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ratings) As a chinese some mistakes in article 1.the phone bells the ban of trains or flights. all because the debt which courts can not enforce. all the methods only want you obey the judgements.

2.alipay the paypal of alibaba, has a system, like the ebay store rates, the score now can benefit the Second-hand trading. all these system is about economy. Nothing with political issue.

<comment><USER19> political problem don't need score system.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Article reads like an advertisement for his probably shitty and poorly sourced book.

</comment><comment><USER21> The only positive side is that china's regime is comiting suicide with this system. Seems like nothing was learned from communist russia. Intellectuals will flee, then top scientists, nobody will trade with them anymore, political opponents will be sent to camp, until finally it will all collapse under economical meltdown.

My only concern is that civilians don't pay a too high price in the process.

<comment><USER22> Norway has just landed some major deals for exporting fish to China. And nor the goverment or the majority of the population seem to bother what China is doing. Money talks, while human rights are censored.

<comment><USER21> I don't think the general public is aware on what's going on in china in details. They think it's still pretty ok. But the direction the country is taking is pretty clear, and we soon should hear about nightmarish events more and more. Once one major western country starts taking a public stance and back it up with actions, the others will follow.

<comment><USER23> The US has just barely started to make some noises with this mini trade war, which I believe will result in some tariffs remaining in place encouraging some of our manufacturing to move from China to central America.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Shouldn't it be "a distopian nightmare"?

I'm sure 'an' is correct since that's the headline the NY Post wrote, but I'm just curious why.

<comment><USER12> [https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/dystopian](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/dystopian)

> Relating to or denoting an imagined state or society where there is great > suffering or injustice.

> 'the dystopian future of a society bereft of reason'

> 'the utopian dream that became a dystopian nightmare'

No, I'd say the NY Post made a typo.</comment></comment>


Do The Simplest Thing That Could Possibly Work - <AUTHOR> http://xp.c2.com/DoTheSimplestThingThatCouldPossiblyWork.html

<comment><USER2> The website itself is definitely an application of the "Do The Simplest Thing That Could Possibly Work" principal. It's pretty much just plain text.

Nonetheless I think it has a fairly good argument, though it could lead to woefully inane mistakes because of not thinking things through sufficiently.

<comment><USER3> That website is the Very First Wiki. And indeed, Ward Cunningham was going for simplicity.

<http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiDesignPrinciples>

<comment><USER2> I must say that it is cool in a retro sort of way, but I still like Wikipedia better. I mean the fact the page titles tend to have no spaces, and instead have the first letter of each word capitalized such as:

ExampleTitleInTheVeryFirstWiki

That's interesting from a programming point of view, but I'd rather see clear, clean titles. Hence my judgement that is is cool in a retro, back to the early 90's sort of way.

<comment><USER4> There is enough timeless content there to attract interested people anyway. Despite its retro look the site is still active to a degree, though I'm not sure how much original content there is. Many of the popular topics have been beaten to death and the conclusion, as always, is that the best solution or method depends on the problem. The arguments can be very engaging, but it goes the other way too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Thanks for this link. The following "laws" of simplicity by John Maeda may be of interest too:

10 Laws of Simplicity

1\. Reduce: the simplest way to achieve simplicity is through thoughtful reduction.

2\. Organize: Organization makes a system of many appear fewer.

3\. Time: Savings in time feel like simplicity.

4\. Learn: Knowledge makes everything simpler.

5\. Differences: Simplicity and complexity need each other.

6\. Context: What lies in the periphery of simplicity is definitely not peripheral.

7\. Emotion: More emotions are better than less.

8\. Trust: In simplicity we trust.

9\. Failure: Some things can never be made simpler.

10\. The one: Simplicity is about subtracting the obvious and adding the meaningful.

[From the book The laws of simplicity by John Maeda]

[http://www.amazon.com/Laws-Simplicity-Design-Technology- Busi...](http://www.amazon.com/Laws-Simplicity-Design-Technology- Business/dp/0262134721)

<comment><USER6> 9\. I suspect everything can.

<comment><USER5> I thought the same. Then, I was trying to find examples for systems that cannot be simplified further without changing their functional definitions. For instance, chopsticks appear to be a tool that is as simple as it can be.</comment></comment></comment>


Evony, US games company, sues British blogger in Australia - <AUTHOR> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/dec/11/evony-sues-british-blogger

<comment><USER3> I'd never heard of this company before, but this alone makes them seem pretty contemptible.

<comment><USER4> This is the same company that 'discovered' the power of sex in advertising: [http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/07/14/evolution-of- evony-...](http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/07/14/evolution-of-evony-video- game-ads/)

<comment><USER5> It seems Evony had the perseverance to follow their A/B testing all the way to size D.

Perhaps they're also A/B testing legal jurisdictions, and the algorithm was seeded with 'Australia'.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Given the shocking state of British libel laws, I wonder why Evony decided to file suit in an Australian court. Are Australian libel laws even more stacked in favour of the plaintiff than here in the UK?

<comment><USER7> Australia's libel laws are similar, but not quite so terrible. I'm tempted to say that they'd have filed in Britain if he wasn't British. If the goal is to intimidate him with bankruptcy, a country on the opposite side of the world is a better fit than one whose courts he could easily attend.

Yet another reason not to play Evony... as if one was needed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Wow, Bruce Everiss! I remember him from the days when I read computer magazines in the 80s (and 90s :-(

</comment><comment><USER9> Couldn't he just ignore the suit as long as he's willing to never go to Australia again?

</comment><comment><USER10> I'm surprised it's possible to libel Evony. I think their own ads do a sufficient job.

</comment><comment><USER8> To paraphrase their quote re: Impossible Mission - "Play a while - <USER2> forever!"</comment>


Gigantic Chinese telescope opens to astronomers worldwide - <AUTHOR> https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02790-3 <comment><USER2> Found it on Google Maps:

[https://www.google.com/maps/place/Dawodang,+Pingtang,+Qianna...](https://www.google.com/maps/place/Dawodang,+Pingtang,+Qiannan,+Guizhou,+firstname.lastname@example.com,106.855364,1440m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x36b892572079a627:0x196fc74e04c60688!8m2!3d25.650706!4d106.860469)

<comment><USER3> There's a cool 360 image -- [https://goo.gl/maps/v4VkHhGmp5mfFk457](https://goo.gl/maps/v4VkHhGmp5mfFk457) \-- from the (near) center of the telescope.

<comment><USER4> Great image, but i expected a clear sky.

<comment><USER5> Buying or opening a new telescope is known to all astronomers to cause cloudy nights for weeks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Previous record holder was the well-known Arecibo telescope at 305m diameter:

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

500m may not seem like a huge improvement over that but here's a picture that puts it in perspective:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-hundred- meter_Aperture_Sp...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-hundred- meter_Aperture_Spherical_Telescope#/media/File:Comparison_FAST_Arecibo_Observatory_profiles.svg)

</comment><comment><USER7> Lost in the announcement is the fact that they're opening this for global research because... they don't really have anything queued up yet. High- aperture radio astronomy doesn't really have a hook right now.

Arecibo was built half a century ago now, and ever since has remained (by far) the most sensitive radio telescope available. Yet... it hasn't found much that we didn't already know about. FAST seems likely to sit in the same realm: it'll be able to see known phenomenon farther away, but that's about it.

We have plenty of radio sensitivity right now, what we need is broader coverage to pick up transient things like FRB's, and (as always) longer baselines for VLBI work (e.g. the Event Horizon "Telescope"), both of which which mean more dishes, not one giant dish.

<comment><USER8> Is there anything preventing them from tuning up FAST so it's as or even more sensitive than Arecibo? Like, is it just a matter of better sensors or dish design? Maybe we don't need it, but cleaner data would be nice at least.

<comment><USER7> FAST will surely be better than Arecibo, absent some kind of terrible technical glitch. The point was more that, post-Arecibo (and again we're talking the 1970's here) there has been no rush to build more Arecibo-style dishes, because the perceived scientific benefit is low.

<comment><USER8> I see. Curious they just spent a big wad of cash on it, though I suppose they've been doing lots of construction work with marginal utility.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

Real missed opportunity there to name it the Five-hundred-meter Aperture Radio Telescope. Bonus points if they detect an interesting pulsating signal and do as was done with the gravitational waves, shifting it into the audio band...

<comment><USER10> I'm hopeful that the scientific community will be happy to colloquially refer to this as the FARTiscope

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> "The 1.2-billion-yuan (US$171-million) telescope,"

This price is surprisingly low compared to other big science projects.

<comment><USER12> I wonder whether this is because they don't need to have a highly specified lens found in conventional telescopes?

<comment><USER13> Not sure why you're being downvoted.

This is correct to an extent, the surface of a mirror needs to be polished to a degree such that abnormalities in the lens are small relative to the wavelength being observed (I think it's the diffraction limit equation, not positive atm). Radio telescopes (with cm wavelengths) require much less precision than optical ones (with sub-micron wavelengths). This telescope, FAST, actually is made out of a collection of triangular (I think) sheets arranged into a kind of dome, if it were observing optical it would act like a disco-ball instead of a parabolic mirror. Arecibo is literally a hole in the ground with rocks and crap on the reflector.

This thing actually had "first light" observations with several holes in it from triangular sections that were fritzing just kind of fluttering in the breeze. The first radio telescopes were literally built out of post-coldwar trash just kind of rigged up in the back-yard. There's a major array going in in south Africa where the antennas are like christmas tree wires that are just kind of hammered into the ground, one of the PIs showed video at a colloquium I attended of his 10 year old kids setting them up. If anything in modern science can be called "low specification" it's radio telescopes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Meanwhile, TMT is still facing tons of opposition: [https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2019/09/26/solidarity-mauna- ke...](https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2019/09/26/solidarity-mauna-kea-spread- oregon-europe/)

<comment><USER15> > Meanwhile, TMT is still facing tons of opposition

Which is one of the things that makes democracy and civil rights great: different people can express different perspectives and influence the decisions made.

<comment><USER16> People expressing different perspectives and influencing decisions isn't an absolute good. It certainly can be positive and desireable in many situations. In others it can be utterly destructive, such as the the anti-vax movement or climate change skeptics.

<comment><USER17> I don't think it is utterly destructive in the anti-vax movement. Dangerous and stupid, sure, but what if the government was trying to force you to put something else in your body that you thought was not in your best interests or that of your child? Isn't it an absolute good that you're able to speak up and resist?

<comment><USER18> > force you to put something else in your body that you thought was not in > your best interests or that of your child?

It's not in the best interest of _other_ children to let your children not be immunized.

One of the reasons immunizations work so well is because of herd immunity. The entire population doesn't need to be inoculated against every random mutation the virus will take. Enough of the population has good enough immunity that the virus can't take a foothold. But once you dip below a certain percentage, the virus gets free rein to spread and evolve again.

Effective immunization requires that we all mostly get immunized.

<comment><USER17> You don't have to convince me. I know all this and I'm not an anti-vaxxer.

> It's not in the best interest of other children to let your children not be > immunized.

This doesn't change my point at all.

First, the idea that my child should be subjected to something harmful because it's better for other children doesn't fly with me. I doubt it flies with anyone. I vaccinated my kid for her benefit and for everyone else's, but if the choice is "everyone else" or "my kid"... I don't think you have to be a parent to see how that one shakes out.

Second, that's not how anti-vaxxers see it. They see it as bad for those children as well.

<comment><USER19> >the idea that my child should be subjected to something harmful because it's better for other children doesn't fly with me

They aren't being subjected to something harmful, they falsely believe that it's something harmful because they saw an infographic on facebook

>that's not how anti-vaxxers see it. They see it as bad for those children as well.

Yes, and this kind of toxic stupidity should not be tolerated as it puts everyone else at risk

<comment><USER17> If you want to boil this down to black-and-white you need to compare the past, present, and future deaths of the anti-vax movement against the solution of 'not tolerating' anything that doesn't meet your utilitarian ideal. And that's aside from the moral aspects.

<comment><USER20> It is black and white. Everyone who can needs to vaccinate otherwise we loose herd immunity. Full stop. Vaccines benefit far more people then they negativity affect.

<comment><USER17> You and authoritarian seem to be saying "anti-vaxxers are completely bad!" Well, congratulations. You're right. But no one here is arguing with you.

The issue is whether allowing people voice in influencing policy in a democracy is an absolute good if it means people like anti-vaxxers can still influence policy. I argued that _from the point of view of an anti-vaxxer_ they are doing good, and that, _you_ might find yourself in such a position one day. That's irrespective of whether the anti-vaxxers are right or wrong and if the hypothetical you is right or wrong.

And if it's not clear by now, (which it should be for anyone who read the thread): I'm not an anti-vaxxer; I'm not in favor of them; and nothing I've said here is in support of them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Surprised to see no mention of tourists or cellphones. We learned about this telescope in astronomy class on Tuesday and our professor said the place was inundated with so many tourists that it was impossible to get any useful data due to the noise generated by all the cellphones. Part of the reason the telescope was built in such a remote area was to reduce the amount of radio noise from terrestrial sources.

<comment><USER22> That's surprising. I went there recently, and you aren't permitted to bring any electronic devices whatsoever - you have to leave them in a locker and then take a ~30 minute bus ride to the telescope.

They're also very strict about checking: you have to go through two different x-ray machines to check you didn't sneak any electronics through.

<comment><USER23> Perhaps the no-devices policy was introduced after the interference issues were encountered?

<comment><USER24> No, the no devices policy would have been there from the start, its as basic as forbidding open flames at a petrol station.

The need for X-ray machines due to tourists ignoring the ban is a more likely development.

<comment><USER25> Are those truly x-ray machines? Not just magnetic coils? Seems overkill and I'd object to being exposed to ionizing radiation just for the purpose of validating my claim that I don't carry any electronic communication devices.

<comment><USER23> It's actually a pretty standard setup in China anyway... Pretty much anytime you go onto an inter-city bus / train or into a crowded space (museum / exhibition centre) you will go through a metal detector and your bag through an x-ray machine. So it makes sense that they'd just use the standard setup that the local security company would be used to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Did they build a football/soccer field next to it so that we can realize how gigantic it is by looking at the pictures?

<comment><USER27> More likely so the workers had some recreation while on assignment!

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> This is a smart move by China. There are a lot of reasons to do big science projects other than accomplishing the science itself. One of the biggest is that you get a lot of the smartest minds around the world in the same place as one another. The country that is hosting them will receive more benefits than the other countries participating (though everyone wins in some way). You also are more likely to get the spinoffs that always come off from working on difficult projects.

China is also building a super collider that's larger than CERN. The big question though is if they plan on doing an international effort (and if so, can they attract international scientists while operating an authoritarian state?) or if they plan on doing it only nationally (seems much harder to do and not as effective).

<comment><USER13> FAST is actually having difficulty hiring (on-site specialists like operations director) the smartest minds because it's in a jungle in small-town China.

But yes, overall China is executing an excellent "brain drain" (not meant in a negative sense) by being willing to invest in these "keystone" projects when other countries are tightening budgets.

<comment><USER28> Telescopes generally have this problem though. Because it sucks to live out in the middle of nowhere and you typically want to bring your family (which means you need cities to support things like schools and recreation. Most labs/research sites I know are like this. China Lake is an exception. But even Groom Lake has has Vegas near it).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> What is the percentage of the sky it can observe? Should be fairly small.

<comment><USER30> This telescope moves the sensor head across the surface, changing the actual angle of the observation. The big poles around it are what suspends the head over the surface. It has actually a huge angle of observation. According to WP, 60° in its small 200 m aperture and 26.4° in its 300m aperture.

<comment><USER13> FAST can also move it's "mirror," the shell has some huge number of triangular sections on wires, so it should be able to point even more than arecibo which has an immutable reflector. Both have adjustable focal points (sensor head) on wires like you describe.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How should I organize my GitHub? - <AUTHOR>

I am not a programmer by trade (liberal arts degree originally). Since the "Github Resume" seems to be increasingly popular, I wanted to try something else: a Github degree. By that I mean, I wanted to keep a record of every programming book I read, every exercise I do, and every project I write, and host it all on github. My purpose in doing so would be that when someone asks, "Have you ever read the K&R C book?", rather than saying, "Yes, tkae my word for it." I can say "Yes; and here are my solutions for every major exercise." This would additionally allow me to refer to past exercises for reference in future projects, and perhaps provide some kind of guide to anyone else who might be googling around for help on a particular exercise.
At this point my Github is already setup (https://github.com/AdmiralAsshat) and I've been doing this routine for every book and/or udemy course I take moving forward. At the moment most of my repos are simply named "learn_x" because I was following Zed Shaw's various Learn Code the Hard Way courses (http://c.learncodethehardway.com/), but I've since expanded to other materials.
My question primarily deals with how I should organize this stuff vis-a-vis the various books/courses. Should I divide up the repos into languages or courses? i.e. Should I give every course its own repo, or just create big "Java", "C", 'Python", etc. directories and then sub-directories for each book?
Pardon the mess on the current repos--I was learning git as I was learning the languages. I'm still trying to figure out once I decide on an organizational method how I'm going to migrate the source files while keeping the commits. <comment><USER2> If you are using your GitHub page as a resume, change your username. Some prospective employers will dismiss AdmiralAsshat as inappropriate for the workplace, others will be amused but will always think of you as "that asshat guy".

</comment><comment><USER3> Why not set it up on your own website? That way, when you give out links, your own SEO is improving, not GitHub's. Do it right, and your site could become the go-to place for technology xxx

<comment><USER4> I come here to say the same thing.

Do not use GitHub as your main website. Use it for some code, but maintain your content in your domain.

It is better for your SEO. This way, you have a product, not only a lot of LOC.

<comment><USER5> Or use github pages on your own URL?

Github is one of the few sites I would be willing to trust with a large part of my life's work, because it's so easy for me to mirror.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> There are many more appropriate places on the internet to ask this question. Here are two:

[http://programmers.stackexchange.com](http://programmers.stackexchange.com)

[http://www.reddit.com/r/git/](http://www.reddit.com/r/git/)

Please keep HN for news and other topics of broad interest.

<comment><AUTHOR> This was asked here rather than Stack Overflow because of the idea of it being a potential self-marketing tool, like the Github resume.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Start with one repo and reorganize when it feels necessary.</comment>


Profitable companies fail as often as venture backed startups - <AUTHOR> Losing 250k in one year taught me there's actually something more important than profit...
No one likes failures, but they're part of the journey in building a business. I thought we got everything right, but somehow in-and-out of cash got the best of us
So a few months back, after picking up the pieces, we decided to build out a stupid simple product to remove complexities in financial data.
I wanted to make data talk to me like I was a puppy
So we landed on https://cenario.co, a new product we've just launched to solve my problem and hopefully yours
If you've got a moment, check us out, but also share your journey so far in business, because i'm eager to hear! <comment><USER2> Good job! Cenario looks really good. Would love to try!</comment>


Live Blog: Google's 'next dimension' of Maps event - <AUTHOR> http://live.cnet.com/Event/Googles_next_dimension_of_Maps_event?tag=mncol;txt <comment><USER2> Hmm, pretty underwhelming.

Great 3D: cool to be sure, but of limited use. Also, I think this is trying to head off Apple's equivalent announcement next week, which I expect to be even more eye-popping, but of the same limited-use.

Street View Stuff: yawn. A marked improvement of the architecture and/or interface would be more appreciated than just mapping more areas. Ski slopes? Whatever. I want automatic incorporation stitching of user images! Automatic occlusion removal where possible! Smoother navigation and transitions!

Offline download: good feature, but what's with the Android exclusive? Shouldn't this be an API feature? Can't you already do this with OpenMaps? Can't you probably do this already yourself?

Are you using data gathered from opt-in Android phones yet to try and better map traffic conditions?

<comment><USER3> Does Maps for iOS still use raster map tiles (like Maps for Android used to)? If so, the amount of space required to cache large map areas at all zoom levels becomes prohibitively large.

<comment><USER2> Oh, Ok, I get it, by offline they mean raw data and a client-side rendering library. That is a nice improvement, but I would have to assume, this does not include satellite imagery then. Come to think of it, I'd be amazed if Apple's map announcements next week don't include similar capability.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This seems to be live already for selected locations in Europe.

For example <http://goo.gl/maps/2iVt> \- zoom out for the old interface, zoom in for unbelieved details.

<comment><USER5> I hope that's not the only thing they are announcing. Bing Maps has had this as "Bird's Eye" view for a while.

<comment><USER4> Compare <http://binged.it/KOXqqh> with <http://goo.gl/maps/fC4r> , they're identical but Google still has 2 zoom levels to go into details, while Bing is maxed out.

<comment><USER5> A formal announcement shouldn't be necessary for 2 zoom levels difference.

<comment><USER6> Today's announcement wasn't about that at all. It was about their use of new imagery gathered from planes (paid for and coordinated by Google) to generate detailed, textured, 3D models of cities.

See: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMBJ2Hu0NLw#t=4296s>

<comment><USER5> I know, that's what I was saying. They weren't going to have a whole announcement for something that is so trivial. (This was also posted before the announcement).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Hopefully they'll announce (as a side note) that the Android Maps API is going to be updated to match the Maps app. The app is of unparalleled quality, but developers have been unable to use it for far, far too long.

</comment><comment><USER8> Live stream - <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMBJ2Hu0NLw>

<comment><USER9> I see 30 minutes of dead air on that video. The fun starts here : [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMBJ2Hu0NLw&feature=playe...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMBJ2Hu0NLw&feature=player_detailpage#t=1842s)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> This offline maps stuff is just them launching a feature that's been in Labs for the last 6 months or so.

</comment><comment><USER11> Nokia already has something similar up (<http://maps3d.svc.nokia.com/webgl/index.html>).

Looking at NYC or the Bay Area is pretty impressive.

</comment><comment><USER12> This is in anticipation of Apple dropping Google for their own mapping system next week. So far Apple's "one more thing" for maps is rumored to be the result of their acquisition of C3 Technologies for their 3D maps. Google's simply showing that they can do that, too.

The offline maps component isn't very exciting: they've previously had that as a labs feature on Android phones.

<comment><USER13> Offline maps is a huge feature. And even with the new additions it seems to be lacking quite bad - to the point of being almost useless.

If I go abroad I wan't to easily download more than just a city. If you ever would try to go on the road abroad the feature as it is now is severely lacking. You more or less have to buy a 3rd party navigator (for about 60 euro) _only_ to get the offline maps feature, which is a bit frustrating.

<comment><USER12> The announcement of offline maps itself isn't very big: they've had offline maps on Android for at least a year as a labs feature.

Also, it's just for browsing. Searching and routing both require a network connection.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm guessing a 3rd dimension as the next dimension.

<comment><USER15> Probably a lot more useful than time...

<comment><USER16> Indeed. The rumor I've heard is that Google thought about putting Time into their Maps development cycle but decided it would probably be a waste.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The 3D data they have generated are amazing. This will make the "satellite"-view MUCH more useful.

</comment><comment><USER18> I keep hoping for some smoother navigation on street view, first-person- shooter like.

I realize the issues interpolating the pictures, but navigating down a street is quite clunky today.

</comment><comment><USER19> The only weirdness I can see is the streets under the bridge look funny. I guess that would be a problem when using aerial photography to generate and texture the 3d models.

</comment><comment><USER20> The description of the automatic collection of surface feature data from flying airplanes in tightly-controlled patterns makes me wonder if their activity has been part of what has been driving the pseudo-scientific alarm over "chemtrails" recently.</comment>


Ask HN: Have you (IT pro) ever been paid doing your hobby (non-IT)? - <AUTHOR>

I wander how it feels :)
I'm a software engineer and an amateur drummer, so I was thinking finding some temporary gig - getting paid as a drummer and percussionist...
Did any of you experience similar event in your life? How does it feel? :)
Thanks! <comment><USER2> Can't tell you how it feels, but I've been on the paying end. My outside (and completely _unpaid_ ) interest is community theatre, where I do some light design and administrative stuff. We're pretty much all-volunteer, but we always pay the musicians. There's a guy, a television station tech by day, who moonlights as an intinerant drummer at several community theatre venues, well known in our tightly-knit circle, who's not making a fortune but is always welcome to play. Nice guy. Maybe you could be him someday. See if you can find out who the musical directors are at local small shows in your area and get yourself added to their rolodexes. (Heh... "rolodex". Bet most of the kids around here don't know what that is.)</comment>


Interstellar communication. IX. Message decontamination is impossible - <AUTHOR> https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.02180 <comment><USER2> I read this paper (it's only a few pages, completely non-technical).

The entire paper assumes we get a certain type of communication and in the course of decoding it, destroy humanity. It would make an interesting screen play, but the paper presents no proof whatsoever that "message decontamination is impossible."

At best, the paper presents 1 case and outlines 1 possible ending which is the end of humanity. Kinda interesting but not nearly as universal as the title claims.

<comment><USER3> Wasn't Arrival about this?

<comment><USER4> Nope.

<spoilers>It's about two things. First, an alien race that give's humanity a "weapon" which is their language. Anyone who learns the language starts to perceive time in a non-linear (probably deterministic) fashion, ie. flashbacks and flashfowards. They did this so that humanity would save them sometime in the future from something unknown to modern day humans. And second, it's about how a translator lives through the life and death of her child while understanding said language. She makes the choice of conceiving her child even though she knew the child was going to die in the future because it was worth it to her because of how much she loved her daughter.</spoliers>

<comment><USER5> That is a very good summary of the movie. I've watched it 3 times and love it more each time.

<comment><USER6> Did you read the short story? IMO, it's better.

<comment><USER7> Link to the story, for GP: [http://discours.philol.msu.ru/attachments/article/264/Chiang...](http://discours.philol.msu.ru/attachments/article/264/Chiang_Story%20of%20Your%20Life.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Paper says it's focus is on all ET communications, but instead focuses on malicious AI code.

Secure isolation review of code is dismissed because AIs can trick people into freeing them.

Finding states: "[M]essage cannot be decontaminated with certainty, and technical risks remain which can pose an existential threat. Complex messages would need to be destroyed in the risk averse case."

Couldn't we simply agree not to execute un-audited code from unknown third parties? Seems like the same threat vector as unknown executable code delivered over email to me.

<comment><USER9> I have something urgent I need to tell you. Your life could be in danger. You need to contact me immediately.

<comment><USER10> "They're following this signal at 0.98c. You might be able to defeat them, but you must act immediately or face utter annihilation."

<comment><USER11> If they're following at that velocity, then we're already dead, and "they" are a relativistic bombardment we won't even see coming.

<comment><USER10> Then the promise of safety is all the more tempting, isn't it?

<comment><USER11> Maybe, but if they're sending us EM signals then we know we're doomed. Physics as we know it, with c as a limit, strongly implies that it is simply impossible to defend against a relativistic strike.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I've been fascinated by these AI containment/usage scenarios ever since I heard of them. Here's another perspective on the problem that I find very fascinating:

Assume that, beyond a shadow of a doubt, we have an impenetrable system for interfacing with the AI. I say system, because the people that are part of the protocol are all moral equivalents of Jesus. They can't be corrupted, they can't be blackmailed. The AI is kept in a box that cannot be accessed by anyone else. In short: we've solved the containment problem (of the AI).

Of course we _do_ want to use the AI. We've installed it in the box for a reason. If we didn't intend to use it we might as well not have built it. So actually using the tech that it gives us, after checking for corrupting technology, is also a given in this scenario.

We can ask the AI questions and interact with it, extract knowledge and have it solve our problems for us.

If we were to use the AI, it would still destroy us, even without corrupting any of the people working with it or feeding us corrupted technology. Simply _using_ the AI will be enough.

Using the AI effectively cheapens the creation of another AI. Each new processor we have the AI design will be faster and than it's predecessors. Every mathematical problem that it solves is checked, confirmed an shared in our universities. Eventually the technological over-saturation of our society will ensure that the contemporary equivalent of a mobile phone can run a strong AI. The ubiquitousness of the new insights will ensure that all the theory needed to bootstrap another AI is there for the taking. In short, truly _using_ the AI, (asking the questions, sharing the knowledge) will ensure another AI existing outside of the containment system, malicious or otherwise. Taken to the extreme, if strong recursive AI is a possible, it is a given.

I don't think strong self improving AI can actually exist. But who knows?

<comment><USER13> > Using the AI effectively cheapens the creation of another AI. Each new > processor we have the AI design will be faster and than it's predecessors. > [...] Eventually the technological over-saturation of our society will > ensure that the contemporary equivalent of a mobile phone can run a strong > AI.

These are extremely strong statements, which you cannot prove.

<comment><USER12> Well we do have strong AI in a form factor the size of an average human's head. And that AI, while not super human in most cases, is not specially tuned to be intelligent for the sake of intelligence. It's only as intelligent as evolution 'needed' it to be to survive. I can't prove, but I'm convinced that it is possible. You don't have to be convinced, but I hope you see why I state my case so confidently.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Decoding the messages will probably mine ET-bitcoin for some galactic-scale speculators.

</comment><comment><USER15> The report cites Bostrom~

But seriously, confined evaluation was figured out in the mid-90s by the E folks, building on years of research into capability security, and the worst thing that can happen is Turing-completeness.

I'd be more worried that the message contains a memetic hazard. Our computers wouldn't be infected; our minds would be infected.

<comment><USER16> ...if such a thing actually exists.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'm reading Infinity Born by Douglas E. Richards - it touches on many of the AGI (artificial general intelligence) concepts talked about here. The guy in the book creates an AGI, but thinks he has it contained but it evolves to the point where it gets out of it's box. Good stuff, highly recommend.

</comment><comment><USER18> Makes Stanislaw Lem seem even more predictive than usual ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His_Master%27s_Voice_(novel)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His_Master%27s_Voice_\(novel\)))

</comment><comment><USER19> I _MUST_ refer to "Белая трость калибра 7,65" ("White cane of 7.65 caliber"): [http://lib.ru/SOCFANT/NEFF/trost.txt](http://lib.ru/SOCFANT/NEFF/trost.txt) (Russian translation of Czech SciFi piece)

I read it in "Tech for Youngs" USSR magazine (Техника Молодёжи) a long time ago, around 1980. It is short and profound, for example, I later came around human echolocation phenomena and instantly remembered that piece. Our current human echolocators are about as good as the main hero of the piece above.

Given that, I think we are safe. ;)

</comment><comment><USER20> Paper is just a wrapper for the AI box problem, nothing new. It doesn't even provide a very strong argument for the impossibility of decontamination, just a "proof" by example (not really a proof).

<comment> ryan-allen Here's a link to the AI box problem on Wikipedia for anyone like me who hadn't heard of it: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_box](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_box)

Also, this reminds me of the premise of the movie Ex Machina (no spoilers!) which is sweet! [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0470752/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0470752/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Here's an interesting thought experiment. If you were going to transmit gigabytes of data to another star system with the intention that a technologically sophisticated society on the other end could decode and reassemble it, what parity and checksumming scheme would you use? For example, treat it like a very poor NNTP service and include 60% PAR2 files?

If you were going to use some form of lossless compression, what compressor would you choose that could be simply and quickly explained in a preamble series of data?

</comment><comment><USER22> Reminds me of the episode of ST:TNG where they come upon a Borg that was injured, and debate whether to show him a puzzle virus that would cause the entire Borg collective to grind to a halt by decoding it:

[http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/I_Borg_(episode)](http://memory- alpha.wikia.com/wiki/I_Borg_\(episode\))

</comment><comment><USER23> For a glimpse at a future humanity driven to (understandable) paranoia by this scenario, see Ken MacLeod's _The Cassini Division_.

</comment><comment><USER24> I just finished reading The Three-Body Problem, which covers some of the same ground... though the aliens in that book end up communicating in some more exotic ways.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three- Body_Problem_(novel)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three- Body_Problem_\(novel\))

<comment><USER25> Maybe it's been too long since I read this, but I feel like it wasn't adequately explained how the aliens understood the initial message. All of the sudden communication was taking place...

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Richard Rhodes' book on the physics and history of science behind the bomb goes to some length to explain just how much information about fission and fusion is a matter of public record. Yet, small details remain redacted. mostly if I recall correctly, about 'levitated cores' in fission bombs, and the exact composition of the 'lens' in a fissile igniter for a fusion bomb.

Another source I believe comments that with one infinitesimal change to fundamental universal constants, fission and fusion would be impossible except at stellar scale. Odd, that we live in a universe where the boundary between existence and annihilation is so thin, yet we continue to exist.

Personally, I think the proof here is a divide-by-zero instance. Conceptually, a design of information that can be communicated, such that it cannot be comprehended or enacted but its consequence ensues. Isn't that a kind of meme?

<comment> crooked-v > Odd, that we live in a universe where the boundary between existence and > annihilation is so thin, yet we continue to exist.

If the universal constants were different, there could well be a different form of life making the comment instead.

For example, see Greg Egan's scifi book The Clockwork Rocket, which features a universe that runs on fundamentally different principles but that has broadly recognizable forms of life.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Let's go one step further.

Even receiving and recording the message might be very dangerous. There have been cases in the past where contaminated MP3 or video files took over the media players (because of decoding bugs in them).

Imagine a very weak signal which requires complicated signal processing and correlation between multiple receivers to reconstruct.

<comment><USER28> > There have been cases in the past where contaminated MP3 or video files took > over the media players (because of decoding bugs in them).

The paper does talk about message compression being a vulnerability since we would have a hard time manually running their decompression algorithm.

However, I find it hard to believe that any kind of message will be dangerous due to signal processing without the sender having knowledge about our IT system structure and implementation details or some sort of feedback cycle. Given the time delays of interstellar messaging, I feel the only risk here can come from some sort of AI running locally which I assume would only be possible if we evaluate the message in a turing complete tool (such as their provided decompression algorithm.

<comment><USER27> I get you point, I also thought of this.

But at the same time, with long enough messages you could sample a lot of possible IT system structures.

The unknown danger here is that there might be some underlying generic exploitable structure in our systems or processes that we are not aware of yet.

<comment><USER28> > The unknown danger here is that there might be some underlying generic > exploitable structure in our systems or processes that we are not aware of > yet.

You would need more than an exploit, you need an exploit that allows you to parse the message in a turing complete fashion to bootstrap an AI.

Otherwise, I don't see how identifying the exploit transitions to being a significant risk to humanity.

<comment><USER27> They can guide our behavior somehow.

For example, they can safely assume that the moment we catch a glimpse of a message we will point all our receivers towards the source, thus they got us to amplify their signal and look for it all over the spectrum.

Then, they can guide what sort of analyses we run.

For example, they might embed a lot of prime number structures into their signal, thus we will apply a lot of our prime number expertise and methods on their numbers. What if you can bootstrap a turing complete machine by doing various statistics on prime numbers?

They could alternate, one week the signal is prime-number heavy, the next week it has vary weird spectral distributions, so we will pull out all kind of Fourier transforms.

We don't yet know all the possible places where a turing machine might hide.

In a way, you can consider the whole network of research facilities and researchers applying statistical methods on a signal some sort of a predictable controllable machine. Maybe not turing, but maybe you can go by with a weaker kind. Think how you can do good computations with non- deterministic machines. Couple that with psychology (social engineering) and game theory.

It seems to me highly dangerous to let our signal analysis be guided by the signal itself, and in general to do anything with a signal form an intelligent source.

Even if it's just clear text ASCII English, who knows what kind of social havoc you can wreck with just a few carefully constructed sentences from a very advanced intelligence.

<comment><USER29> That isn't how computers or mathematics work. If you calculate an average or perform other simple statistical methods it is impossible for the results to be Turing complete. If they used some hypothetical recursive Turing complete method of analysing the numbers then the mathematicians would be aware of it being Turing Complete. Even if such a analysis was performed the alien program interpreted it would be only to affect the results of the analysis and not the computer as a whole because a mathematical analysis doesn't require network access, disk access or the ability to execute machine code.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> E.T. says I just have to enable macros in this interstellar doc to get some Reese's Pieces!

</comment><comment> gene-h It is certainly quite uncommon to see "Clarke and Kubrick" cited in a paper.

</comment><comment><USER31> If it's not possible it is probably the reason for the great filter [1] :-)

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

</comment><comment><USER32> Looks like the plot of "A for Andromeda" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_for_Andromeda](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_for_Andromeda)

<comment><USER33> Thank you for pointing this out. I heard about this series but never watched it, and didn't know the plot. Amazing how the scifi writers leapfrog their times in understanding of science and its implications.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> What a load of speculative, thin twaddle. This is just an extension of the never-ending "hard takeoff" malicious-AI argument (as exemplified by " _Our Final Invention_ " by James Barrat and others). "It might cause a mob" or "it might contain a compressed AI that ingratiates itself and betrays us" is really not a terribly convincing argument. It's just... paranoid and meek.

</comment><comment><USER35> It's worth reading Stanislaw Lem's His Master's Voice. It deals exactly with this topic but it is much more nuanced.

</comment><comment><USER16> They talk as if they have some sort of scientific or mathematical proof of this.

But all they have is "it seems to me that".

You can publish that, sure, think tanks do that kind of thing all the time. But that's not a scientific paper, not as I understand the concept.

</comment><comment><USER36> Pretty sure the first message to be received will be something along the lines of "hot dates in your local cloud" or perhaps a plea to send some credits to unlock Andromeda's King hidden bank account.

</comment><comment><USER33> Fantastic thought experiment. Not sure if it was already covered in a scifi story before, my scifi literature is pretty weak. If not, somebody should turn this into one.

</comment><comment><USER37> I cannot decide if this paper is meant to be a joke.

Also, there is no proof that true AI can be achieved with Turing completeness alone, so this is a gaping hole in the logic right there.

<comment><USER38> Do you believe the human brain is not a computational system?

<comment><USER37> The human brain does not follow a computer architecture that we can replicate in a lab.

<comment><USER39> Couldn't a simulation of all the atoms be done with a computer that was theoretically powerful enough?

<comment><USER37> Well, there are two catches involved: we don't have that kind of model for a human brain, but it would be required to setup proper initial conditions for a working brain. Second, depending on the simulation method required (classical vs. QM), the resulting model could easily end up being so ridiculously huge that we couldn't build a computer capable of running it based on current tech for lack of natural resources.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Hustle, A defense in kind.  - <AUTHOR> http://sandersak.posthaven.com/the-hustle-a-defense-in-kind

<comment><USER2> For some reason this made me think of gene mutation. Sometimes you get cancer, but sometimes you get beautiful evolution.

really great piece. Made me both hate myself and love myself a little more.

</comment><comment><USER3> I think there's always a difference in hustle required between a founder and an employee and how "big" you want to go.

You can live a beautiful life making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year as an employee and raise a wonderful family. It's a wonderful thing about being an engineer and there's nothing wrong with that.

That being said, if you are doing your own thing, and are shooting for the stars as the article mentions, you're going to need to have the hustle on your side.

</comment><comment><USER4> Great post. I think startup folks forget the negative connotation "hustle" has generally has had for years.

<comment><USER3> Perhaps tied to the fact that devs often feel as though they have been hustled by "business" folk in the past.</comment></comment>


Tesla Sentry Mode: Interesting New Details - <AUTHOR> https://electrek.co/2019/02/19/tesla-sentry-mode-more-details/ <comment><USER2> > Tesla states that it is temporarily backing footage to its network

Lol, sure.

Speaking of SW improvements, is Tesla autopilot still crashing into stationary vehicles and concrete slabs on highways and stuff? How about focusing on that rather than nearly worthless "features".</comment>


Surprise - America already has a cyber Manhattan Project - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2015/02/americas-cyber-espionage-project-isnt-defense-waging-war/

<comment><USER2> "But we can stop pretending now that the government is ever going to have a "Manhattan Project" that improves the state of the art in computer defense. That would undermine the very attack system it has spent billions of dollars and a decade-and-a-half building. Despite the popular can-do appeal, a defensive Manhattan Project isn't just unlikely. It's a moon shot."</comment>