What Is Intelligence, Anyway? - <AUTHOR> http://talentdevelop.com/articles/WIIA.html <comment><USER2> There is a lot of data on this question, and it flatly contradicts Asimov's claims. IQ scores correlate not only with academic performance but also with job performance as well as others' intuitive impression of how "smart" a person is. That's why the army gives intelligence tests to new recruits: high- IQ soldiers (and mechanics and carpenters) do better, on average, than their low-IQ counterparts. Other types of tests, such as the hypothetical test devised by Asimov's mechanic, either have no predictive power or are predictive only as far as they correlate with _g_ , or general intelligence, which is currently best measured by IQ tests. The physiological basis of _g_ is unknown, but it is highly heritable and correlates with a number of physical variables such as brain volume and myelination.

If you want to learn more about the subject, I suggest this book, which concisely disposes of these and other popular anti-IQ arguments:

[http://www.amazon.com/Question-Intelligence-IQ-Debate- Americ...](http://www.amazon.com/Question-Intelligence-IQ-Debate- America/dp/0806515074)

<comment><USER3> I read that book when it came out more than a decade ago. There are newer and better books on the same subject,

<http://learninfreedom.org/iqbooks.html>

indeed newer and better books than shown on the link I have just shared. One I particularly like, from a mainstream psychologist of considerable experience, is What Intelligence Tests Miss by Keith R. Stanovich.

[http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=97803001238...](http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=9780300123852)

[http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Tests-Miss- Psycholog...](http://www.amazon.com/What-Intelligence-Tests-Miss- Psychology/dp/030012385X)

Stanovich includes a huge number of citations to current scholarly literature in his book, and amply makes the case that many important cognitive functions that make up "rationality" are missed by current IQ tests.

<comment><USER2> I have not read Stanovich's book but it does not appear to be an appropriate introduction to the subject of intelligence. I suspect you recommend these "newer and better" books because they suit your ideological purposes, not because they are better researched or more informative.

<comment><USER3> _I suspect you recommend these "newer and better" books because they suit your ideological purposes_

I suspect that because you haven't read the book yet (as you forthrightly acknowledge), you don't have a basis of knowledge for knowing why I recommend it. But newer can be better in books about intelligence (not necessarily, but older isn't surely better either) simply because human intelligence is a subject of a very vigorous research program involving hundreds of scientists all over the world. If your claim is that the book you have recommended (which I read, back when it was published) is the last word on the subject, you might at least show onlookers a link to a book review saying so.

I meet in person with the researchers who do the primary research on the subject of human intelligence who happen to be in my town

[http://www.psych.umn.edu/courses/fall09/mcguem/psy8935/defau...](http://www.psych.umn.edu/courses/fall09/mcguem/psy8935/default.htm)

and I make sure to keep up with the recent literature (from various points of view) in the huge academic library of my alma mater, the research base of several of the leading scientists in the discipline. I invite onlookers in this thread to access the primary research sources themselves and the see which books are better researched or more informative.

The best introduction to IQ testing, because it was so forward-looking and well researched when it was published, continues to be the Mackintosh (1998) book mentioned in the online bibliography I linked to in my previous reply to you. But Alan S. Kaufman's very new IQ Testing 101 (full citation in another comment in this thread) is also very good, and was published just in the last year.

<comment><USER2> _If your claim is that the book you have recommended ... is the last word on the subject_

That would be an audacious claim, considering the book is rather old and only 200 pages. I recommend it because it is a model of concise and accessible prose, good for laymen (like me) who want to get the basic facts with minimal fluff. As far as I know, none of its main points has been invalidated by intervening research. But I can see why its blunt statements of fact might be unpalatable to some.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> While this is a fantastic article, I kind of want to disagree with some of the points listed.

IQ tests are standardized in a way that you don't need to be a scholar or academic to know how to solve and/or answer the questions.

Look at it this way, in my opinion, the standard IQ tests of today are moreso a test of how quickly you can learn or adapt and solve, rather than of what knowledge you have.

For example, I bet that a PhD candidate (or just a "genious") would have much less difficulty learning about the insides of a car and how to fix it, than a mechanic would have in getting his PhD or equivalent to that level of knowledge

I find that people with higher than average IQs have more work ethic and learn much more quickly than people who have below average IQs, and I don't think this is a purely coincidental thing.

<comment><USER5> I disagree with the work ethic point, but I do think it's interesting and instead of both of us speculating would love to see some actual data.

There are a ton of dumbass people out there chugging away at grinding jobs to stay alive, and a ton of brilliant people sitting at their desks reading hacker news (not to imply that I'm brilliant; it's the rest of you I mean).

<comment><USER6> I disagree with the work ethic point based one a single datum. my work ethic drastically changed at one point in my life - whilst my IQ should have remained constant, and its quite high - 144.5 on the Mensa test I took some 15 years ago.

<comment><USER7> Similar story here - I had _no_ work ethic at all until I failed my first year at University. (I had excellent school results, five unconditional offers of places at University etc.).

I went back, worked very hard, passed the exam I failed (maths) and after that graduated with a 1st.

I also got a stupidly high mark in an IQ test when I was 16 - largely as we had an educational psychologist in the family who had bombarded me with tests since I was about 4. There is no way that stuff actually makes you smarter but it sure does make you better at passing silly tests.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge, but imagination.

— Albert Einstein <http://quotationsbook.com/quote/21310/>

(and Isaac Asimov had a lot of imagination)

<comment><USER3> It's interesting that that "quotation" from Albert Einstein, a sentiment I would love to attribute to him, because it encapsulates an idea I share about the importance of creativity, seems never to be traced to one of Einstein's actual writings. Has anyone ever checked the latest edition of Quotable Einstein

[http://www.amazon.com/New-Quotable-Einstein-Alice- Calaprice/...](http://www.amazon.com/New-Quotable-Einstein-Alice- Calaprice/dp/0691120757/)

(I have checked the preceding edition)

[http://www.amazon.com/Quotable-Einstein- Albert/dp/0691026963...](http://www.amazon.com/Quotable-Einstein- Albert/dp/0691026963/)

to see if that is a genuine Einstein quotation? In the English-speaking world, Einstein is second only to Mark Twain in having sayings attributed to him that he never said.

[http://www.amazon.com/Quote-Sleuth-Manual-Tracer- Quotations/...](http://www.amazon.com/Quote-Sleuth-Manual-Tracer- Quotations/dp/0252016955/)

<comment><USER3> Eureka! I have found the quotation, in what must be a verifiable source.

[http://www.sciencemusings.com/blog/2006/10/imagination- and-k...](http://www.sciencemusings.com/blog/2006/10/imagination-and- knowledge.html)

I'll have to find the magazine interview soon, to see it with my own eyes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> If its his point to claim that intelligence tests are bunk, I'd quibble with the declaration that any person, or even any academic, could make an 'intelligence test' pertaining to their particular field: that's not a test of intelligence, but of mastery, though how quickly one can master, and how widely they can apply that mastery may well be a test of intelligence.

Are intelligence tests tests of mastery in a field? I'd claim not, and I'd go on to claim that they're built by people who study intelligence, without the intention of testing a person's knowledge, as Asmiov claims such tests do.

</comment><comment><USER10> I think it is a good point that there are different kinds of aptitudes, but I also think this point should be kept in perspective. I think it is misguided when people speak dismissively of IQ, SATs and the like, saying things like "well, all that proves is that you're good at taking those kinds of tests." (I'm not saying the article does this, but I do hear this rather frequently - ironically, usually from people with high IQs. Privilege Guilt?) There is no reason to be dismissive of the immense power of the type of intelligence that handles symbol/abstraction manipulation, particularly in technology.

<comment><USER11> I believe that the problem alluded to in this essay is not so much with the relationship between IQ tests and the value of abstract thinking, but rather the hegemony of such thinking in the modern world. Technical thinking is lauded in a society where production is the dominant measurement of value. This contributes to bias towards a certain type of cerebral intelligence.

I actually just watched a TED talk on a related note, in which Ken Robinson discusses intelligence bias: [http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/ken_robinson_says_schools_...](http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html)

<comment><USER12> I'm sure that when hunting and gathering were the only activities that mattered, that many coders alive today would have been considered morons.

<comment><USER13> Actually, I think that most of us would have become medicine men or shaman.

<comment><USER12> Probably a preferable outcome to being ridiculed, downtrodden, then killed during armed conflict.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> you can't measure "intelligence" because there is no common definition for it. its a vague term which doesn't map to a single real world phenomenon directly, (e.g. brightness, heaviness, speed etc.) but its a derived value, which maps to a multitude of other derived values (comprehension, reasoning etc.) which are themselves difficult to define and measure. i don't know if a concrete definition would help anyway... i'm sure people would disagree because whatever it would be would conflict with their personal views of intelligence.

</comment><comment><USER14> Great article.

The fact that a few extra hours of sleep or a big cup of coffee can completely sway the results renders IQ scores almost irrelevant, _IMHO_.

Great intelligence can be simple. Like caring for others, making informed decisions, asking why, etc.

<comment><USER15> A lack of food or sleep can also play havoc with 100m sprint results, but even the ideal amount of sleep and pasta wont make me beat Usain Bolt.

<comment><USER14> Not the best comparison.

Your ability to compete in a 100m sprint isn't going to change drastically from one day to the other. IQ scores, however, do.

IQ score is about as dependable as a lie detector on a sphincter-gifted defendant.

<comment><USER15> My ability to compete in a 5k changes from one day to the next. I don't run 100m sprints, but would guess that the same situation applies there.

<comment><USER14> Here's my very specific point: an IQ score changes enough, often and by many externality to be considered a form of intelligence measurement.

To me, IQ is about as accurate as BMI.

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

On a good day, you might be an average IQ. Or a low average. Or a High average.

I think the 100m is a cute analogy, but it falls short. An IQ changes with very little effort; qualifying for a 100m sprint takes a lot of effort: [http://www.askmehelpdesk.com/track-field/training- qualify-10...](http://www.askmehelpdesk.com/track-field/training- qualify-100m-track-171785.html).

I doubt pasta or a bad nights sleep would be such an incredible difference to your performance that you might be considered an athlete one day and a couch potato the next.

<comment><USER15> I see you have put links into your comment, but they appear to do nothing to back up your claim. Maybe a paste typo.

<comment><USER14> _sigh_ So far, you've done little more than compare with a completely different form of measurement. Nice timing on that.

Here you might find a chart that shows the differences between IQ ranges. You might notice how you could be 10+/- and manage to find yourself in a completely different range: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_reference_chart>

And finally, to "back up my claim", check out a few other criticisms of IQ: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Criticism...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Criticism_and_views)

A personal favorite: A 2006 paper argues that mainstream contemporary test analysis does not reflect substantial recent developments in the field and "bears an uncanny resemblance to the psychometric state of the art as it existed in the 1950s."

In other words: fooey.

Successful 90 average entrepreneurs invent, evolve and innovate while there are 110+ middle-aged "geniuses" living in parent's basements. Of course, the opposite is also true.

An IQ test doesn't reflect who you'll be, if you'll be successful or if you'll change the world.

"There is often a stark gap between the abilities of the gifted individual and his or her actual accomplishments. Many gifted students will perform extremely well on standardized or reasoning tests, only to fail a class exam."

\-- [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_giftedness#Underac...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_giftedness#Underachievement)

IQ test is more of a religion than science. Like any religious person, you might allow your belief to overstate purpose.

<comment><USER15> Congratulations for getting over your initial ennui there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Intelligence is a desire to learn, plus experience.</comment>


Apple's iPad Brings Easy Reading to the Blind - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.forbes.com/booked/2010/04/12/apples-ipad-brings-easy-reading-to-the-blind/ <comment><USER2> Okay, this doesn't make sense. The latest-generation iPod Touch comes with full VoiceOver support. Sure, it doesn't have iBooks until 4.0 comes out, but what other possible advantage could an iPad have over the current iPod Touch for the visually impaired?

<comment><USER3> Do you still need to touch the screen? Either it could be voice operated, or you could get audible hints as you move your finger around. If the latter then larger screen area would help.</comment></comment>


Carl Bergstrom on data manipulation, fake news,& using science as a lie detector - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/aug/01/carl-bergstrom-people-are-using-data-to-bullshit <comment><USER2> I find that in office politics, once data is presented, it becomes the 'facts'. (Or at least the narrative that gets promulgated forward.) It's incredibly challenging to change the 'facts'/narrative. Often because of the challenge in demonstrating the others' data are false or show a misleading picture.

I think this is somewhat like convincing people that believed the early studies on hydroxychloroquine. A narrative was built and despite multiple studies and RCTs, it continues in many circles. If the initial data showed a different picture, I have a hard time imagining the on-going challenge of fighting this disinformation battle. (it would have been another).

<comment><USER3> > It's incredibly challenging to change the 'facts'/narrative.

It's incredibly easy if you control the narrative factories. For example, consider the sudden switch from "masks don't work unless they're N95, you need an MD to put one on correctly, and if you buy them you're an egotistical asshole who's putting our medical workers in danger" to "even plain cloth masks are useful, everyone must wear one at all times, and if you didn't buy one you're an egotistical asshole who's putting everyone in danger" earlier this year. Took less than a week.

I was pro-mask since before the narrative switch, but it would be completely irresponsible to sit back and say "oh well, good on them for correcting themselves, that's how science works after all". That was a real "we've always been at war with Eastasia" moment: a naked exercise of power, which could be used just as easily to switch from a true narrative to a false one, or from one lie to another.

<comment><USER2> Yet there are people not wearing masks because they believe they don't work, refuting your point.

As it's still going on, I'd say it took more than a week.

<comment><USER4> You're shifting goalposts from official recommendations to those being trusted or followed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> My personal motto in dealing with this is:

 _Stressen, Meutern, Flegeln!_ as a juxtaposition of _Messen, Steuern, Regeln_ which is German for [1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentation_and_control_en...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentation_and_control_engineering)

The battle for hearts and minds [2] [https://ww1.habsburger.net/en/chapters/battle-hearts-and- min...](https://ww1.habsburger.net/en/chapters/battle-hearts-and-minds) is nothing new, now fought by cybernetic means. [3] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetics)

Considering this, as a precaution to not having ones strings pulled by mechanisms of media, regardless of state- or non-state actors in the [4] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_economy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_economy) I implented a mental default-deny for pull requests in the spirit of [5] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Not_Being_Governed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Not_Being_Governed)

 _Stressen_ as in stress back if someone/thing is stressing you.

By _Meutern_ as in mutiny.

And lastly by _Flegeln_ as in being a Yahoo, Redneck, Hick, Hool, Honk, Punk etc. about it.

(Edit: Vanishing fast into the off, yelling _Geronimo Banzai_!)

<comment><USER5> That is my facility for managing systems of oppression.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> That's why they call it "data" and not "information".

</comment><comment><USER7> He seems not to expect change in the "populist" element in the current media landscape. The only policy opinions/spitballs I read in the interview were banning political advertising on social media and public support for independent journalism, and he didn't give the impression that he thought either would go very far.

It seems like paradigm shifts happen more often than we think. They always surprise me, at least (BLM, same sex marriage, legalized pot in the US). Reading between the lines, I think he's saying that barring a paradigm shift, this new kind of "anti-democratic populism" is going to be around for a while.

</comment><comment><USER8> Carl Bergstrom is one of my favorite Twitter follows, especially on topics that are pushed by seemingly legit sources (including peer-reviewed publications) but contain serious flaws in reasoning. The course sounds amazing, and I'm sure the book is good as well.

</comment><comment><USER9> "If some guy rolls in with a fancy algorithm telling you someone is a criminal using facial features, you need to be able to say that is nuts."

OK, maybe. But I think that it is just as often political correctness as science that allows one to dismiss such assertions out of hand. As much, as a gentile, I would like to be able to dismiss "The Jews really are smarter than the rest of us" out of hand, some unpopular assertions may in fact be true. And I think truth has to come before other considerations. (Though it may be best not to make such assertions at all if there's not a good reason to.)

Overall, though, I really liked what Bergstrom had to say. What he had to say about mockery being unproductive was some practical wisdom.

<comment><USER10> It's not that they are, in fact, not a criminal. That's probably true, since unless you're using a deeply fucked up juridiction's definition of criminal, most people aren't criminals, but that's not the point. What's nuts is treating the claims of a algorithm you don't understand as _evidence_ that someone is a criminal, rather than as unsubstantiated hearsay the way you would if a human made such a claim.

<comment><USER9> If Bergstrom's point is that one shouldn't believe claims just because someone asserts them, then yes, that's true.

But I would say that the set of assertions for which one is justified in rejecting them out of hand is perhaps smaller than he is suggesting.

For example, there was fake news recently in which the Gates Foundation was said to be inserting subcutaneous chips into folks who had received vaccines. It turned out to be untrue, but not obviously so. The technology exists and if not abused it could be an inexpensive and effective form of record keeping.

<comment><USER10> > rejecting them out of hand

I may have missed it, but I don't see TFA actually arguing for that at all.

> one shouldn't believe claims just because someone [or something] asserts > them

Seems to be the overall point.

If some guy rolls in with a paranoid schizophrenic telling you someone is a criminal using facial features, you need to be able to say that is nuts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> @dang: Could we get a title change?

Maybe "Carl Bergstrom on data manipulation, fake news, and the importance of using science as a lie detector"

<comment><AUTHOR> Subtitle is 20 characters too long. I truncated it a bit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> This has always been the case, not sure why this is news.

<comment><USER13> Their lecture series was pretty good: [https://www.callingbullshit.org/videos.html](https://www.callingbullshit.org/videos.html)</comment></comment>


Idea: use machine learning to remove product placements from images/video - <AUTHOR> https://ideahub.social/idea/tcuax-use-ml-to-remove-product-placements-from-images-video <comment><USER2> I studied this in college. The 8 point algorithm as I recall [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight- point_algorithm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-point_algorithm)

A sample project I did at UCLA [https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2cbJSismcJbVk02MXd1b2pnU3c...](https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2cbJSismcJbVk02MXd1b2pnU3c/view?usp=sharing)

</comment><comment><USER3> The impainting can be global and locally, but it has to be temporally stable to avoid shakiness associated with impainting multiple frames.

Photoshop unveiled a similar temporally stable algorithm which does just that (provided that you select a marquee selection around the object.) I can't find the link though. Perhaps those two algorithms can be combined to first locate the object then remove it.

</comment><comment><USER4> Cool idea. But also, apparently this is a website for submitting and rating ideas themselves?

<comment><AUTHOR> yeah indeed, I just found myself having way more ideas I'll ever be able to build.. so why not share them :) Im planning to add an idea every day.. will keep me busy for a while

<comment><USER5> I love lists of ideas! Nice project. This [0] comes to mind

[http://aurellem.org/thoughts/html/good- ideas.html](http://aurellem.org/thoughts/html/good-ideas.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> cheers, I just had a look and I guess he had the same intention as me.. :)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


FourSquare's Deal Terms - <AUTHOR> http://pedatacenter.com/pedc/blog/view/70

<comment><USER2> Anything in here that we don't already know?</comment>


Ask HN: What is the best Chromebook for Linux 2017? - <AUTHOR> I'd like a Chromebook to run Linux on, this will be used for light web dev with node, vim, etc. <comment><USER2> Ive found this, it shows which model works with what [https://wiki.galliumos.org/Hardware_Compatibility](https://wiki.galliumos.org/Hardware_Compatibility)

I dont actually have a chromebook running linux but would love to hear some people's experiences

<comment><USER3> I'm using an Acer C720P with the GalliumOS kernel. Everything works perfectly, except occasionally when opening the screen, I need to `sudo service network- manager restart` to get connected to the WiFi. It doesn't see me network unless I do that. It's only once in a while so I haven't bothered trying to fix it.

I used these guides to help set things up:

[https://samsclass.info/128/proj/chromebooks3.htm](https://samsclass.info/128/proj/chromebooks3.htm)

[https://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=2228539](https://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=2228539)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I have the Dell Chromebook 13 with an i5/8GB. I upgraded the SSD to 256GB and have had a pretty good experience with it. I use it with chrx. I am sure it is overkill for the task, but I wanted to have a capable machine if needed for larger tasks.

<comment><USER4> Truthfully, I could have purchased the Dell Developer Edition with similar specs for $100 or so more, I would recommend that option as well, if you are going to go up the maxed out Dell Chromebook 13. I wanted the DIY experience. :)</comment></comment>


Groupon acquires Mertado (YC W10) - <AUTHOR> http://www.mertado.com

<comment><USER2> Congrats on a good outcome for team and hopefully investors -- taking roles at a still fast growing but huge company like Groupon should give the team a lot of great experience. Maybe they will do another startup in a few years, too.</comment>


IPhone 4 FaceTime without Wifi - <AUTHOR> http://blog.deviceknit.com/post/739345775/facetime-without-wifi

<comment><USER2> Alternate (that works) is drop your data plan from $25 2 Gbytes to $15 / 250 Megabytes, and go buy a $60/Month Sprint MiFi/5 Gigabytes (Wireless HotSpot).

Total Net Cost is $35/month above what the iPhone normally costs. $60 (Sprint) - $10 (Data Plan Savings) - $15 (Tethering Cost)

The net costs are less if you have an iPad AND an iPhone, as you don't have to purchase a 3G iPad or a Data plan for it.

Advantages:

      o Data Limit is 5 Gigabytes instead of 2.
      o iPhone, iPad, Laptops all can (simultaneously) use it.
      o You now have Sprint and AT&T Data Coverage.
      o All of the "WiFi only" rules work on the MiFi
        (Facetime, AppStore download Limit)

<comment><USER3> And you get unlimited 4G. (With the download rates I get, I calculated it as about 1.3TB per month. Much more generous than AT&T's 250MB.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If you have a tethered laptop why not just use the webcam that most laptops have shipped with for years now?

<comment><USER5> Because you can't use Facetime with your notebook's webcam.

<comment><USER6> If anybody has tried the 1-888-FACETIME line to test out facetime, it seems that the apple reps are using a webcam instead ... they talk as per the script about switching to the iphone etc. but for some reason, it seemed like they were not using iPhones (image quality, orientation, etc.) ... Apple probably coded some internal tool to mimic facetime .. i tried this call twice and i got the same impression both times

<comment><USER7> The functionality is no doubt coming to iChat, maybe they have special build they are using to do it now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Cool, but I'll just say it. Impractical.

<comment><AUTHOR> It may be more convenient for the other party, if they don't have Skype or don't have a computer but there's a hotspot to use FaceTime. It's a good alternative and if it's this easy for the party w/ a computer than it might be the more practical option if you want to video chat.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> The ironic thing is that you could also use FaceTime while walking on the street if you're walking with a friend that has an Android phone with the ability to make his phone a WiFi hot spot.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yup! This capability is built into 2.2 and if you're still on 2.1 and your phone is rooted there are great apps like Barnacle which is completely free (there is also a paid version for donation purposes).

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> A while back I had to do something similar to download a podcast. The iPhone doesn't let you download apps or iTunes media (including podcasts) that are over 10MB in size over the cellular network. So I tethered to my MacBook, downloaded in iTunes, and synced the podcast back to the device.

<comment><USER11> I've run into that 10MB problem, too! I think I remember Apple's threshold was 100MB originally, and the 10MB one is just absurd. These solutions seem a little bulky, but the tethering is to the point it's pretty seamless. I just wish an iPhone 4 jailbreak would come out so I could go back to MyWi instead of paying AT&T an extra $15/mo.

<comment><USER5> It was increased to 20MB near the end of 2009.

Devs can get around this by downloading extra bits on first startup or heavily compressing big datasets and decompressing them on first startup. Only a handful do, but there are ways around it. It would be nice if it was just a warning instead of a strict rule.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> So it's.... how to use facetime without wifi by creating a wifi hotspot with your laptop? How is that not using wifi?

</comment><comment><USER3> Apple products sure are easy to use.

</comment><comment><USER13> If Apple opened up the protocol tomorrow, there'd be a better (3G) implementation on Android fairly sson.</comment>


Analysis of an electromagnetic attack - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/titola/neuropa <comment><USER2> I was expecting something about EM pulse weapons or a hack involving EM, but unless I'm greatly mistaken this appears to be someone's persecutorial delusion about voices being "beamed" into their head. I spent some time working with people with schizophrenia and this is _very_ familiar territory. I'm sorry for what the author is going through, and would strongly suggest seeking help, although I understand that's a scary prospect and I'm likely to be incorporated into their delusional framework. Even if the author is disinterested in medication, talk therapy can be helpful.</comment>


Travel the path of the solar eclipse - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/mapping-the-2017-eclipse/ <comment><USER3> > Unfortunately for residents of Oregon's historically cloudy coast, NOAA > scientists have calculated the chances of a clear day at about 44 percent.

...

> A few hours east, however, the odds increase dramatically. Because the > Cascade Range creates a significant rain shadow across central and eastern > Oregon, chances are high that the view will be unobstructed.

How good are the short term forecasts for Oregon? If the day before the forecast for an area west of the Cascades calls for a clear day, is that almost always right?

My plan currently is to drive to Oregon from the Seattle area the day before, and head to one of (1) the Salem/Albany area, (2) the Madras area, or (3) somewhere around where the 84 crosses the centerline of totality, with the choice being based on the weather forecasts at the time.

<comment><USER4> In Eastern Oregon, summer weather is either clear or thunderstorms; thunderstorms develop in the afternoon, while the eclipse is in the morning. You're exceptionally likely to get a clear day East of the Cascades.

I leave in rural Eastern Oregon. The population here is expected to swell by a factor of 5-10x during the eclipse, and this is expected to overwhelm local services. If you're headed to rural Oregon -- or probably any non-metropolitan area nation-wide -- to see the eclipse, I would recommend arriving at least two days early, plan on staying up to two days afterward, bring with you all the food and gas you'll need, and try to avoid any critical illness or injury.

Speaking specifically of Madras, its East of the Cascades, so the weather should be good. There's a rumor that they're planning to make the highways one-way between Madras, Bend and Prineville to accommodate the extra traffic. I wouldn't want to travel by car in that area during the eclipse.

<comment><USER5> We reserved an RV back in October with the intent of seeing the eclipse somewhere in your neck of the woods.

We're picking it up a full 3 days ahead of time. We're going to overnight around Shasta, and arrive almost two full days before the eclipse. We will be 100% self sufficient in the RV. That's the plan at least. (:

Here are some questions: how appropriate is it for us to park in 'some random place' for a couple of days somewhere up there?

Would you recommend being more 'east' or 'west' along the line of totality?

Do you mind me peppering you with a lot of other questions? (:

Thanks friend!

<comment><USER6> > how appropriate is it for us to park in 'some random place' for a couple of > days somewhere up there?

Public lands have certain areas you can disperse camp. Other than that it is usually not ok to just random camp.

These won't be ordinary times though. I'd _expect_ people will be looking the other way or be too busy to worry about running off RV's in parking lots.

We are planning on find a spot in Idaho a week and a half before hand. Hoping the weather holds out. It won't be easy to travel day of from where we picked.

<comment><USER5> > Public lands have certain areas you can disperse camp. Other than that it is > usually not ok to just random camp.

Definitely understood!

There is, apparently, quite a lot of public land in eastern Oregon. I was thinking about the Unity area, give or take.

<comment><USER4> I'm not super familiar with Unity, but based on the satellite photos, I think Forrest Road 6015 will be traversable with a Class C; you should be able to find a fine place to came out there. You should call up the Prairie City Ranger District too, they'll know more local specifics than anything you can find online.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Not a journalism piece, but this is a great map for getting details along the path;

[http://xjubier.free.fr/en/site_pages/solar_eclipses/TSE_2017...](http://xjubier.free.fr/en/site_pages/solar_eclipses/TSE_2017_GoogleMapFull.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> We actually used the data on this site for a related graphic here: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/eclipse/?ut...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/eclipse/?utm_term=.a759052397cd)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> If, like me, you're planning on being on the Wind River Reservation for it, don't worry too much about the permit you supposedly need. The town of Pavillion is charging five bucks for parking, but that's literally the only thing I can find anywhere that mentions any cost at all. This site, which is linked to by the city of Riverton, seems pretty official, and doesn't mention permits of any sort (...guess we'll see on eclipse day!):

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

</comment><comment><USER9> This is a nice idea. NASA has created copious maps too using various resources to ensure accuracy. You can traverse and explore the path too. Interactive maps seem nicer than a linked list of screenshots in my opinion.

> [https://eclipse2017.nasa.gov/](https://eclipse2017.nasa.gov/)

> [https://eclipse2017.nasa.gov/eclipse- > maps](https://eclipse2017.nasa.gov/eclipse-maps)

</comment><comment><USER10> I love North America! I feel privileged to live here and have access to the Interstate System to travel across such varied topology.

<comment><USER11> The governments of the countries built them.

Engineering solved the issues of building roads over varied terrain efficiently.

You should give back instead of just "feeling privileged".

<comment><USER12> What was the purpose of this comment? Since when does "feeling privilaged" imply not "giving back"?

<comment><USER11> Focus on what you want, you are in control.

I'm not interested in what easily distracts you.

<comment><USER12> Please try to maintain a higher level of discourse, or at least respond coherently. This isn't reddit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I started a group with a long shot dream that some day total solar eclipses will be properly celebrated in the form of giant high tech festivals [http://shadow.dance](http://shadow.dance). But in addition to celebration, they are opportunities for somber reflection on history. Any arbitrary long path anywhere on earth will include historic sites that reveal depressingly dark human behavior but the Aug 21 path is remarkable in that it includes the most important historic sites for almost all the dark aspects of US history, including the Minidoka Internment Camp, Fort Laramie where the Sioux were falsely promised the Black Hills, The Trail of Tears and Sullivan's Island (North America's largest slaveport). (The most detailed map is on p 6 of the detailed technical proposal which is 3 clicks in – the 16 sites still sadden me when I look at them.) Readers here could be a big help for our project which was unable to get support for our 2017 ambitions but hopes to find fruition in the 2024 Mexico US Canada eclipse – contact information on the web pages.

<comment><USER14> I may just be a bit thick, but what's the significance of Aug 21 in this? (In plain terms, if you can.)

Just for context: I _have_ actually observed a total Solar eclipse, and while it was pretty significant and "awesome" in confirming my (philosophical term:) belief in Science[1], it -- in no way -- implied much else.

[1] It was predicted at least 2 years in advance... which is _astounding_ given the speed at which the earth is hurtling around its orbit, etc. I don't think they even needed much more than Newton's laws for that prediction.

<comment><USER13> Sorry I do not really understand your question. I hope I made it clear that I do not attach any supernatural significance to the fact that the Aug 21 eclipse includes "dark" history in its path. By chance it includes historical sites that most people have heard of, and it is a shame that we couldn't drum up some luminaries to talk about them and emphasize the common themes - <USER2> are at their worst engaging in horrors that you hate to think about - when: bigotry is widely accepted, when there is assymetry of power between groups, when ruthlessness in the pursuit of profit and power is not condemned and when the actions remain out of sight and there is no investigative journalism to reveal them. If we are of good conscience and do not want to repeat our past then we must constantly be on guard against those factors.

<comment><USER14> Oh, OK, I apologize. I think it might just have been the phrasing of your original comment that confused me. I definitely think it's a good idea to drum up a bit of interest in history, historical sites, etc. I _will_ say, however, that the look of the webpage you pointed to did induce a little bit of a "cranky" vibe just because of the look, big fonts, etc. If you control it, you might want to tone it down it a down, or if you don't... just avoid linking to it. What you just posted is _much_ more interesting and informative than that page.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The description in the article says Google Earth (not Google Maps) and that they were exported (not screenshotted). So not at all like the heavily editorialised title.

</comment><comment><USER3> They should have mentioned which of the listed places have an airport that is served by one or more major airlines. Those places provide the opportunity of simply flying in, hanging out at the airport until the eclipse and watching from there, and then flying home.

I checked a few, looking for round trip flights from Seattle leaving Seattle the day before and returning the day of the eclipse. For some it may be possible to arrive the morning of the eclipse, but I didn't get into sufficient detail to check that.

Casper, WY: many flights, around $800. One week later is around $300, so it looks like the eclipse has driven prices up.

St. Joseph, MO: Many flights, $400-500, including a few nonstop so only 3.5 hours (as opposed to 6 to 7 for all the ones with a stop). (I did check same day for this one. There are leaving very early Monday morning from Seattle arriving before the eclipse).

Carbondale, IL: many flights, $700ish and up.

Metropolis, IL: Many, $1000ish.

Nashville, TN: Many, $500ish.

Clemson, SC: Many, $600-2000.

That was just cities that the article highlighted. There are also many fairly significant cities, some near the center of totality, that they left out. Columbia, SC (which has many flights staring at $700), for example.

<comment><USER16> St. Louis is a good hub near the eclipse track. You can rent a cheap car and head right into the New Madrid Seismic Zone to watch the eclipse from scenic Chester, IL!

[http://www.idlewords.com/2015/07/confronting_new_madrid.htm](http://www.idlewords.com/2015/07/confronting_new_madrid.htm)

<comment><USER3> Will you be able to rent a cheap car, though? I'd expect that rental cars are going to be like hotels--greatly jacked up in price on rental periods that include the eclipse, if any are even still available.

<comment><USER16> Current weekly price around that date at STL is ~$231

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I really like the attention to detail where the shape of the "shadow of the sun" changes based on the distance from the equator.

<comment><USER18> Though it can be thought of as varying with latitude in this case, it's much more complicated than that for eclipses in general. So latitude can work as a pragmatic proxy variable in this case but not for all eclipses: e.g. [http://www.hk-mcc.net/david/eclipse/image/se20080207.GIF](http://www.hk- mcc.net/david/eclipse/image/se20080207.GIF)

Moon's orbit is not on the equator (closer to the ecliptic), the Sun isn't fixed in the sky, etc.

<comment><USER17> That's cool, I didn't even think about that!

So in your opinion does the linked article (it feels wrong to call it that...) accurately depict this (or at least depict it accurately enough that it's not deceiving)? Or like you kind of hinted at, is it close enough during this particular eclipse to not really matter?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This is a nice opportunity for navigation software to set themselves apart: let the navigation along the given path be time-constrained. Thus, if the user is lagging behind, send them to a highway; if the user is ahead schedule, let them wait for a while.

<comment><USER20> Cars, and even planes are way too slow to track the moon's shadow across earth. The speed seems to vary from ~1500-3000 mph depending on how close you are to the equator. An SR-71 Blackbird would have a hard time keeping up with that.

<comment><USER16> The Concorde flew the path of totality in 1973, remaining in the shadow for 74 minutes.

[https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/8q8qwk/the- concor...](https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/8q8qwk/the-concorde-and- the-longest-solar-eclipse)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> It is also peppered with nice little sound bites of cool info:

 _McCool Junction, Neb., won't get McCold, but the air temperature during totality drops by an average of about 12 degrees Fahrenheit, according to astrophysicist Fred Espenak._

</comment><comment><USER22> No need to travel, watch the whole event live from the comfort of your own device: [http://eclipse.stream.live/](http://eclipse.stream.live/)

<comment><USER16> Or you can just slowly blink and keep your eyes closed for two minutes, from the comfort of your chair.

It's really worth it to see this in person. There's nothing like it in the world.

<comment><USER22> Probably right, and I do intend on seeing it in person when it gets to SC. Sadly, not everyone will have that opportunity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> As somebody planning on watching it from the Willamette Valley in Oregon, I should point out that the clouds in question will probably stick to the immediate coast. It'll be the sunny dry season past the first range of mountains.

I think my favorite little blurb was learning of Carhenge in a place just west of nowhere in Nebraska: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carhenge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carhenge)

</comment><comment><USER24> Just booked my hotel near Carbondale to go with my family. Prices in the area are INSANE! I am genuinely excited and can't wait to see it. I hope weather will be nice.

Look forward to hang around huge group of people and enjoy the phenomenon.

</comment><comment><USER25> Relevant xkcd [https://xkcd.com/1868/](https://xkcd.com/1868/)

</comment><comment><USER26> Rent a convertible

</comment><comment><USER27> Original title: Travel the path of the solar eclipse

<comment><USER28> Thanks, we've updated the submission title from "We built this 2017 solar eclipse map starting with 73 Google Maps screenshots".

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> the orientation is horrible. why is north right-ish? just no.

<comment><USER30> There is a minimap in the upper right corner to help you orient yourself.

<comment><USER29> the minimap is oriented differently (north is up) whereas the main map view is not; that just contributes to the spatially confusing presentation in my opninion. maybe a rectangle of the full map fov along the minimap path rather than a circle would help mitigate this, I don't know... it's also following the path of the eclipse backwards, which is also distracting.</comment></comment></comment>


Passengers in Uber's self-driving cars waived right to sue for injury or death - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/sep/26/uber-self-driving-passengers-pittsburgh-injury-death-waiver <comment><USER2> Someone raised a good point on Reddit: is there any point to the waiver to sue for death?

If you die it won't be _you_ who is trying to sue over your death. It will be your relatives, most likely. They are not a party to your contract with Uber, and so aren't bound by its terms.</comment>


$14M in ETH stolen from Upbit were laundered in May through well-known exchanges - <AUTHOR> https://blog.clain.io/upbit-stolen-ethereum-being-laundring-through-binance-huobi-and-okex/ <comment><USER2> This is an interesting piece, and it highlights one problem I've noticed with crypto in general recently, which is that these kinds of investigations are largely being carried out by private entities who build platforms around this type of forensics without any real ability to go after the exchanges that have permitted this laundering.

Between this and Bitfinex refusing to submit to an external auditor and other events, I have a hard time trusting the big crypto players any more than I trust the big banks. Wasn't that whole point of these coins to begin with?

It seems like the assumption that the problems with the current financial system stem from centralization isn't holding up, at least when it comes to the administration of these big exchanges. They're still running into many of the same problems that big banks have, and frankly they're not doing any better of a job.

<comment><USER3> Not your keys, not your coins™ -- with that as the core philosophy of cryptocurrency, can you even say this was stolen, let alone laundered?

It sounds like the person with the keys transferred the coins into another wallet.

Resolved: behaves correctly. At least, as intended anyways.

<comment><USER2> That makes sense. I guess that seems to somewhat conflict with the concept of the exchange as a service, at least for how laypeople understand currency exchanges in general. It wouldn't surprise me if most people with exchange accounts don't understand that coins not in their own wallet aren't actually theirs. The exchanges don't really make that clear to their users either, at least the ones I've used.

<comment><USER4> It turns out people want centralization :) I'm sure users mostly understand it but they give the keys away anyway.

Core tenant of cryptocurrencies is purely anti-human

<comment><USER5> Can crypto be simultaneously anti-human [nature] and yet pro-user [intent]? Can the pain points of crypto be smoothed to make them pro-human [nature] without losing the qualities that make them pro-user [intent], supposing that they are pro-user [intent]?

<comment><USER6> What about the situation, "I paid them, but they never delivered?".

How would wage garnishment, as ordered by the courts, work? (This is the main one that needs answering because it is a simple example of the hardest anti- human problem that goes against core blockchain philosophy... reversing or forcing transactions)

<comment><USER7> escrow services

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

<comment><USER6> That doesn't solve the general problem of complying with legal orders.

For example, how would escrow help with wage garnishment, suing a company and winning, or generally forced transactions by court order?

<comment><USER5> Not who you are replying to, but I answered and addressed those claims in a sister comment, here:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23199291](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23199291)

<comment><USER6> You keep saying you answered but you have not. That is very unclear and just throwing around words.

You haven't understood the idea and instead hang on to narrow focus around cash, which had nothing to do with the argument, because most people have digital money that goes through institutions. Using fringe cases to justify the common is the wrong way around.

<comment><USER5> If your argument against cryptocurrency could also apply to cash, why don't you also say so? My point is that cryptocurrency has aspects of digital assets and cash assets simultaneously. So if your argument equally would apply to cash, which is commonly used, then I think it's worth pointing that out.

Also, I don't agree that my writing is unclear. I find your dismissal unjustified by your arguments. I simply bring up a counter-example to your argument with cash. You saying it is fringe and beside the point is not an argument. To then criticize my writing is to miss the point I was making. I don't find that you are debating in good faith when you make personal attacks on quality of writing when your own argument hasn't been made or won.

<comment><USER6> You haven't clearly replied to the scenario I presented and have rather used this cash analogy (and idea that if I don't address cash than the question is invalid) to continually deflect from from having to answer the original question and how it applies to cryptocurrency.

Cash is a bad analogy because it is the only widely used currency, it defines what we mean by currency, and it has always been a part of modern history in some form. Cryptocurrency has fundamental differences from a digital, public, immutable ledger.

So if you'd like to get back to the original questions, I'd be happy to continue this discussion.

However if your only defense for cryptocurrency is "cash does it too so we don't have to talk about it" then we can stop here.

<comment><USER5> I'm not advocating for or defending cryptocurrency. I'm asking questions to clarify what it is you are asking. I don't see why you think I am deflecting. Asking questions is as old as the Socratic method.

If you don't think analogies to cash are a good answer to your questions, please restate your question. I'm not using cash as an analogy, I'm using it as a counter-example in the monetary marketplace that proves that different monetary instruments have different properties, some of which are inherent to the medium of exchange. I want to know why you think cash isn't a good answer to your questions. I also am curious why you think cryptocurrency is a bad answer to your questions, if indeed you do.

<comment><USER6> as expected...

I asked a question about how an immutable ledger, with public consensus, deals with the reversal transactions as ordered by the rule of law. Do you have an answer for that?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Too bad this theft did not affect the founders of Ethereum like the DAO exploit did. Otherwise, they would have found a way to reverse this and get people their money back from the hacker, even if it meant changing the protocol and upgrading existing binaries.

<comment><USER9> The fact that losses can only be reversed if you're sufficiently well connected to the developers is a major problem.

<comment><USER10> The losses were reversed because the system was exploited, not because someone had a close connection with one of the devs. Had they not forked the network right then and there they would only be facing more of the same in the future, reducing the reliability of ETH down to 0. No forks have been made since the incident, and I would hazard to say none of the devs are planning on forking anytime soon either.

I think one of the problems in this space is that people treat their addresses like bank accounts when they should be treating them like cardboard boxes. Sure, you can put your money in it, but you only keep your money so long as nobody finds your box. Therefore, you should make as many cardboard boxes as possible and spread your wealth such that breaking into any individual cardboard box is worthless, and breaking into all of them would take so much time it effectively becomes impossible.

In terms of securing keys, that's also a difficulty, but that's the price you pay for this sort of experience. Any entity that could reverse your losses could also make transactions on your behalf - ruining the point of decentralizing in the first place.

<comment><USER9> If I lose money because of a buggy contract, will the developers trigger a hard fork for me, or is it just the DAO who gets that consideration?

<comment><USER10> If you lost half a billion dollars like the DAO did, you would probably get that consideration, too.

<comment><USER9> That's my point, if I lose a more paltry sum like my life savings, nobody will lift a finger to bail me out. It's only if my losses are massive will the developers trigger a hard fork on my behalf.

"Code is law" only turns out to apply to those with small balances and poor connections.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I met a woman last year who I'm pretty sure was cashing out for a hack of a New Zealand exchange..

she didn't say it explicitly but she was getting 10% to cash out on Huobi for a group of IT students in Guangzhou China. One of the guys was an american and I think it was his job to find people to cash out. They were doing about 150k USD a week, and she was pretty sure there were others doing the same thing.

he told her they found a way to get free ETH.

I sent a message to the exchange that got hacked Cryptopia or something but they never got back to me

</comment><comment><USER12> It will stop when Binance et. al. are sued to hand back the stolen property.

</comment><comment><USER13> Are these "stolen" events part of the laundering process? That is, are fake thefts used to obscure where the money goes?</comment>


Marissa Mayer has been on a shopping spree, but is there any sign of a strategy? - <AUTHOR> http://gigaom.com/2013/07/04/marissa-mayer-has-been-on-a-shopping-spree-at-yahoo-but-is-there-any-sign-of-a-strategy/ <comment><USER2> I think the strategy is to get as many new decent developers outside the yahoo echo chambers, in an effort to change the working culture inside the company.

For many years Yahoo suffered from mismanagement of CEO with short term goal to appease shareholders as opposed to building a company based on strong workforce and values. Despite all the PR speech by the previous CEO, I never felt that the previous leadership really knew what the hell they were doing.

One of the first thing Mayer had to do was stop the culture rot within the company, and you will see that a lot of her decisions, whether its buying up other companies and making new rules around favorable working conditions, is targeted on building a strong group of core developers. This obviously takes a lot of time, there is no magic bullet to fix culture rot.

Mayer is from Google school of thought, so she knows a thing or two on how good working environment works. You will see that while Google has a strong leadership to guide the company, a lot of its products and services started from and driven by not the leadership, but their developers on their 20% project.

So to put it in short, Yahoo is not in a position like Google where they can dictate long term strategy without getting its bases in order and fix decades of rotting.

I think in the next 12 months or so will be interesting time to see what comes out of Yahoo.

<comment><USER3> Culture is set by the execs, and their senior managers, not the developers. Buying up new companies won't change the culture unless they are integrated into a new management structure. Sure, a good junior or mid-level manager can maintain a strong culture in their team/organization. BUT only with senior exec support - otherwise they will fall under corporate oversight for everything - from facilities policies (free snacks, beer, soft drinks, breakfasts? huge desks? breakout rooms?), HR processes (hiring, performance, salary increases, role changes), IT processes (hardware/software freedom), etc. There are talented managers who can present a view of full cooperation, but still do their own things - though again, to pull that off, they usually have some senior exec support. The more contact with the rest of the org. the more its culture seeps in.

Just think about it in terms of code - you write some code as a standalone demo - to bring it into your main application, you end up having to integrate into most of the existing framework, and that influences the original demo code - often for the better, but that depends on the quality of the existing code base - and how well it was architected (by the code equivalent of the execs).

Very few companies do acquisitions where they carefully protect the acquired company. The assumption is that the buying companies culture is better! One company that _does_ do this quite well is Conde Naste. (Wired, Reddit, etc. all have quite separate identities, and from the outside appear to have autonomy.)

When you start to see an exodus of long term Yahoo! execs, then she's probably doing something right. Whether Wall Street would reward her for that, is a totally different question!!!

<comment><USER4> This.

Culture is pushed from the top. If you're changing the culture at the top then bringing new people in lower down might speed up the change and solidify it but in of itself it won't change anything if nothing is changing at the top.

<comment><USER3> Right, but if you bring them in without changing the top, they either get changed to the existing culture are and somewhat unhappy. Dislike the new culture and leave. Or kick up a fuss, and get asked to leave.

But if they see execs who _really_ get it, they may endure a line or middle manager who doesn't get it, knowing that it's just a matter of time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Does acquiring companies for injecting 'young blood' actually work? I feel an acquisition means the founders and early employees would want to kick back and relax in the comfort of a big company job for a while. The examples I've seen are where they wait out their vesting period, and then quit and start their own company.

</comment><comment><USER6> The strategy is to appease wall street and shareholders. Doesn't matter what their plan is or what they do, as long as they have a plan and do something.

While somewhat rare for publicly traded companies, Amazon has shown that companies can float while prioritizing long term strategies above everything else.

</comment><comment><USER7> Mayer realized that Yahoo's position is that of a big old corporation: High assets, weak on true innovation. Using the assets to absorb external innovative power is the logical consequence. As time is running out, they have to go for 10M+ opportunities, instead of trying too many too small projects.

</comment><comment><USER8> Somehow I find it hard to believe that if it had been Zuckerberg or Larry Page or any other _guy_ , this title would have been chosen.

<comment><USER9> People who write these types of comments do more to set back gender equality than anything written about the subjects themselves. If the subject of the story were a _guy_ would the thought of sexism even cross your mind or would you just, ya know, evaluate the story on its merits?

<comment><USER8> I was mistaken and there's no way to indicate that in the comment now, but your reply is way out of line and ironically a good example of harmful stereotyping ("people who write these type of comments"). Also, my comment had nothing to do with the story and everything to do with the title.

<comment><USER9> Sorry that you feel that way, but since you made a comment which called into question the validity of the article and the character of the author without any evidence or apparent research to prove its validity, I think calling into question your assumptions and the potential harm they cause to be perfectly fair.

It's not right for me to generalize, so I should have said "These types of comments..." but my point still stands.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> As one who hasn't followed Yahoo for a long long time, how does Yahoo actually make money? Is it purely from advertisement?

<comment><USER11> I've seen estimates of ~90% of their revenue coming from advertising.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> If this were any male CEO doing all these acquisitions, would the author of this article have written about him going on a "shopping spree"? I kind of doubt it.

Edit: Criticism retracted - searching around in Google, it looks like this is a common phrase when referring to companies that make a lot of purchases in a short period. Apologies to the author for implying something negative.

<comment><USER13> +1 for your auto-critic ;)</comment></comment>


Will Americans trust Al Jazeera America? It depends how they browse the web - <AUTHOR> http://survata.com/blog/will-americans-trust-al-jazeera-america-it-depends-where-they-live-and-how-they-browse-the-web/

<comment><USER2> While I didn't expect a high level of trust I was surprised by how low the number is. I would like to see numbers for other news outlets, however, before I lose all faith in my fellow man. That's not to say I view AJ (or any other news outlet) as objective or trustworthy but I feel these numbers reflect American perceptions built upon a foundation of ignorance.

<comment><USER3> Well of course, it's the terrorist network in the minds of many americans and I am not kidding when I say that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> " _Do you perceive Al Jazeera America as an objective news source._ "

Wrong question.

(ADDED thanks to milsorgen's comment: particularly wrong when there aren't controls for their MSM competition.)

Now, I haven't seen any of it yet, but I've heard from multiple sources they do stuff the MSM doesn't do, aside from Fox and the OPED page of _The Wall Street Journal_. E.g. gather a not completely biased set of talking heads _and let them talk_.

The don't have to be "objective", they can have an obvious Muslim/Arab slant, they need to be _interesting_ ... and with only Fox for opposition it's entirely possible they can pull it off. Especially since their powers that be aren't part of the US MSM's monoculture.

<comment><USER5> I concur. When I read Al Jazeera or China Daily, I don't do it because I trust them, or by any means think they're objective. I read them to get an idea of how other parts of the world perceive events. You could say I read them because they're _not_ objective.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm not sure I can consider Al Jazeera to be objective, considering that its parent company is owned by a member of the Qatari royal family[1]. The royal family is essentially the government of Qatar, which is "ruled as an absolute and hereditary emirate"[2].

Would you consider a media company run by the U.S. government to be objective? Or one run by the Russian government? If not, then why would you consider Al Jazeera to be objective?

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

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

<comment><USER7> With this reasoning, one should never consider BBC as objective as it's owned by the British government. Yet it has been perceived for years by many as one of the most objective and thorough TV station worldwide.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Russia Today is the best source of news if you don't want pandering to the entrenched power structure.

Look at today's headlines: 'Monsanto Protection Act' quietly extended by Congress,EU lawmakers nominate Snowden for Sakharov human rights prize,Syria researcher cited by McCain, Kerry fired for fabricating credentials,CIA starts arming Syrian rebels overtly

</comment><comment><USER9> I've been reading Al Jazeera for several years now, since they had a big break out with a story that was mentioned in MSM, I forget what exactly.

Anyway, in comparison to American MSM, their journalistic merit won't be hard to gain in the eyes of critically-minded Americans who are sick of being fed predigested talk bites and transparent pep rallys for Wall Street. The presentation may be a bit biased if you're careful and know what to look for, but it's nothing in comparison to anything on TV here.</comment>


No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning - <AUTHOR> http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html#jCp <comment><USER2> There was a reference to this article about 2 months ago. I read though the original paper quickly at the time, intending to go back and try to understand it more thoroughly. Toward the end of the paper, I was startled to see the conclusion about the universe having no beginning or end.

Struck me as remarkable coming from _physicists_ , then again, they were using "Bohmian trajectories", and Bohm was in his own way an unconventional thinker. In my imagination, Bohm would not have been surprised by an "endless" universe.

Fascinating. How strange it will be if "science" winds up "proving" an age-old "spiritual" idea.

<comment><USER3> This post is a good example of verbose that doesn't really say anything. ^

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've been arguing with people for about 15 years that there is no end or beginning to the universe, and inherently can't be. I never cease to be amazed at the anger, and or general instant disregard it generates from big bang devotees. I've found the big bang crowd to be almost like a religion.

How typically atheistic, scientific minds could think there is a beginning to the universe baffles me.

<comment><USER5> > I've found the big bang crowd to be almost like a religion.

Have you talked to actual real cosmologists? I suspect you haven't. The big bang theory is our BEST MODEL for explaining the DATA.

How can you explain galactic evolution without positing that the universe was different (younger) many billions of years ago? We can see that the universe was different easily by the types of galaxies that were present.

We know the galaxy is expanding, this is a fact.

The distribution of hydrogen and helium are consistent with a big bang model of the universe.

We can observe clouds of matter which are distinctly different from matter present in active areas of space. These "leftover" remnants are additional evidence of the big bang.

How can you be amazed that cosmologists adapt a theory which can explain all of the above? Can your endless universe model do that? If it can please claim your nobel prize. I don't understand how you can be arrogant enough to make a claim such as yours with no evidence as if it's obvious.

> atheistic, scientific minds

Ah, now I understand why.

<comment><USER4> You're confusing the remnants of an event for the start of the universe. It's nothing more than a part of a perpetual cycle, rather than proof of a beginning of existence.

I have no inherent respect for something because it's claimed to be the best model. I believe it's a false idol, worshiped with a near religious fervor because so many have staked their scientific livelihoods to it. Dogma is extremely common in science historically.

<comment><USER5> So, again, you have no evidence and only a belief then to justify your position?

<comment><USER6> Whole religions came to exist using that same method.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> You don't even need a new theory to predict the universe has no beginning. Since in general relativity time slows down (from our reference frame) as the universe become denser and hotter, if the universe starts as a singularity then an infinite amount of time must have elapsed between the initial singularity and now. This is just another way of saying that the universe has always existed.

<comment><USER8> No. Try solving the Friedmann equations for a simple case (e.g. spatially flat universe, no cosmological constant, dominated by non-relativistic matter) to see that that's not true.

<comment><USER7> How do you solve the Friedmann equations starting from a singularity?

<comment><USER8> You don't. You solve them starting from now and then trace the solution back in time to find a singularity.

<comment><USER7> Don't all the assumptions breakdown at a singularity?

<comment><USER8> I don't understand what you mean by that.

In your first comment, you said that general relativity predicted that an infinite amount of time would have passed since the initial singularity. But that is not true: If you apply general relativity to a (very simple) model of the universe, you get the Friedmann equations. You can then solve these equations and get a solution that depends on the parameters of your model (spatial curvature, cosmological constant, equation of state of the matter/energy content). You can then see that all such solutions which fit our observations of the universe (the universe is currently expanding and not all energy in the universe behaves like dark energy) have the property that there was a singularity a finite amount of t ago.

As always in general relativity, one has to determine what exactly "t" means. But luckily, for the Robertson-Walker metric, the answer to that is relatively simple: t is the proper time of particles that are at rest relative to the average matter content of the universe (of course up to arbitrary translations).

So the result is: General relativity predicts for a universe like ours, that for matter that was at rest relative to the rest of the matter in the universe, only a finite amount of time has passed since a singularity. Time does not slow down near the big bang.

Of course that doesn't mean that this is the whole and perfect truth. The very fact that GR predicts a singularity means that GR is incomplete; a singularity is simply not a valid prediction. A theory of quantum gravity is probably necessary to fix that. But I just wanted to correct the error in your first post.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> No "beginning" does not mean no "big bang", and "big bang" is a completely shite term to begin with. "God Particle", "Y-Chromosomal Adam", "Mitochondrial Eve" ... the boffins who think this shit up should be (metaphorically) shot.

<comment><USER8> Well, the term "big bang" was originally coined by Fred Hoyle, who was a proponent of the alternative steady state model of cosmology. Many belive that it was meant to be pejorative and to ridicule the idea of a "beginning" of the universe.

Similarly, "God Particle" isn't a term that was ever used in physics. If I recall correctly, it comes from the title of a popular science book, which the author originally wanted to call "The Goddamn Particle" (because the Higgs was so hard to find experimentally), but the publisher didn't like that. Unfortunately "God Particle" stuck in popular science and the media.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm assuming my brain is not the only brain that is uncomfortable trying to understand this...

<comment><USER11> Given that the most of the article is just throwing jargon at random instead of explaining anything, it's no wonder you had hard time reading it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Discussion on reddit: [https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/2vb2fa/no_big_bang...](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/2vb2fa/no_big_bang_quantum_equation_predicts_universe/)

<comment><USER13> I quite like the top comment. Perhaps we've too narrowly defined our concept of beginning and end?

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> A finite size universe that this describes also increases the odds of it being a simulation. Because then it should be possible to program a complete universe, at a smaller scale of course. Also I could be very wrong because I hardly understand this.

<comment><USER15> It could be a simulation or merely a self-contained "universe" inside a larger universe (that may have different rules.) Or, it could simply "exist without cause", which I'm not that convinced by, since if that were the case, we should see evidence of entities within the universe that also "exist without cause", and we don't.

<comment><USER16> > if that were the case, we should see evidence of entities within the > universe that also "exist without cause", and we don't.

Why don't quantum fluctuations count?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> "New gravity particle" \- I wonder what is the point of inventing such things? Does it have any meaning at all? I suspect it is us clinging to our bias of human perception.

The only reason it could be useful is maybe if "particle" implies a certain set of behaviors all particles have in common?

To make it clearer: what I mean is that the notion of a "gravity particle" only gives us the illusion of something we can grasp, whereas presumably there is no such thing in reality.

Edit: downvote, why? It's a serious question.

</comment><comment><USER18> niubi

</comment><comment><USER19> We are here to experiance different things and the purpose of life is to be happy! Maybe the higher dimensions in a quantum world gives us experienced to teach us things that takes many life times to learn. For example humans have not yet learnt that living in peace is better than war. It's basically where science meets eastern Buddhism values.

Maybe the universe reborns in cycles expanding and collapsing in forever ending loops and there are parallel universes that exist to this one in higher dimensions.</comment>


The Meme as Meme (2013) - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/issue/5/fame/the-meme-as-meme <comment><USER2> > But trawling the Internet, I found a strange paradox: While memes were > everywhere, serious meme theory was almost nowhere.

The same can be said for jokes. Jokes are everywhere. But where are the theories behind them?

<comment><USER3> Folklore (including Jokes) is itself a branch of Anthropology.

Dawkins' work examining Memes as "simplest unit of an idea" within an "evolutionary context" initially seems like a throwback to the early 20th century practice of _lets apply Darwin 's natural selection to everything!_ And this was largely how social scientists interpreted it.

However, as a model within the study of Folklore, it is fun to trace what jokes and stories move between which communities, and how they mutate along the way. A minimal understanding of Social psychology adds a new depth to such "joke maps", and how they affect the popular mindset. Studies actually correlating large swaths of these to history are sorely missing.

Its too bad we dont really have Folklorists mapping memes across topic/region specific communities such as groups of subreddits or facebook groups/pages - this would be a goldmine to potentially redeem or actually refute Dawkins' ideas in a more concrete manner.

But this makes for several problems: reverse engineering the "joke" would make for one hell of a propaganda tool.</comment></comment>


A Silicon Valley start-up says it can predict others' fate - <AUTHOR> http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/18/business/startup.php <comment><USER2> Dup. See <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=118017></comment>


Show HN update: PopRead improved, now with Twitter lists ranking - <AUTHOR> http://rockieweb.com/popread/

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey I took the earlier feedback, cleaned up a bunch, and have added rankings to the lists on your twitter account too.

Let me know what you think.</comment>


Are Microcontrollers Obsolete? - <AUTHOR> http://www.cashdollar.org/2012/11/01/are-microcontrollers-obsolete/

<comment><USER2> For home automation - maybe.

For a large percentage of the vast number of other uses of microcontrollers - no, most definitely not.

A microcontroller has a number of properties things like the raspberry pi don't have: they cost a hell of a lot less (the micros I've used cost between about $0.50 and $3 each when buying about 10 at a time), have a much smaller physical footprint (SMD micros are anything from a few mm^2 to a cm^2 or so) and require very very low amounts of power.

</comment><comment><USER3> It really depends on the use case and the applications, some times it is an overkill to use a system like the RaspberyPi fo r just monitoring some sensors or controlling a relay switch. Especially when it comes to price, size and power consumption, microcontrollers are the only answer. System on a Chip devices can make great gateways for microcontrollers and supplement functionality by providing e.g., data processing, secure communication, etc.</comment>


How technology has redefined the job of the repo man - <AUTHOR> https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/05/19/how-technology-has-redefined-the-job-of-the-repo-man/ <comment><USER2> I work as an automotive mechanic, and while I maintain a relatively neutral opinion on repo men, sometimes the amateurs that crawl out of the weeds are absurd.

Ive had repo agents posing as customers looking to "get their car," which is pretty funny, but ive also seen agents harassing the front office staff with demands for a vehicle being worked on. Sometimes a driver will park their car to suddenly find theyve been "hitched up" to a seedy looking tow apparatus on the back of an often ironically leased light duty truck. Repo agents in this case show up as "innocent" middle men while a driver pleads and begs over the phone with a lender to not tow their car for any number of humiliating excuses.

Ive also had cars towed to the shop i work at complaining that the vehicle does not start, which are sometimes the saddest jobs to work on as automotive dealerships typically install an ECU interlock somewhere in the vehicle to remotely disable or neuter certain features of the car if you dont make a payment. I usually remove the devices, not out of a kindness to the customer but because they can make diagnosing real problems with vehicles infuriatingly difficult. They can also be triggered to honk the horn at random or odd intervals as a reminder to pay the piper, which turns a regular shift in the garage into a massive headache trying to track down the upset BMW or Mercedes that wont stop making racket in the lot.

<comment><USER3> > which turns a regular shift in the garage into a massive headache trying to > track down the upset BMW or Mercedes that wont stop making racket in the > lot.

Wow, that is wild.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > The company's goal is to capture every plate in Ohio and use that > information to reveal patterns.

That's horrifying.

It reminds me of how social security numbers evolved from something narrow in purpose to something that can be used to track an individual's every detail. Now license plates are evolving into a tool that is used to build databases of every individual's movement.

<comment><USER5> That's how the mafia used to work. Watch people during their fun times. Reveal patterns, then extort them.

<comment><USER6> Used to, eh?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> At least 10 years ago, a friend forgot where he parked his car in the Airport parking lot after a long trip. When he went to the booth embarrassed to tell them this, they said it was no big deal and did a quick tap-tap-tap on the keyboard using his license plate number to determine its exact location. They apparently scanned all the license plates in all their lots twice a day.

<comment><USER8> In 2001 my car was towed from LAX parking lot because they checked the plate (they told me they scan all plates daily) and it came back as registered to a different make.

Turns out the dealer made a single-letter mistake in VIN when registering the car with DMV, and there is no check digit to reject invalid VINs.

<comment><USER9> There is a check digit. Most likely someone at the dealer copy/pasted the wrong VIN into the form.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I honestly don't get why anyone goes in to debt to buy a car in this day and age. You can buy a car (or truck) for $3000 that will last several years without requiring any huge mechanic bills or exotic maintenance - heck, I've done it. I would much rather take the bus/bike/walk and save up $500/mo for 6 months to be a free man than buy or lease a car for $500/mo and be a space to my creditors.

Besides, hoopties can be charming :-)

<comment><USER11> I will be in need of a car soon. I don't drive much but just need something that works and is safe. Do you have any tips on how you find your $3000 cars? Are you a car guy?

<comment><USER12> My general approach is to look at craigslist (one example query: [https://seattle.craigslist.org/search/cta?query=used+car&sor...](https://seattle.craigslist.org/search/cta?query=used+car&sort=rel&max_price=4000)) to get a sense of the market. Spend a little while (maybe a week) checking in on a search like that to get a sense of the market.

Once you feel like you've got a sense of what "normal" prices are for cars in your price range, get a consumer reports subscription†. Use CR to evaluate the make, model, and year of any car that you're considering for safety and reliability. Reliability is a pretty important indicator for cars in this price range, because you'll tend to be looking at things with higher milage.

Then, watch craigslist for vehicles that seem like a good deal. With the information you have, you should also be in a good position to call local used car dealerships and tell them what you're looking for. You should have enough information to tell when they're offering you a reasonable deal.

If you have the time and can afford to try and be a little picky. Obviously, if you need a car you need a car, but if you can afford to take your time it'll usually be worth it. Prefer cars that seem like they've been well- maintained over their life and prefer cars that come from people who have kept documentation of maintenance performed on the car.

Finally, no matter where you're considering buying from—dealer or individual—take the car to a mechanic for a pre-sale inspection. This is a common service most mechanics offer. Make sure you're the one selecting the mechanic and the one paying the mechanic. That ensures that you should get a fairly objective assessment of the car itself. This step isn't as important if you're familiar with cars, but if you're not a car guy (as I'm not), it's totally worth the price to find out if there are any immediate or upcoming service issues that will be necessary for the car.

†I _think_ you can get a monthly subscription and cancel after one-month, but you should double-check that. If you can get it for a single month, the $7.95 is totally worth it. If you have to get it for a full-year at a time, evaluate the cost/benefit based on your budget.

<comment><USER13> > My general approach is to look at craigslist (one example query: > [https://seattle.craigslist.org/search/cta?query=used+car&sor...](https://seattle.craigslist.org/search/cta?query=used+car&sor...)) > to get a sense of the market.

CL now allows you to search by 'Owner' listings and eliminate dealers completely. Do that. If you're looking for a $3000 car, you don't want to touch the dealer realm, it'll be filled with straight trash.

> Once you feel like you've got a sense of what "normal" prices are for cars > in your price range, get a consumer reports subscription†.

Nah. If you're targeting a $3,000 vehicle you can very quickly figure out what fits your requirements & budget. Volvo 240s, anything late 80s - early 90s Toyota, early-mid 90s Ford Rangers, 1st & 2nd generation Geo Metros, etc. These are just the cars that I've personally owned and as a result dug into and researched. There are TONS of makes & models out there that are fantastic vehicles that will perform extremely well for years to come inside your $3,000 budget.

> Prefer cars that seem like they've been well-maintained over their life and > prefer cars that come from people who have kept documentation of maintenance > performed on the car.

Find older people who are getting rid of their "daily" driver for good. I've purchased at least 6 of these that looked like they traveled through time and rolled off the showroom floor that day. They're generally one owner (since they pulled them off the lot ~12 years ago and aren't going to own anything else), dealer maintained, gently driven, with minimal miles; and they just want it gone at a fair price.

Also, look at the photos. Is their coffee cup from that morning in the holder? Is the interior a mess? Looks like they needed new wipers 6+ months ago and definitely need to hose the thing down at a minimum? That's a bad owner. They don't care for their vehicle. That means they didn't do scheduled maintenance on it. If you list a car for sale without taking the hour to clear your shit out of it, hit it with a vacuum, and take it through an automatic car wash – they're not the seller you're looking for.

> Finally, no matter where you're considering buying from—dealer or > individual—take the car to a mechanic for a pre-sale inspection. This is a > common service most mechanics offer.

Also hit the community forums for the vehicle you're considering. They exist for every make & model out there, I assure you. They almost always have a "purchase checklist" type document published. Give that to the shop that's doing your inspection and make sure they hit those bullet points as well. Every make of vehicle will have its quirks that you want reviewed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Good time to point out that all cars entering or exiting New York City via a bridge or tunnel are scanned.

<comment><USER15> Why tunnels and bridges, specifically?

<comment><USER14> They act as natural choke points since Manhattan is an island.

In turn, that means that you know who entered or exited Manhattan and can therefore deduce who is currently still there.

I would imagine in the event of an incident related to a vehicle, you could start with the list of recent entrants and use it to start building a timeline.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Wow, everything in this article is horrifying:

> the rising deployment of remote engine cutoffs and GPS locators in cars

Wait, so people can remotely track my car or turn it off? This doesn't sound like a hack away from disaster at all.

> The company's goal is to capture every plate in Ohio and use that > information to reveal patterns…"It's kind of scary, but it's amazing," said > Alana Ferrante, chief executive of Relentless.

No, it's just scary.

> Repo agents are responsible for the majority of the billions of license > plate scans produced nationwide. But they don't control the information. > Most of that data is owned by Digital Recognition Network (DRN), a Fort > Worth company that is the largest provider of license-plate-recognition > systems. And DRN sells the information to insurance companies, private > investigators — even other repo agents.

As if you couldn't make a bad situation worse: let's give all the information to a private company that has every reason to resell all that data.

<comment><USER17> _Wait, so people can remotely track my car or turn it off?_

Under those circumstances it's not really "your" car.

Yes, you might have put down 5% of the total purchase price. So you have a title, and legally you own the car. But 95% of the "skin in the game" is the lender's. The car belongs mostly to the lender.

Don't like that? Easy solution, don't be a deadbeat. Or save up and pay cash.

I agree with the rest of your post. The privacy implications are quite scary.

<comment><USER16> When I pay off the car, does the device get removed, or do I just come to an agreement with the dealer that they won't remotely disable my car or track me? Actually, when I buy a new car with cash, do they remove the device, or are they just lazy and install one in every car?

<comment><USER18> For the very expensive cars they will send agent to remove ot at their expense.

Its funny but most contracts wont tell you you have this kind of device on you. Its mostly for expensive cars that havent been paid in month. My brother worked as mechanic and people constantly came to remove it off the car. He used to do that for a fee because its not his responsibility to check who owns the car. He assumes whomever shows up at the shop with keys and money to pay for his work, hes ready to go.

I always wondered how much it pissed them off. One time out of curiosity they left device hooked to batter for some time. It took agent three weeks to show up (i bet you once you stop driving that where they send someone to try to pick it up). The agent was rude and angry to give out the car cause he seen device pinging from said location. Altho he didnt have warrant they let him in the lot out of shits and giggles just to waste his time in Georgia 103 degrees summer daylight to walk around the lot size of a football stadium in search for a grey Audi lol ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> > DRN sells the information to insurance companies, private investigators ...

I wonder if anyone in the insurance industry could comment on how this data is used by them.

<comment><USER20> Not in the insurance industry, but as someone who is aware of how they price risk: the zip code you park in at night heavily influences loss rates (and therefore premiums) and self-reports of it are not always accurate.

<comment><USER21> Different types of insurance price comprehensive in radically different ways. I was considering getting classic car insurance from a different company than my regular insurance. They heavily penalize you if you park in the city, and especially without an individual locked garage. That kind of makes sense, but my regular insurance penalizes you if you park somewhere other than you live, even if it's in a low-crime suburb and not exposed. They are fine with parking in the middle of the city. So the optimal strategy depends on which insurance you go with because they have very different prejudices.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Disgusting. We need to rethink "privacy and surveillance" in the age of 24/7 cameras and image analysis.

</comment><comment><USER23> Not a fan of the guy but it makes sense why steves jobs would "supposedly" keep buying a new car to avoid getting license plates.

</comment><comment><USER24> unrelated, but REPO MAN (1984) is an excellent film.

<comment><USER25> Repo Men (2010) is even better.

In the future, beyond repossessing cars, why not also repossess artificial organ replacements?

<comment><USER26> >> unrelated, but REPO MAN (1984) is an excellent film

> Repo Men (2010) is even better

That's not a very widely shared assessment.

Repo Man (1984): 98% on RT, average rating 8/10\. Ebert 3/4\. IMDB 6.9/10\. 75% Metacritic.

Repo Men (2010): 22% RT, average rating 4.2/10\. Ebert 2/4\. IMDB 6.3/10\. 32% Metacritic.

1984 had a lot of science fiction movies: The Terminator, Dune, The Last Starfighter, The Adventurers of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension, Starman, Repo Man, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock; Night of the Comet, The Philadelphia Experiment, 1984, The Ice Pirates, Supergirl, The Brother from Another Planet, Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind, Dreamscape, Firestarter, Electric Dreams, C.H.U.D, The Return of Godzilla, The Toxic Avenger, and more.</comment></comment></comment>


Classified US spy satellite appears to be a total loss after SpaceX launch - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/08/highly-classified-us-spy-satellite-appears-to-be-a-total-loss-after-spacex-launch.html <comment><USER2> Existing discussion about the same topic: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16102931](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16102931)

<comment><USER3> Thanks. We've moved most comments that were here there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Maybe NASA could use more funding

<comment><USER5> NASA wasn't involved. (?)</comment></comment>


Blog del Narco has disappeared - <AUTHOR>

compare: http://www.blogdelnarco.com/ with
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-IL-LIkvoN4J:www.blogdelnarco.com/+blog+del+narco&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a --this site had a lot of traffic and was covered on CNN and Slashdot (e.g. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.slashdot.org%2Fstory%2F10%2F08%2F13%2F232249%2FNarco-Blogger-Beats-Mexico-Drug-War-News-Blackout%3Ffrom%3Drss&rct=j&q=site%3Aslashdot.org%20blogdelnarco&ei=AuGDTOW5FZS6sQO-8pz3Bw&usg=AFQjCNFRBpO0KyRgvy6vdKS1PNdxQuIaYw&cad=rja ) Any word on why it would disappear in such a manner? <comment><USER2> This is purely commentary, but perhaps his whereabouts were no longer a secret? That would pose for an immediate risk.

"The violence has killed more then 28,000 people and made Mexico one of the world's most dangerous countries for journalists, which explains why Blog del Narco cloaks itself so heavily in anonymity."

</comment><comment><USER3> I am almost sure the Narco guys already track and detect this guy. Their financial resources are incredible and paying for a hacker could be easy.</comment>


Show HN: Introducing Castbridge: Add AirPlay Support to Chromecast - <AUTHOR> https://castbridge.io <comment><AUTHOR> Full Disclosure: This is my new app (In fact, it's the first app I've ever released publicly)</comment>


The Cloud Without Containers - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@zackbloom/isolates-are-the-future-of-cloud-computing-cf7ab91c6142?hn <comment><USER2> What could possibly go wrong executing random programs together in one of the most complex runtime environments ever conceived on processors incapable of preventing timing attacks across privileged domains, let alone in the same address space.

<comment><USER3> They do state they have considered timing attacks though I do wonder what their mitigations consist of.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> When will workers receive proper routing? Right now a single script which triggers on _every_ route is somewhat meh.</comment>