Trump Will End California's Authority to Set Stricter Auto Emissions Rules - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/17/climate/trump-california-emissions-waiver.html <comment><USER6> > California's special right to set its own tailpipe pollution rules dates to > the 1970 Clean Air Act, the landmark federal legislation designed to fight > air pollution nationwide. The law granted California a waiver to set > stricter rules of its own because the state already had clean air > legislation in place before the landmark 1970 federal legislation.

If the law granted California the waiver, why is the executive (rather than the legislature) allowed to revoke it?

<comment><USER7> The law allows the EPA to grant the waiver. It doesn't require them to do it.

Edit: pre-emptively nitpicking my own statement: the Act gives the EPA enumerated reasons to not grant the waivers.

<comment><USER8> Does this lead to a constitutional crisis over the EPA's ability to govern? It seems like the Feds have a difficult time using interstate commerce as a justification for the EPA's authority. In this case, California isn't attempting to regulate industry outside of the state (it just happens to be so powerful as to have that side-effect).

I feel like this is a move to destroy the EPA and make California pay the legal fees to do it.

<comment><USER9> > Does this lead to a constitutional crisis

I severely doubt it. Wickard v. Filburn is a solid bedrock of totally ignoring the intent of the commerce clause.

<comment><USER10> Supreme Court cases get deprecated without expressly being overruled, especially wartime cases. _Stare decisis_ doesn't require you to read a precedent for all its worth; only to follow it if it's squarely on point. The ACA case found the individual mandate failed under the commerce clause notwithstanding _Wickard._

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Emissions standards should be tougher, the gas tax should be higher, ZEV credits should be larger, and yet still, it's arguable that this has to be done through a Federal framework, and not at the State level.

The Constitution enumerates powers of the Federal government, the rest being reserved to the State, or to the People. For all the ways the enumerated powers have been stretched, Commerce between the States is one of the few powers of Congress actually enumerated.

If the Supreme Court can find that the Commerce clause allows Congress to prevent a State from allowing private production of marijuana for personal medical use [1], it's hard to see how a State can effectively set emissions standards for automobiles across the Country.

[1] - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich)

<comment><USER12> > _it 's arguable that this has to be done through a Federal framework, and > not at the State level._

That doesn't follow. I'm not a 10th amendment fanatic and I think the commerce clause has been hugely important, but even I have a problem with the inversion that anything that can be regulated by the federal government must be regulated _only_ by the federal government :)

The Clean Air Act is statute, and by statute allowed for the California waivers. There's no constitutional argument that shouldn't be allowed.

<comment><USER11> Isn't the Clean Air Act statute — itself an act of Congress — the Commerce Clause in action?

<comment><USER12> > _Isn't the Clean Air Act statute — itself an act of Congress — the Commerce > Clause in action?_

Yes, but the reason (from your OP) "a State can effectively set emissions standards" is because the Clean Air Act explicitly allows it to and allows other states to voluntarily follow suit.

<comment><USER11> I think we may be arguing in circles. The Clean Air Act gives the EPA the authority to grant the State the ability to set their own standards. It does not require the EPA allow States to set their own standards.

If the question is whether the States have the authority to set fuel standards absent Federal approval, I think the Commerce clause stipulates that they cannot, neither directly nor effectively. The Supremacy clause of the Constitution means that EPA standards will _preempt_ the State standards if the EPA says they should.

My original point is that's probably a good thing overall, because what's true for vehicle efficiency standards would be true for innumerable other goods which we want to be able to sell anywhere in the country under a single standardized set of [safety, environment, labeling, packaging, warranty, liability, supply chain, and labor] regulations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> California will just go with the nuclear option: Cost of registering a vehicle will be based on vehicle emissions.

<comment><USER7> Yes, California has all the tools it needs to enforce their will. For example, they can establish mandatory weekly inspections for cars not meeting their standards. They can tax carbon fuels at $1000/ton. They can set the vehicle registration fees (not the tax-deductible part) to arbitrary amounts.

<comment><USER14> > They can set the vehicle registration fees (not the tax-deductible part) to > arbitrary amounts.

High vehicle registration fees was one of the major factors in the recall of Governor Davis back in 2003. It may have been just as big a factor as the electricity crisis. Voters _really_ don't like seeing their car registration fees go up.

<comment><USER8> It might be more palatable to levy these fees in a targeted manner, i.e., Raise fees on people buying _new_ twin-turbocharged, crew cab pickups and the like, while using the revenue to subsidize Model 3s, Priuses and Civics.

Just rumors of this happening are probably enough to impact sales in the USA's largest market.

<comment><USER15> Excise taxes on new cars instead of gasoline taxes is what I keep harping on. You can then use the money to pay for buybacks of older cars. And fund things like California's down payment assistance programs for low income drivers. Where the air quality board buys back an older gasoline powered car and provides the owner with money for a down payment on a new or used electric or hybrid vehicle.

You could do the same with natural gas furnaces. Put an excise tax on new ones and a program to help people to replace their old one with a heat pump.

This is better because the impression people would get is the state trying to help them do the right thing vs the beat poor people with a stick like carbon taxes do. (See France's Yellow Vests)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> munk-a "States are the laboratories of Democracy" was the line we've been sold to defend three week abortion bans, voter ID laws and other local BS. As soon as it's a left leaning law that justification apparently goes out the window.

<comment><USER16> I urge you to look more closely at the specifics of the best arguments being made on either side and see if you hold that same view then.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> State rights continue to be trampled upon...

<comment><USER18> Indeed. While France and Germany flex their local muscle against Facebook's Libra currency, this is a step in the opposite direction for the US and its states.

<comment><USER16> > _Indeed. While France and Germany flex their local muscle against Facebook's > Libra currency, this is a step in the opposite direction for the US and its > states._

Meanwhile Guy Verhofstadt goes to Britain to brag, unambiguously, about an intent to turn the EU into a unitary empire. The justification? "Everyone else is doing it!".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I don't understand. Why is California not allowed to set whatever laws it wants?

Is it, like, the "California exception" is being dropped from the Clean Air Act, but CA is free to pass an altogether separate, state law? Or is the federal government somehow saying that California is not allowed to pass a law legislating something about the environment?

Or is it somehow like No Child Left Behind where _technically_ the federal government can't control state schools, but in practice it can by setting requirements for how it hands out money?

I just feel like I'm missing something here.

<comment><USER20> The US constitution says:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

That means that when the federal government has jurisdiction, laws passed at the federal level preempt state laws that contradict them.

I don't know where the EPA rules gain their constitutional authority, my guess is the commerce clause of the constitution. But fundamentally, what this means is that when the federal government passes a law, state laws that contradict it, are, according to the Supreme Court, "without effect".

I'd imagine that occurs in a positive sense and negative sense - <USER2> something like a car that gets 40 miles to a gallon or a THC-filled vape becomes legal at the federal level, states aren't allowed to decide otherwise, without delegation from the government.

NCLB is different because while the federal government can make laws, it can't force the states to implement those laws. While there could be a federal agency - like the classroom police - to enforce NCLB, it's easier to just bribe the states until they agree to comply.

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

<comment><USER16> Basically: if you think the Commerce Clause applies to firearms or practically anything else, it almost certainly applies to cars.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I really don't understand the states rights arguments. Congress's authority to regulate in an area includes the power to preempt inconsistent state regulation. If Congress has the authority to regulate vehicle emissions, it has the authority to preempt a particular state's attempts to impose stronger regulations than the federal standard. If, by contrast, you think Congress can't preempt California's regulations, then it must follow that Congress cannot regulate vehicle emissions at all.

<comment><USER18> > If Congress has the authority to regulate vehicle emissions, it has the > authority to preempt a particular state's attempts to impose stronger > regulations than the federal standard.

I don't see how one follows from the other. One is a regulation of emissions; the other is a regulation of a state's regulations. If California isn't permitting things that are prohibited by the national standard, then Congress should not be intervening.

<comment><USER10> The power to regulate an area is based on the subject matter, whether it qualifies as "interstate commerce," not whether some conduct within that domain is permitted or not. It's not a one-way ratchet where Congress sets a floor and states can ratchet it up if they want. Sometimes that's what Congress wants to do, but other times it decides that some things should be unregulated beyond a certain threshold. That's a function of the regulatory framework Congress chooses to enact, not what the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to do.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Note: Greenhouse emissions in USA, transportation is largest at 29%, followed by electricity 28% and industry 22%

[https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas- emis...](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions)

<comment><USER16> DoT paints a more interesting picture:

[https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/gas%20emi...](https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/gas%20emissions%20from%20transportation.PNG)

Passenger cars and motorcycles, combined, saw between 1990 and 2006 an increase of 3% in carbon dioxide emissions in absolute terms. Over the same period of time, medium- and heavy-duty trucks and buses saw their carbon dioxide emissions increase by 76% (!). Also notably, CO2 emitted by Aircraft decreased 5%, and Boats/Ships, Rail, "and Pipelines" (I'm not really sure of the mechanism for CO2 emissions from pipelines), decreased by 13%.

I'd like to see more updated information, not sure why it's harder to come by, but it seems like there's more to it than passenger cars. The "Light-Duty Trucks" category is also hard to tease apart, because it inherently combines trucks used as passenger transport, and trucks used for utility.

<comment><USER22> > I'm not really sure of the mechanism for CO2 emissions from pipelines

They aren't talking CO2 emissions per-se but greenhouse gas emissions in "CO2 equivalent". This is an important distinction because there are other greenhouse gases, most notable methane. My guess is the emissions from pipelines refers to methane leaking out of natural gas pipelines.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> It's unconstitutional on its face, but the Supreme Court will uphold it. Sad times. Kid voting turnout could swing the election, and it's a major success for forces of evil that they've convince so many people of the "pox on both their houses" idea. I feel bad for young people, I'm glad I'll probably die before things get really bad.

<comment><USER24> I don't agree that it's unconstititional. (But, I do contend that it's a foolish, regressive action for the administration to take.)

The federal government clearly has constitutional power to establish preemptive law in this area. Whether that preemptive effect is conditionally or selectively waived, and whether the waiver involves executive discretion, doesn't change the constitutional dimensions of the issue, in my opinion.

<comment><USER23> How do you reconcile it with the 10th amendment. Due to local effects of emissions it should be within state purview. The case (because this will reach the scotus) will be based the commerce clause, and that is nonsense because it is a critical health issue in smog prone areas.

You can argue abstract about trends in commerce clause based decisions in the 20th century between wickburn and lopez, but my point is you can throw that out the window: there is a plausible argument that allows a conservative decision. Therefore, regardless of precedent, the decision will be made along partisan lines. If a Democratic president is elected in 2020, precedent will be summarily reversed. The conservative movement is completely comfortable with power and exercising it maximally.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> > In recent months, the administration's broader weakening of nationwide auto- > emissions standards has become plagued with delays as staff members > struggled to prepare adequate legal, technical or scientific justifications > for the move.

As a practical matter, I'd encourage them to work in the other direction: from justifications to policy. Do they need justifications for any legal reason or only for public relations?

</comment><comment><USER26> How can the federal government limit the states ability to add stricter regulations? Is there a law explicitly saying that cars can pollute at a certain level?

My understanding was that states can add stricter restrictions to any federal laws as long as there was no other law limiting how strict they can get

</comment><comment><USER27> More accurately: Trump will start a long legal battle with the goal of trying to end "California's Authority to Set Stricter Auto Emissions Rules."

<comment><USER28> My own feelings about Trump set aside, I can't imagine he'll prevail.

<comment><USER29> Even so, think about the damage he will do along the way.

<comment><USER30> In this case, not much. The automakers don't want the rules to change and are extremely unlikely to start retooling factories since this is a temporary situation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> > while Mr. Trump is traveling in the state, where he is scheduled to attend > fund-raisers in Los Angeles and Silicon Valley.

On an unrelated side note, I was driving today and this absolutely massive plane was right over my head, almost just hanging in the air. From the underside I couldn't tell what color the top was, but I saw it had four engines and seemed to be heading straight for the local Air Force base.

So apparently I saw Air Force One today. I think that's the first time I've seen it since Trump became President. The flight path is right outside my office window, so when Obama was President, it seemed to come on a much more regular basis.

<comment><USER32> It looks like any other 747 other than the colors.

The big military cargo planes are far bigger. Which air force base?

<comment><USER31> Yeah the big cargo planes are bigger, but since they are painted dark colors they hide their dimensions so they don't look as big. Also I'm not usually driving under the landing path. :)

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

I guess technically it's not a base but an airfield.

<comment><USER33> It's not a base because it'(wa)s a Station... NAS Sunnyvale (i guess the city lines between Mtn View and Sunnyvale were much different back then).

It's one of those 'We don't use the terms that the [Army|Navy] use, goddamn it' things.

* Edit: Apparently it was named Sunnyvale because 'Mountain View' had too much of a supposition that it might sound like something to crash into, lol.

<comment><USER31> The Airfield is not part of either city but borders both cities fairly equally. Either name would make sense and choosing Sunnyvale to avoid the mountain reference makes sense too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> This just feels so ... petty.

Do republicans really want to destroy the environment at any cost? Do they really want dirty air and rivers that are on fire due to chemical pollution? I don't get it. Where's the rational thinking? There's not even an obvious motivation of greed here - the automobile industry doesn't want the emission regulations to be turned back (cf. [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/06/climate/automakers- califo...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/06/climate/automakers-california- emissions-antitrust.html)).

<comment><USER6> Even if they believe the economic benefits of loosening regulations to be a worthwhile tradeoff, I'm shocked that they don't seem to have any consideration for their political future and the damage they are doing to their brand among young people who overwhelmingly support increased environmental protections.

<comment><USER35> Until young people actually start voting who gives a shit what they support? Not politicians.

I don't say this because I like the current status quo, just because I recognize the reality of the situation.

I wish young people (in the US, the country of my citizenship) would actually vote in significant numbers, but all the data says they just don't (yet).

<comment><USER36> Young people do grow up.

Younger liberals and conservatives are fairly solid on this category of issues. This isn't a case where people are going to grow up and lean Republican. People are going to remember who wasn't there for them when climate whiplash destroys their home.

<comment> munk-a Can we please attack this problem in some manner that doesn't involve letting the world burn to a crisp just so we can say "I told you so"?

I agree, if climate change goes unchecked there will be ample opportunity for "I told you so"s but I'd rather check climate change - and it's important enough to do that I'm willing to give up gloating rights and say "Hey look, we all came together and solved this issue."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Can anyone chime in a what legal basis that the Supreme Court would rule for the Trump administration? It appears that the laws are not in conflict and automakers could easily comply with both sets of laws.

Are dry counties illegal since there is a federal law allowing the sale of alcohol?

</comment><comment><USER38> Car companies know the writing is on the wall with regards to pollution and EV.

> The administration's plans have been further complicated because major > automakers have told the White House that they do not want such an > aggressive rollback. In July, four automakers formalized their opposition to > Mr. Trump's plans by signing a deal with California to comply with tighter > emissions standards if the broader rollback goes through

<comment><USER39> One little nuance you have to keep in mind there is that many automakers now generally like emission regulations. The reason is because it creates a cycle of obsolescence. Make a car that will be noncompliant with expected regulations in 'x' years and you now have a guaranteed revenue cycle. I'm not saying this is good or bad - it could well be that even if they have bad intentions it results in a good outcome, so who cares? But these little nuances are, I think, important in considering the big picture as you're doing with your statement.

Another example along these lines is asthma inhalers. The reason asthma inhalers cost so much in the US, even though it's for a dirt cheap drug that's long since out of patent protection, is because pharmaceutical companies lobbied to get rid of the CFC based delivery mechanism for "environmental reasons." They lobbied on this hard, for years. And finally succeeded. And once the new rules passed they immediately threw a hoard of patents at the new mandated HFC delivery system and jacked the prices up skyhigh. [1] So you'd think rolling back drug regulations would have the pharmaceutical industry jumping for joy, but in this case they specifically utilized regulations and environmentalism to create a massive profit that would not have otherwise existed.

Ultimately a lot of these issues are a lot more opaque than they might seem at a glance.

[1] - [https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/10/heres-why- you...](https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/10/heres-why-your-asthma- inhaler-costs-so-damn-much/)

<comment><USER40> Where are you getting this idea from? Most really old cars are exempt from emissions rules, and I've never actually heard of someone failing an SO2 test (smog, which _isn't_ CO2) unless something was egregiously broken with their engine, like a missing cat. They even have state-certified mechanics that can fix your car if it fails smog. It barely affects the used market at all.

Inhalers without CFCs are cheap in every other country in the world. Your problems with the cost of healthcare here have little to do with some rules around CFCs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> "States rights" was always phony idealogical veil.

</comment><comment><USER42> Good, I just paid $4.75 a gallon. California should not have higher gas prices than Hawaii, period.

<comment><USER43> Hawaii has higher prices than California[0], but I don't think there is any definitive reason that gasoline should be cheaper in Hawaii.

Hawaii is surrounded by ocean on all sides. Many metropolitan areas in California are valleys facing an onshore wind. Vehicle emissions kill people in Hawaii, and they kill even more people in California.

California produces more oil than Hawaii, but location or input prices in general are not the only determinant of energy prices. Take a look at some of the current gas prices around the world.[1]

      $/Gall - Country Average Price
      0.34 - Cuba
      1.08 - Iran
      2.08 - Egypt
      2.20 - Saudi Arabia
      2.91 - US
      3.72 - Australia
      3.86 - Canada
      4.05 - Mexico
      5.42 - Spain
      5.60 - New Zealand
      5.80 - Germany
      6.36 - France
      6.55 - Italy
      7.09 - <USER3>

Compare Cuba, Iran, Italy and Norway.

How about miles of paved roads to maintain [2]

      180,800 - California
      4,469 - <USER5>

or the wear by millions of miles traveled on those roads?[3]

      340,115 - California
      10,635 - <USER5>

Even if supplying gasoline to Hawaii is more expensive, and it has 1/20th the population of California to shoulder the costs of maintenance, there has a much smaller road network per capita to support, different air quality challenges, and less driving overall to discourage.

[0] [https://gasprices.aaa.com/state-gas-price- averages/](https://gasprices.aaa.com/state-gas-price-averages/)

[1] [https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/gasoline_prices/](https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/gasoline_prices/)

[2] [https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2016/h...](https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2016/hm10.cfm)

[3] [https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2016/v...](https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2016/vm2.cfm)

<comment><USER42> Do you have any idea how gasoline tax for the roads is actually used in California? It does not go to the roads that I can assure you. It goes to a giant general fund that until very recently Jerry Brown was using to susidize the train to nowhere.

<comment><USER43> About 90% of the gasoline tax goes towards transportation infrastructure, its financing administration and law enforcement.[1]

About 50-60% of transportation infrastructure funding[2] comes from gasoline taxes.

Approximately zero gasoline tax dollars go toward healthcare costs and other economic costs related to auto emissions. "Meeting federal clean air standards would have prevented an estimated 29,808 hospital admissions and ER visits throughout California over 2005–2007."[3] This is not the full economic cost[4] of poor air quality, which would also count long term impacts on health, the loss in lifetime earnings due to cognitive deficits, and the effects of emissions above a baseline without auto emissions that is below the federal standards, but still causing illness and development impacts.

Transportation also has many benefits to the people and stuff being transported as well as everyone in general, but it is difficult to understand the perspective where shirking responsibility for negative externalities is virtuous or principled, and enforcing a more equitable accounting is somehow corrupt.

[1] [https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/07/01/gas-tax-where-does- th...](https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/07/01/gas-tax-where-does-the-money- actually-go/) [2] [https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3572](https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3572) [3] [https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9501/index1.html](https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9501/index1.html) [4] [https://www.ewg.org/research/smoggy-schools/health- impacts-e...](https://www.ewg.org/research/smoggy-schools/health-impacts- economic-costs)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Revocation checking and Chrome's CRL - <AUTHOR> https://www.imperialviolet.org/2012/02/05/crlsets.html <comment><USER2> I agree with the issues around OCSP and soft-fail, but I don't think shipping a subset CRL list of 'important' revocations is ideal, either.

I've just re-keyed certificates I'm responsible for as a precaution after patching for Heartbleed. For one of the certificate providers used, GoDaddy, re-keying automatically revokes the old certificate, which is exactly what's wanted in this case.

But would that be considered an 'important' revocation? I have no way to be sure, but I'm assuming not -- as this is the same mechanism used by GoDaddy for routine rekeying.

Perhaps this is simply a problem with GoDaddy's certificate management tools, but I'm uncomfortable with two tiers of revocation, one of which is a "real" revocation and one of which is ignored by browsers.

</comment><comment><USER3> Back when this was written in 2012, Chrome was (transitioning to?) pushing revoked certs as a software update. Post-heartbleed, "We have to be mindful of size" doesn't seem like a valid option.

<comment><USER4> That does seem like a strange argument given that the safebrowsing database is essentially just a giant bloom filter containing many more entries (probably) than there are revoked SSL certificates.

The false positive verification could be done (for anything other than e.g. google.com's cert) with a call to Google's servers, I suppose.

<comment><USER5> A ~20MB bloom filter could have room for 10 million revoked certificates, with a .001 (1 in 1000) false positive rate. Moving either the false positive rate or the number of revoked certificates by an order of magnitude also increases size of the bloom filter an order of magnitude.

For privacy reasons you don't want the browser asking 'is certificate X revoked' (OSCP) you want the browser asking 'give me the latest list of revoked certificates under Root CA X' (CRLs) and that starts to become a prohibitively large download.

"OSCP Stapling" fixes the privacy problem, because the web server is the one asking for the OSCP response, and then caching it and providing it proactively to clients when they first connect.

What we could do is extend the HSTS header to provide a way for the web server to indicate OSCP MUST be Stapled, then the browser can fail hard if OSCP is not provided.

There's still a privacy issue of your browser basically bookmarking every HSTS site that you visit, and probably not providing an easy way to know that happening or clear that out. For example, if I clear my browsing history, should it reset my HSTS lists?

<comment><USER4> > There's still a privacy issue of your browser basically bookmarking every > HSTS site that you visit, and probably not providing an easy way to know > that happening or clear that out. For example, if I clear my browsing > history, should it reset my HSTS lists?

Agree. I'm suggesting the client maintains an up-to-date bloom filter for all revoked certificates, and only contacts Google when something detects as positive (to verify that it is not a false positive.) You will still leak "I visited foo.com" if someone has compromised your SSL connection to google.com, but at least it doesn't leak your entire browsing history.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm confused: I thought that Chrome didn't automatically [edit: by default] check for server certificate revocation (under Preferences->Advanced)? This post indicates that it does, but that the process is flawed.

<comment><USER7> The post is from 2012 and says "we're currently planning on disabling online revocation checks in a future version of Chrome", which is presumably what happened.</comment></comment>


A Simple Way To Think About Recursion - <AUTHOR> http://tenaciousc.com/?p=1000

<comment><USER2> I could have used this when I was first introduced to recursion.

"Recursion doesn't know it's recursion. Recursion doesn't know it's complicated"....awesome.

</comment><comment><USER3> you lost me about three paragraphs in. if "simple" relies on dropping terms like "preorder traversal" without elaboration, it ain't simple. i could tell it was probably funny, though!

<comment><USER4> Yes, that was a good point where preorder, inorder and postorder might have been introduced briefly. I liked big time this explanation as to how to mechanize your thoughts when keeping track of a recursive process.</comment></comment>


What to Do If You Receive a Lodsys Letter - <AUTHOR> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110614184205441

<comment><USER2> What else would you expect a lawyer to recommend than something that makes lawyers money?

Should app developers with, for an example, revenues of $5,000 to $10,000 a year pay a patent attorney their entire annual income from their app for just a cursory (!) look at the issue (far from the cost of searching for prior art etc., which is way higher)? How practical is that?

Why doesn't the article talk about the cost of such legal defense and the risk of an East Texas jury handing a multi-million dollar damage award to Lodsys?

Why doesn't he compare the low cost of Lodsys's license for the average app developer to the cost of legal advice (let alone legal defense or damages ordered by a court)?

How can app developers without the resources in place to defend themselves ever even get to the point where they can seriously challenge Lodsys's claim chart?

How can one be not profoundly concerned when Lodsys sends a letter, given that Lodsys has already sued 27 entities and is embroiled in seven lawsuits in three different states?

And why does a self-proclaimed open source site like Groklaw promote a patent attorney who vigorously argues in favor of software patents on Twitter?

By the way, the same Patrick Igoe doubted in an email to me a few months ago that Nokia was in a position to turn Apple into the net payer. I predicted it in March, I reaffirmed that prediction in May, and I was proven right yesterday.

<comment><USER3> The only real advice he can give is "talk to a lawyer", just the same as advice you'd give to someone complaining of health issues with "talk to a doctor", whether you're a doctor or not doesn't matter. It has nothing to do with him looking after his own.

Your advice is to simply pay the license fees?

<comment><USER2> My advice is not to simply pay the license fees, but if (1) Apple and Google don't help their app developers (Apple appears to be willing to help but the extent of it isn't clear yet; Google has neither said nor done anything so far) and (2) the licensee fees are in a given case _much_ less than the cost of even a cursory legal analysis, then they're an economically more intelligent choice unless the license agreement contains anything that poses a risk comparable to the one of being sued without a license agreement.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> This is an informed and level-headed discussion from a seasoned patent attorney. Well worth reading.

<comment><USER4> > "and especially not from a non-attorney blog or a software development > podcast"

I can't help but point this out as a direct dig at Marco Arment (and the Build & Analyse podcast) for suggesting that developers consider just settling with Lodsys.

And whilst this settle vs. fight debate is done to death, it's still worth saying that for a small indie developer, fighting could fuck you over more than settling. You might lose sleep over having settled—"[rolling] over without a fight"—but you'll probably lose a lot more sleep when you're in massive legal debt.

The only companies (that we know of) who are fighting back/filing declatory judgements are big ones ("ForSee Results, OpinionLab, ESET, and The New York Times have all filed such actions").

Note that I'm not saying you should roll over, nor am I saying fighting is a waste, but anyone—including Patrick Igoe, who is far more qualified in this area than me—needs to remember that it's easy to talk about the noble path, but it's harder to walk down it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Your points are good ones but I don't think the author is saying that you are always better off fighting than not. His point is more nuanced.

My read is this:

1\. Don't panic.

2\. Get professional guidance.

3\. Weigh the calculus well of how the troll will likely respond to resistance before deciding to fold: the troll is aiming at low-hanging fruit and may not choose to pursue someone who is prepared to raise obstacles (a matter that needs to be carefully weighed with professional help).

4\. Part of this calculus (not emphasized in the article) is the position of the larger company whose platform is being targeted, whether Apple, Google, or whomever. I find it intriguing that the developers first targeted were very quick to publicize their plight and then went dark after being sued. This _may_ signify that Apple has privately agreed to hold them harmless in exchange for their agreement to keep this confidential. And this would make sense. Apple would be foolish to make a blanket commitment to indemnify all developers when its agreement with them says that all the risk falls on the developer. At the same time, it can't afford to let a vulture come in and feed on the people who ultimately make the platform work. Hence, a strong letter to the world saying that it will vigorously defend its license rights (but with no public commitment to hold developers harmless), a motion to intervene in the lawsuits already filed by Lodsys against select developers, and dead silence (and, we assume, a forthcoming defense) from those same developers who normally would have taken the extortionist license terms and folded. This very likely means that the developers will stay the course with support from Apple, and that support almost has to include a private agreement to indemnify for this scenario to make sense. I am of course speculating here and might be dead wrong. The point for developers who have been threatened, however, is not to fold reflexively in such situations before exploring what Apple (or any other party defending its platform) is _really doing_ behind the scenes. Even though this article did not get into this aspect, its main point really brings one to this sort of examination: if you are threatened, get good advice from knowledgeable people who know how to help steer you through this sort of maze. _That_ is money well spent and it does not require you to spend a fortune fighting a troll one-on-one. The fact that a proper assessment might show the troll to have a flimsy case only reinforces the idea that there may be room to resist, if you do it right.

<comment><USER2> What is your proposal for how an app developer with, say, annual income of $10,000 can afford "professional guidance" on his own?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> According to this article, Lodsys is asking for "0.575% of US revenue over for the period of the notice letter to the expiration of the patent".

In other words, if you accepted the offer, you'd end up paying Lodsys $100 for roughly every $17,000 that you make. I'd guess you could count on one hand the number of devs that will ever be on the hook for more money than a good iOS consultant could make by booking a single day's worth of work, which is at the very least the amount of time that will be spent figuring out what the hell to do to fight against something like this if you end up taking it to court _even before legal fees_ (unless you happen to be an expert on patent law to begin with).

"Lodsys needs developers to think it is cheaper to settle than it is to fight."

Well, it _is_ probably cheaper if you include lost time, even if you win in court, and that's the whole problem - as a pure business decision, it's a no- brainer, especially when you consider the stress of being sued and having to think about this garbage when you'd rather be coding...

I only hope that the publicity of this crap means that enough people are pissed off to fight it at a loss instead of paying up, and they make Lodsys lose money on this tactic overall.

But I worry, I worry...

<comment><USER6> You just need 174 entities like Lodsys, and over 100% of your revenue has gone.

<comment><USER2> The likelihood of any one developer being contacted by "174 entitiesl ike Lodsys" is extremely low -- the same developer is more likely to be struck by lightning.

I have repeatedly pointed out, especially on my blog, the problem of encouraging other trolls to go after app developers. But in the example, $100 is a much better deal than paying thousands of dollars to lawyers. The thing that should happen is for Apple and Google to take care of their app developers.

<comment><USER5> Further, that $100 is assuming that your app actually makes $17k, which from my limited knowledge of the app market means you're actually doing fairly well compared to most developers.

Though maybe they're only targeting the apps that they know have made a decent amount, I'm not sure...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Great advice yes but missed the most important thing you should do: call Apple's Legal Dept (or other platform owner should they start pursuing Android et. al.).

<comment><USER7> Oh and don't miss Patrick Igoe's informative and entertaining walkthrough of a claim chart at:

[http://www.applepatent.com/2011/06/lodsys-anatomy-of- bullshi...](http://www.applepatent.com/2011/06/lodsys-anatomy-of-bullshit- claim-chart.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> The best course of action now depends largely on the success of Apple's motion for an intervention. If that motion is granted, which is reasonably likely (though never certain), it will be time for Apple to clarify what support and coverage it gives to the sued app developers.

I know from at least one of them that he is NOT covered by Apple. If that continues to be the situation, the advice may unfortunately have to be at some point to sign Lodsys's license agreement if that results in dismissal from the lawsuit or helps avoid one.

For Android developers, the question is what Google will do. So far they say nothing and do nothing. If Apple's motion is granted, the question must be asked why Google doesn't intervene. One of the accused apps is an Android app ("Labyrinth for Android"). If Google doesn't protect Android app developers, they will also have to consider very seriously a license deal with Lodsys.

I have seen Lodsys's license agreement. I would recommend that many app developers share the cost of having it reviewed by a lawyer (rather than get into Patrick Igoe's claim chart stuff, which is neither convincing nor useful to those who can't afford a multi-million-dollar lawsuit over that question). If a lawyer agrees that the license agreement is reasonable, which in my personal opinion it is, then that's definitely better than going to court.

Patrick Igoe also came up with a "divided infringement" theory, which I rebutted on my blog. Apple apparently doesn't believe in his theory either, so why should you?

</comment><comment><USER8> While talking to your lawyer, I'd ask about the practicality of this advice: [http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=2011...](http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20110614184205441&title=Practical+Solution+for+Small+Companies&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=923666#c923674)</comment>


Why products are shutdown? The case of Verizon and Yahoo Groups - <AUTHOR> https://thehftguy.com/2019/12/10/why-products-are-shutdown-the-case-of-verizon-and-yahoo-groups/ <comment><USER2> maintenance costs.</comment>


Shannon Labs – $100K Fellowship to support independent researchers - <AUTHOR> https://shannonlabs.co/?hn <comment><USER2> After reading everything there, I am left with more question than when I opened the page. Is the page honest?

Who is giving the money?

Why are they sponsoring people?

Only a handful of questions to preapply? Why? There used to be pages like this only to get people's emails in a target audience for spam purposes, is this is?

I can apply, I have an amazing idea to pitch, but it looks more shady than legitimate, sadly.

<comment><USER3> Founder here. We have secured partial funding but not all that we intend to raise. This is just a pre-application - an improved website and application will be released later. If you submit your application now we'll follow up with you when we release our full application or convert it automatically.

We're focused on creating a world-class mentorship community before increasing our Fellow outreach efforts.

<comment><USER4> Very cool idea! Nice to see funding for non-traditional research models.

But I'm a little confused why you made this comment on an earlier HN post about Shannon Labs: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17675617](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17675617)

<comment><USER5> it was posted earlier, but never made it on the top 10 pages for reasons we couldn't figure out despite getting plenty of upvotes on /newest. To check if it was actually alive we posted a couple dummy comments after a while, and then abandoned the post.

(disclosure, I'm a mentor and the post was sent to a few mentors, which likely tripped some bot checker)

<comment><USER6> Because you also used a voting ring (next to astroturfing). Admire the hustle, though a bit too naughty.

<comment><USER5> A few of us think the project is very much worth upvoting! The bot checker should appreciate that :)

<comment><USER6> That's why I called it naughty and not blatant manipulation. Now if this were an ICO or a company looking for an easy flip in the overhyped AI market, it would be different.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Nice!

Some perspective: the existing, Federal competition in this space is the NSF GRFP, which is about $165k over five years, instead of $100k for one year. Obviously if you win the Shannon Fellowship for two years, you are coming out ahead of the GRFP. The GRFP is also extremely competitive. It does open some academic doors to you though, since you are paying for your own PhD basically, advisors don't have to worry about how to pay you, and your ideas had merit to the NSF so there are two positive signals for you already.

Like some other comment said, science is all about collaboration. Not being subject to "publish or perish" is nice but a lot of social capital has accumulated around the black hole of anguish that is the research infrastructure, it's hard to work with people that aren't on the paper treadmill because even if you get paid whether or not you publish, your collaborators don't.

From experience, in research, one year is not a long time. It will go by much faster than you think. If you have an idea and you need a short runway to just get started, that sounds about right. Doing anything with human systems seems perilous though, you can spend months just figuring out how to get lab space and how to recruit subjects and setting up equipment (oh yeah, I guess this $100k is also your equipment and space budget). Also from experience, in research, $100k will go faster than you think.

It would be awesome to win this and whoever is doing this deserves major credit for stepping up and doing this, but don't get too starry-eyed when you're thinking about what you could do. If you've got a project already waiting, "facing downhill" and it needs a push, this sounds like a good opportunity. If you want to chase a "deep idea" and only have a hazy idea of where to go, this is probably not what you want.

<comment><USER8> Kind of the GRFO is just for graduate students while this seems to be for anyone in the particular fields of interest as far as I can tell.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Bell Labs worked in part because of the architecture of the building encouraging interaction. I am not sure decentralization will work.

<comment><USER5> I think it's an open question how the internet will support research collaboration. There's clear success stories such as Wikipedia when it comes to mass scale contribution, but fewer specific research innovations outside of open source projects. My best guess is that the types of collaborations will simply be different (The Bazaar and The Cathedral documents this well).

The internet is arguably better at flourishing novel ideas than Bell Labs was. For instance, machine learning Twitter is an active and relatively small community. Excellent ideas from obscure researchers often rise to prominence within hours when retweeted by a more followed researcher. This wouldn't happen as often in a building, and the type of idea discovery that Twitter allows is just the tip of the iceberg. I think it's worth realizing the significant downsides to in person collaboration (nothing is saved, it's entirely flow vs stock, you need enough status to be hired in the first place).

I was in the first class of the Thiel Fellowship, a decentralized program that tended to centralize itself anyway in pockets (groups of us rented big houses and lived together). The combination of in-person and distributed was a great midway, and I predict the Shannon Fellowship will be similar.

I'm excited to see what the Bell Labs of the Internet looks like, and I think it's too early to say decentralization will simply not work.

(disclosure: mentor for Shannon Fellowship)

<comment><USER10> The Polymath Project is another great example of crowdsourced research:

[https://terrytao.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/polymath.pdf](https://terrytao.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/polymath.pdf)

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The fact that Joscha Bach is involved gives this more credibility than anything else.

I'm tempted to apply but I'm guessing the work I want to do is too far afield of traditional ML work, maybe someone can tell me if that's wrong.

The work I want to do is not in iterations on algos, like I've been working on with CV problems, but better defining intelligence and building testing mechanisms for it along the lines of the work of the Anytime Intelligence Test [1].

Too little is being done on baselining real world intelligence and so what we get are closed world, fully observable tests, which are impressive, but aren't really functionally useful when we're trying to build or test AI's generalization capabilities.

<comment><USER12> It seems reasonable that before we work on AI, we rigorously define what the "I" actually means. But maybe that's just us?

<comment><USER11> Yea, crazy idea isn't it?

</comment></comment></comment><comment> white-flame You do need a Google account to get to the pre-application page, just FYI.

(So I'm out. Also, reading about "unconventional" researchers being sought out is kind of disappointing compared to this likely unintentional requirement.)

</comment><comment><USER13> Might be worth changing the title to note the subject limitations. "Shannon Labs – $100,000 Fellowship to support independent intelligence researchers" works.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hey, OP here.

Parnian (in comments) is a friend of mine and the submitted piece requires some disucssion. I'm just happy it raised these questions. OFC these questions are good to answer, and if this succeeds it'll be cool. I'm not sure what the program will emerge as - still in flux. Most of what other comments bring up is [IIRC from talking about this]

The website is intended as a fixed figment for the current goals of shannon labs seems like a nice thing to have to show investors

1\. funding

\- 1 funded, website is tool

\- plan for 10 to alpha

1a. Only 100k?

\- funding spreads this way

\- about enough for a year in pure software

\- could be more but start and grow

2\. motivation

\- More research is good!

\- Unsure about equity free :(

\- In a position to secure funding for a cool project

3\. relationship to academia

\- I'm sure many of these will materialize with academic connections

3a. publishing req?

\- I'm not sure most people will write a paper and submit to a journal. I've seen a lot of beautiful JS that has been put together as a research artifact. I like this?

\- I'm pretty sure collab with academia is open

Hope this helps

</comment><comment><USER14> Okay, so, what's the catch?

If the motivations behind this are as altruistic as they're made out to be, props to them. This is EXACTLY what applied healthcare AI researchers/developers need. Granted, $100K for just one year isn't enough runway for an end-to-end solution, but I suspect you could get enough of a ball rolling to pick up sponsors or investors.

Most of the work that needs to be done in this space is NOT sexy. Building cool AI models is by far the easiest part of the pipeline, even considering the fact that data acquisition can be difficult. No one wants to get into the weeds of regulations, hospital protocols, EHR integrations, or HCI issues pertaining to medical providers. You don't get publications from sifting through this mess. So most researchers don't touch it. Additionally, the slow development cycles in healthcare tech are unattractive to many industry developers. There's a graveyard filled with failed startups and company initiatives that expected to jump into healthcare with their awesome tech only to get crushed by at least one of the multiple walls that shield the industry from innovation.

I personally find myself caught between a rock and a hard place when it comes to healthcare + AI innovation. If I am being completely honest, I care more about building a useful product than publishing research papers, and I care more about improving patient care than making a bajillion dollars. This puts me in a weird spot in terms of choosing between an academic vs industry route. My current strategy is to find a way to take the healthcare innovation I want to do and repackage it as PhD research.

I'd tots apply for this, assuming there's no massive catch. :)

</comment><comment><USER15> I'm curious where the money is coming from to fund this?

<comment><USER16> Seems to be related to OpenAI somehow, based on the team page... maybe the funding source is the same.

<comment><USER17> Hi there, I work at OpenAI. This isn't related to OpenAI in any official sense, though there are some people involved who either have had links to us in the past, or currently have links to us.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> For those who aren't familiar, Scott Gray (one of the mentors) is a complete genius. Two years after he left Nervana his neural network kernels (which AFAIK haven't been updated since) are still the fastests available: [https://github.com/soumith/convnet- benchmarks](https://github.com/soumith/convnet-benchmarks)

<comment><USER18> What a weird thing to get downvoted on!

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I'm sure the people behind this have good intentions and the initiative could work out, but it's also a little bit bizarre that they have only secured "partial" funding yet are offering to throw 100k at underfunded ideas.

<comment><USER20> It's a chicken egg problem:

\- it'll be easier to persuade investors to put in money when there are good applications (then "unconventional background" applications will not have big impact here, people will probably still look at the conventional criteria)

\- with some similar program exist already (aigrants), 100k is needed to compete with other program, to attract applicants, to grab your attention in news title...

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> The best approach, as often in these cases, is a bona fide private conversation. Just a very short pitch of your idea and a timetable for the 12 months would suffice, imho, and make clear immediately where you do stand and them.

</comment><comment><USER22> disclaimer: I know Parni personally, and she did not ask me to chime in here.

Parni's intentions are honest, even if her program is a little bit ill defined at this stage.

I think she's started this fellowship because she'd observed several of her friends struggling to find an avenue to pursue their research direction. Realistically, it's financially difficult for many to pursue a ML PhD when they can be earning fat stacks in industry. I think that programs like this help balance out the incentives, for engineers who need normal income. Programs like OpenAI and Google Brain aren't the last word here, the more the merrier!

Personally, I'd prefer to see a program which sets up some sort of equity in an investment fund for ML PhD students. Academia is still probably the best way to push the frontiers of public knowledge, but its almost insane to forgo salary & equity comp for 5 years in a high growth field. Making the opportunity cost of a PhD lower seems like a good outcome.

RE: the question of if there is funding or not, my best guess is that if there is a good applicant pool it would be highly unlikely the program go unfunded.

</comment><comment><USER23> Despite being in academia, it's an interesting idea, though I wonder about the time period (what do you do after that year?) and honestly...I've spent enough time on the internet that "Independent Researcher" makes me twitch involuntarily.

<comment><USER24> Don't think they have figured out what to do after the first year or whether this turns out as a failed investment for investors ... like lost new gigs turn out to be.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> RL;tr. who is behind this ? Who are the investors ?

</comment><comment><USER25> These are not really good fields to target unless you're planning to fund tons of psychedelics/chemical research (which is probably illegal) under the guise/goal of intelligence augmentation. There is tons of research in "AI" etc. Most of the ideas are bad, it's not like there are ideas that are getting overlooked.</comment>


Five Reasons to prove Linux is Secure than Windows - <AUTHOR> http://www.linuxtoday.com/upload/five-reasons-to-prove-linux-is-secure-than-windows-121001002005.html

<comment><USER2> This is literally the worst article I have ever read on this website.

Saying Windows relies on security through obscurity, and then listing 2 out of 5 points saying Linux is more secure because nobody uses it (which isn't even true).

This has to be a joke, or satire.

</comment><comment><USER3> I think it's nothing new. Although I wonder how actual is that "not having root argument" when UAC is on. Isn't it just like sudo? Generaly I think, that what matters in security is conciousness of users. I think if Linux had more unconcious users, there would be Linux mallware, I think it'd be possible.</comment>


How TV-B-Gone's Mitch Altman Created the ArduTouch Music Synthesizer - <AUTHOR> https://spectrum.ieee.org/geek-life/hands-on/how-tvbgones-mitch-altman-created-the-ardutouch-music-synthesizer <comment><USER2> Mitch Altman also gave a talk about ArduTouch at EMFCamp this year. A video can be found here:

[https://media.ccc.de/v/emf2018-24-ardutouch-music- synthesize...](https://media.ccc.de/v/emf2018-24-ardutouch-music-synthesizer- music-generation-for-newbies)

</comment><comment><USER3> You lost me at TV-B-Gone.

<comment><USER4> That reminds me, I've been meaning to order a TV-B-Gone.</comment></comment>


Gut Feelings: Bacteria and the Brain (2013) - <AUTHOR> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3788166/ <comment><USER2> I live with IBS and although I'm better now, I was in a terrible shape for about 2.5 years. Very expensive rabbit hole of doctors and tests that lead nowhere. Long story short, this is true. Gut bacteria (an imbalance in the case of IBS) is a real thing. Never mess with your diet doing stupid stuff. Always be weary of anti-biotics. And if you're suffering a lot at the moment look up the low-fodmap diet from the Monash University. That's the only thing that really helped me.

<comment><USER3> I've checked some of the diets but it is not explained why I should avoid garlic? Can you elaborate? Another problem is that by avoiding all the stuff in the "stuff to avoid" list makes dietary fibre intake problematic. How do you add more fibre to your diet if you can't eat legumes nor fruits like pear.

<comment><USER4> Asafoetida tastes like garlic but does not ferment - replace garlic with it and then try reintroducing. Try eating raw vegetables or pho style (where the veggies cook lightly in the broth after being served but not enough to become easily fermented and soluble). What you are aiming for is high insoluble fiber and limited soluble fiber - so you can still eat things high in insoluble fiber like banana, bok choy, green beans, nuts.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> your microbiota are primed at birth, then over life they change at each stage of development, around 6, around 13, around 26, around 40 and later in life, they impact your microbiome which effects the way you feel profoundly as well as the function of your immune system, the clinical research is out there to support this. [http://www.nature.com/articles/srep23075](http://www.nature.com/articles/srep23075)

<comment><USER6> so can you control this in order to improve your life?

<comment><USER5> ultimately I believe that artificial enzymes will unlock the secret to eternal life, I do not think I will be around to see that, yes, you can certainly 'set yourself up for success' by understanding nutrition and trying to make sure the chemistry set that is your body gets the right access to the stuff it needs to operate your biochemistry, which has a large influence over physical and mental well being.

<comment><USER7> What are your thoughts on telomere extension? I feel like a combo of the two fields will have great results.

<comment><USER5> seems like a good avenue to explore, [http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101128/full/news.2010.635.ht...](http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101128/full/news.2010.635.html) there seems to be a fair bit we don't know about telemerase, well, lots I don't know! [http://www.jneurosci.org/content/22/24/10710.short](http://www.jneurosci.org/content/22/24/10710.short) [http://molehr.oxfordjournals.org/content/3/9/769.short](http://molehr.oxfordjournals.org/content/3/9/769.short)

"Resveratrol is a stilbenoid, commonly found in grapes and in the roots of the Japanese Knotweed during stress and bacterial or fungial infection. In mouse and rat experiments, resveratrol has been shown to play a role in telomere lengthening, telomerase activity enhancement, blood sugar-lowering, inhibition of platelet aggregation, promotion of vasodilation by enhancing the production of NO and have anti-inflammatory properties."

[http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2016/0030530.html](http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2016/0030530.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Have a look at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactobacillus_reuteri](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactobacillus_reuteri) : "...those consuming L. reuteri daily end up falling ill 50% less often, as measured by their decrease use of sick leave."

<comment><USER9> That is based on a single study and not a fantastic one. I would be a bit skeptical of it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Nothing new. Not sure why HN is obsessed with old articles about gut bacteria.

<comment><USER11> quick easy hacks solving complex hard-to-debug problems have its appeal. I spent bunch of years suffering from what happens to be candida overgrowth and its feels really great once i was able to take it under control.

<comment><USER12> How were you able to solve your problem? And if you don't mind me asking, what were some symptoms that made you want to get checked out?

Also, how were you able to get tested?

Sorry for bombing you with questions, but I'm just genuinely curious as I've wanted to get tested but my primary physician instantly dismissed it and made me feel like I was suggesting voodoo rituals.

<comment><USER11> the same about physician :). Anyway - i'm not a doctor, so it is just a personal anekdot. To me it was very active fermentation and resulting excessive unstoppable belching (impacting/stumbling the natural breathing movement of the chest/lungs and that breathing problem made it very hard to for example concentrate or to get to sleep, etc.), fatigue and brain fog. Reading Internet made it pretty clear that yeast/candida is the primary (and basically the only) candidate. Antifungals drugs seems to be the medical way to go. On the other side - giving that candida is the natural tenant inside our GI system, it seems to me (again, i'm not a doctor, it is just my understanding) that full "cure" isn't really possible and one can only control the issue. Giving that people reported very different results with those drugs and those drugs may be heavy on liver i decided to go initially with more natural alternatives. I'v been so far fortunate that it works for me. Specifically well known natural antifungals - garlic (as pills because real garlic smell is an issue at home and at work :), apple cider vinegar (for me it works as 2 tablespoons diluted in a glass of water 2 times a day), ginger (several cups of ginger tea during the day. Also instead of apple cider vinegar i frequently use vinegar based tonic like Kevita, specifically the "Tumeric Ginger" one. The tonic also contains probiotic cultures and that works great for me). I use all 3 of them - garlic, vinegar, ginger - as at the beginning i noticed that when using only one the yeast seems to adjust after some time and the issue starts to come back. In general it seems very individual, takes some time and experimentation. It took me several months to develop my regimen mentioned above and achieve current stable good results. Again, i'm not a doctor and this is just a personal anekdot.

<comment><USER3> Sounds nice but we don't have Kevita in our country (Hungary). Can you name some alternatives?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I have been very curious how the use of antibiotics at a very young age has tied in with food allergies.

Has anyone read or researched this topic?

</comment><comment><USER14> [https://www.caltech.edu/news/microbes-help-produce- serotonin...](https://www.caltech.edu/news/microbes-help-produce-serotonin- gut-46495)

Although serotonin is well known as a brain neurotransmitter, it is estimated that 90 percent of the body's serotonin is made in the digestive tract. In fact, altered levels of this peripheral serotonin have been linked to diseases such as irritable bowel syndrome, cardiovascular disease, and osteoporosis.

</comment><comment><USER15> All children with Autism have gut issues. They have dysbiosis which causes them to behave like they do. Many children recover when their gut micro-biome is fixed. Organic Castor Oil taken regularly twice a week for an year will fix it. I know that people will not believe it. But I would just like to post it here just for future reference.

<comment><USER16> Speaking of reference, why don't you provide one?

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Huge doses of probiotics have done wonders for me.

<comment><USER18> Would you mind telling me more specifically what you mean by "huge"? And do you take them in capsule form?

<comment><USER19> Curious as well.

I've noticed no benefit in any area with probiotics, although his post did say "huge doses".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> > Researchers have recently shown that the presence of gut microbiota during > early development influences the brain's neural connectivity related to > anxiety and depression. Gut microbiota has been linked to behavior, to > stress, and to stress-related diseases. Changes in gut microbiota may > influence risk of disease, and manipulating microbiota may provide novel > ways to intervene in clinical situations related to mood and anxiety > disorders.

</comment><comment><USER20> Am I imagining that the enthusiasm for gut bacteria research is driven in part (potentially in large part) by the failure of more classical physiological paradigms for understanding mental illness? Anything to avoid confronting the fact that people have real, profound problems, eh?

<comment><USER21> A friend of mine has depression, and yet externally his life is excellent (he knows this, but that doesn't change how his mind perceives reality). I've had very large problems, and maintained mental health throughout.

Do external factors influence mental health? Undoubtedly. But that hardly means things like bacteria aren't a factor as well.

<comment><USER22> From my own experience and that of friends/family, when you really dig deeply you'll find that there is actually a reason for depression most of the time. The question to ask is: is this really what I want to be doing with my life right now? You may be making great money as a stockbroker on Wall Street with a great family, or earning $200k at google, but if that's not really what you want to do deep down, you may get depressed.

>I've had very large problems, and maintained mental health throughout.

There are a lot of factors that determine whether life shit causes depression.

>But that hardly means things like bacteria aren't a factor as well.

Agreed, but there isn't much evidence of that at the moment.

<comment><USER23> What if what you really want to do is lay on the couch and read or watch TV all days?

Except for some days, where you feel better, and want to be more active, and you get shit done?

And then you wish more of the former days were like the latter days, but don't understand why they aren't?

<comment><USER24> That, or if you don't have any clue what you might do differently that would make any difference at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> [2013]

</comment><comment><USER26> Gut bacteria seem to be the phrenology of the 21st century.

I'm sure it will all be debunked in 20 years.

<comment><USER27> Care to explain your stance, or should we just agree with a brand new HN account saying a published research paper is false?

<comment><USER28> Sure: Personal acquaintance with a published researcher (professor) who did not know when to use MANOVA in his own experiment.

Student of another professor who was _told_ to repeat his PhD experiment until the p-value was "acceptable".

Being published means very little in medicine.

Also, constant hype on HN for gut bacteria with credulous comments (or advertising, as another poster pointed out).

<comment><USER29> I work in the field. The statistical mistakes are only one problem- researchers in the field also make huge mistakes in understanding both microbial diversity and computational genomics. It is partly because many of these studies are run by human biology-minded researchers who know very little about either statistical analysis or microbial diversity (IMO ignorance of microbiology is as big an issue in the field as ignorance of stats).

The other issue is this is a uniquely and enormously complicated intersection of science- there simply are few to no people who are simultaneously knowledgeable about immunology, statistics, computational genomics, microbial physiology, and microbial diversity- the bare minimum number of fields that will come into play when dissecting a host-microbe interaction.

That being said there are some very brilliant and rigorous people working in the field. 10%-20% of the research is high quality. In a 5-20 year range we'll discover exactly how enormous the true impact of commensal microbes on human biology is, even if the path is not a straight one and every publication is not correct. So science goes.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


A probabilistic model of prime numbers based on network theory - <AUTHOR> http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.3612

<comment><USER2> Haven't had a chance to read the paper yet (though I do like both number theory and network theory, so it'll be on my to-do list). But if anyone is interested in a probabilistic notion of primality, the best practical example out there is the Miller-Rabin test ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Rabin_primality_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Rabin_primality_test)). This describes the function that sits behind most `is_prime()` methods that you'll find in technical computing libraries.

Fun fact: it becomes a deterministic test if the generalized Riemann hypothesis is ever proven.

<comment><USER3> That's not really the same sort of "probabilistic notion of primality". This isn't about a test for primality; this is about a probabilistic model of the primes, where we replace the actual primes by a randomly-generated subset of the natural numbers that we believe ought to have similar properties. The basic one is the Cramér model, where we say that n is prime with probability 1/(log n), and these are independent of one another. This is giving a more complicated such model which it claims agrees better with the statistics of the actual primes.

<comment><USER4> Another point of this model is, unlike Cramér's, it doesn't assume the prime number theorem as an entry point but rather displays it as a naturally derived property.</comment></comment></comment>


A New Ideas Machine - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/we-live-in-the-future/2f4ee803301f <comment><USER3> Well gee, if only we had some sort of previous experience with a way to fund long-term research in basic sciences, the results of which profoundly changed our world.

Oh wait, we've spent the last 30 years enjoying the fruits of government funded research from NASA, DARPA, Bell Labs, and others. I know that this may not be popular with some people on Hacker News, but by and large government funded research in the basic sciences has been instrumental in transforming America into the technological powerhouse it currently is.

Peter Thiel is upset we have 140 characters, and not flying cars? I choose to be blown away that we have a world wide planetary communication grid capable of delivering information in near real-time. Step back for a moment and let that blow you away for a while.

I appreciate the enormous advances that industry has layered on top of the many breakthroughs that have come from public labs, and I also understand that industry has been invaluable in making many of these breakthroughs popular and widespread.

But we already have a model for successful R&D that will allow for the sort of paradigm shifts that Thiel is apparently asking for, and it's not going to come from a decade of eating ramen in your garage, hoping that you'll finally get your payoff in the form of an X-Prize. It comes from consistent government funding towards the best and brightest, not beholden to quarterly results or the profit motive, from dedicated researchers each doing their part to move things a step forward.

If you really want breakthroughs that will change the world, then it has to come with the patience to wait years or decades, to keep funding steady and high enough that the best aren't impoverished, and the understanding that the results need to be open and free to all who want them.

</comment><comment><USER4> Generally, I like this idea, but it will be interesting to see how it pans out. My sense is that innovation prizes are mostly the whims of the wealthy - they are the modern equivalent of patronage. Performance-based patronage with a dash of magnanimity. Crowd-funded innovation prizes will probably not have an iconoclast to give the enterprise focus and visibility. That's not deadly, though: it's easy to imagine a crowd-funding site which solicits two things, money from ordinary people and endorsements from celebrities. You know, Paris Hilton's smiling face encouraging you to give $20 to the Singularity Prize.

And while I like the performance-based approach, unlike patronage this places a great deal of risk on the shoulders of the innovators. If they are independently wealthy, no problem. But most scientists aren't. Which means they'll need to get funded, which means dealing with capital. Now VCs are already, quite directly, in the research game. But even $10M prizes are small. Indeed, a $100M prize might be too small if there are many competitors and the challenge takes years. These prizes would have to be a lot bigger to compete with the kinds of payouts startups can yield.

Or perhaps the idea is that people compete while they are not doing anything at their day job at the Swiss patent office?

</comment><comment><USER5> Innovation prizes? I could not disagree more.

If you've seen the excellent RSA animate talk "Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us"[1] you'll see that it's quite the opposite. When it comes to mentally challenging tasks, people want autonomy, mastery, and purpose. Just pay them enough to take the issue of money off the table.

Personally, that really agrees with me. My ideal situation is to be funded via a sustainable crowd-sourced funding like Gittip, so that I can continue doing what I'm doing now: _not_ working at a deadend business that's only concerned about making a profit, where I hate working for my boss. Instead, I want to[2] create amazing software tools that make our world a better place to live. I really enjoy software development and want to make it better, funner, more efficient. I don't care about money beyond just making enough to pay for rent and food. Money and food are just in my way, stealing away from the time I could be working.

Thankfully, I still have some savings that'll last me maybe half a year before I do have to find a way to make a living again. But really, I want to keep this up.

My current life: wake up each morning, absolutely free of any commitments, and think to myself: what cool things can I do today to make the world better?

[1] <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc#t=294s>

[2] <https://github.com/shurcooL>

<comment><USER6> Responses like these that always seem to miss the point, while at the same time are crafted specifically to hit on all the popular tropes ("I don't care about money beyond just making enough to pay for rent and food"). The point is that the model you describe isn't appropriate for the types of big problems the article wants to see solve. It also ignores the fact that money is a big motivator for a lot of the smart people out there. Not every potential innovator out there is the "pizza and rent money" type. And for god's sakes, people need to stop citing that research about work motivation. It gets used so far out of context that its lost all meaning.

<comment><USER5> > "It also ignores the fact that money is a big motivator for a lot of the > smart people out there."

Maybe it is, I don't know. But it isn't for me. I've been working the last 12 months 8+ hours a day, 5+ days a week on a free, open source project. My total income during those 12 months? Pretty much $0. Some people say I'm crazy for not having a monetization plan. But I do it because I believe there's a small chance, if I'm successful, it will have a lot of value. I hope that when I get closer to finishing it, it will be very useful to myself and hopefully other people too.

I would much rather work on what I love and enjoy rather than do anything else that gives me money. Money is a very low motivator for me. I only need it so I can keep doing what I'm already doing now.

<comment><USER6> Honestly, I'd say you are crazy. That lifestyle is simply unsustainable. It's certainly noble to want to create something that produces value for the world (and not being concerned with a monetary payout), I'm not knocking that ideal. It's the fact that you're basically mortgaging your own future to do so is what is "crazy". Of course, most people can't do this. They either have dependents or they don't have enough "pizza and rent money" to begin with.

Saying that "money isn't a motivator" is extremely short-sighted. Few people are motivated purely by money. It's the opportunities that money provides you that are valuable. Completely ignoring this fact and focusing 100% on some open source project as if that is the epitome of value creation is just setting yourself up for a serious reality-check. If you seriously do not see the value in acquiring money then I'd say you aren't looking at the big picture. Others definitely shouldn't be encouraged to follow suit. The HN crowd tends to idolize the noble hacker who isn't concerned about worldly things, but this is a tragic path for the vast majority of folks who may be convinced to go down it, likely yourself included. Reality can only be ignored for so long.

<comment><USER7> "That lifestyle is simply unsustainable."

It's actually the very definition of sustainable.

<comment><USER8> No it is not. Working on a zero-pay project for a year straight is not possible unless the person has some money saved up in advance. What's going to happen when that money runs out? Currently shurcooL's lifestyle is not sustainable by definition - he has expenses but no income to sustain those expenses.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Innovation prizes have a good track record so far, and do seem to act as a lever in a real sense.

There is a troublesome user experience in any crowd funded innovation prize though - most prizes will take a long time to pay out, or will never pay out at all. For the first several years your user experience will be, "Well, I've committed 100 dollars to 3 projects, but nothing has happened yet." Kickstarter projects can take years but at least they clearly march towards a ship date.

Any endeavor here will need to have a mix of big and small projects, and will also need to find ways to show feel-good incremental progress from the more ambitious prize pools.

</comment><comment><USER10> Counter-points: Flying cars (bombs) are a dumb idea, the infrastructure to support globally broadcast 140 char messages is nothing short of amazing, and innovation is alive and well despite the financial service industries sucking up America's brightest minds : [http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2011/04/talent_and...](http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2011/04/talent_and_banks)

<comment><USER11> And Paypal was not very innovative... just Thiel doesn't make the irony with himself.

<comment><USER10> Further irony: Paypal options haven't been very easy or full functioning for Kickstarter projects and siphon off a percentage that could go towards innovation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> My problem with the X-Prize concept is the also the strength of the X-Prize concept -- the magnitude of the goal.

For something like an "X-Prize for Everything" to be truly be a successful there have to be goals that are reachable at all size levels. So instead of just a grand goal, there could be smaller goals, that are published, have awards, and all of it should be open sourced/licensed.

There was research on a wiki-like programming contest that I think demonstrates how important solving both the big and small aspects is, and one contest implementation to address both[1]. Because of the "winner take all" approach, I don't think it's a good way to solve grand goal challenges (i.e. it financially punishes losers).

But something like a VCS that can show contributors to a winning solution. Or a crowdfunded site where even small goal challenges can be posted, this could obviously include micro-goal challenges of grand challenges (e.g., a team trying to win a "human cloning" contest could post a "human eye cloning" contest).

[1] [http://www.starchamber.com/gulley/pubs/tweaking/tweaking.htm...](http://www.starchamber.com/gulley/pubs/tweaking/tweaking.html)

</comment><comment><USER13> We, as entrepreneurs, are so obsessed with creating the next "photo sharing app" when there are some real, hard problems to be solved. Maybe its the daily dose of blogs incessantly hyping over such ideas, but we might just have lost sight of the big picture. I speak for myself, but entrepreneurship should be about more than just this.

</comment><comment><USER14> In response to this article I say it should be more than opting in, personally I think it should be a requirement.

His vision is clear, my vision, I'm sure shared by many, will come true when companies are able to opt in giving a percentage of their profits towards innovation funds like the one suggested, local civic engineering / hacking funds to become an incentive for cross sector collaboration in opening data from the government and other beneficial entities, and funds for programs like STEM, FIRST, and NASA or their choice of other NPOs or even NGOs.

All of this on top of receiving a deduction for doing so in their taxes can drive innovation on a whole new level. Somewhat allowing a a post-benefit company-like[0] incorporation in all states might lead to this.

Who will NOT opt into this for at least 5 years?

[0] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporation>

</comment><comment><USER15> There are some problems with prizes like the hard-to-avoid arbitrary nature of the rules and winner-gets-all problems which make big projects risky - <USER2> can't get a loan from the bank for building a project for a competition.

But patents and traditional innovation where you have to found a company and try to market your stuff might be even worse than that - I think most technical people don't like the idea of creating their own company. It might be easier to just open source your project.

I've been thinking about open sourcing some of my (hardware) ideas. It doesn't seem likely I'd ever create a company and start wasting my time in the pursuit of unlikely success. I'm not a crazy risk seeking optimistic person.

</comment><comment><USER16> Quite a lot of the problem is how we get paid for things on the web. Advertising as the driver limits the scope of what you can do since you need to have anchor for the ads. Micropayments have never really panned out as the fees are still prohibitive[1].

Kickstarter seems to be this in reverse. I come up with an idea and people fund it based on their desire. Instead of rich patron, I have many "poor"[2] patrons. A weekly video program on Kickstarters would drive more than big money prizes.

1) I have seen quite a few grocery stores now putting up the "minimum credit car purchase $10 due to rising fees".

2) poor in the money contributed sense, not a commentary on their personal finances

</comment><comment><USER17> Want to kickstart a century of unparalleled innovation and entrepreneurship in the US?

Simple. But you have to cleanup the mess first.

In other words, throw out all that is mismanaged, inefficient and abused and replace it with an infrastructure fine-tuned to iterate to optimize growth and innovation.

This means making changes to government, workforce and taxation.

Here's my (incomplete) list:

      - Pass a constitutional amendment that requires our
        government to operate under a balanced budget

      - Establish a maximum cost of government as a percent of
        GDP (or some other metric) in order to prevent a grab
        for more tax revenue to expand government and the
        pervasive always-spend-more culture

      - Reduce government to a bare minimum

      - Completely phase out all entitlement programs

      - Institute new --smaller-- programs to help those who
        really need them.

      - All businesses contribute a small percentage of gross
        to this program (1%?).  The idea is to setup a system
        where government will have reason to work towards
        improving business activity in order to fund programs.
        Today they reach for optimizing tax revenues as
        opposed to optimizing economic activity which is far
        more important.

      - Make unions illegal for government workers.
        It's a huge conflict of interest: Government workers
        benefit from laws and the workings of government and
        form a unified voting block that is self-serving.

      - No lifetime pensions for anyone working in government.
        I'd go as far as making them illegal for anyone, period.
        There is no sensible mathematical formula that supports
        the idea of lifetime pensions.  A person and their family
        ought to be responsible for their own retirement without
        becoming a burden for the rest of society for generations
        to come.
        These are business killers.

      - Fire everyone at the patent office

      - Create a new patent and trademark system who's priority
        is to optimize to maximize innovation while
        providing reasonable protections for work that requires
        massive R&D

      - Flat and low taxes

      - No deductions for anyone

      - Businesses pay zero taxes

      - Businesses contribute 5% of their gross to a national
        R&D fund

      - The fund is NOT accessible to anyone in government

      - The fund is administered by a team of CEO's from various
        industries.  There could be other layers too.  The main
        point is:  No government claws can reach this fund.

      - The fund's goal is to provide financial support, legal
        and operational guidance to entrepreneurs.  Call it a
        mega-incubator

<comment><USER16> > All businesses contribute a small percentage of gross to this program (1%?).

> Businesses contribute 5% of their gross to a national R&D fund

> Businesses pay zero taxes

Technically, the first two invalidates the third as the first two are taxes.

<comment><USER18> I think the distinction is because those contributions are already earmarked, and don't go into a general government fund. But yeah, if you get punished for not paying it, it's a tax.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Thiel's coming off a bit hypocritical. What was innovative about PayPal? Facebook? Apparently there was enough innovation there for Thiel to invest his time and money.

I think to non-technical people there is nothing innovative about Twitter, Facebook and most of online services offered today. To techies innovation is in the infrastructures these services are built on & sometimes made publicly available to others (ie Amazon).

<comment><USER20> I don't think Thiel is arguing that his investments / companies are exceptions here. He is also not arguing that 'innovation doesn't occur at all'. He is arguing that innovation (while still very profitable for the founders and investors) does not necessarily imply societal gains in wellbeing. So today's innovations are not materially improving our quality of life in the way that the discovery of penicillin did. Twitter is fun and can be useful, but life might be much 'better' if instead we had access to cheap and fast jet packs (for example).

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> On a similar theme: "Voted Compensation" - <http://thinkinghard.com/ip/PublicGood.html>

Basically, a government/taxation-funded prize scheme, where everyone gets to vote on who should get prizes. Like nationalized crowd-funding, but strictly after-the-fact (unlike Kickstarter, which is very much before-the-fact).

</comment><comment><USER22> >"Somewhere between dire straits and dead... we wanted flying cars; instead, we got 140 characters."

or

>"Somewhere between dire straits and dead... we wanted flying cars; instead, we got a global communications service.

<comment><USER23> We already had several global communication services. What we got was a gimmick.</comment></comment>