'Snoopers' charter' changes put forward - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-42195352 <comment><USER2> Finally, some _good_ news. Nowhere near enough, and they were told about these problems before making it law, and once they leave the EU they won't even have this level of oversight, but it's better than nothing.

I know from trying and failing to convince two MPs that they absolutely do not understand the danger they introduce by forcing the ISPs to have the ability to snoop on users instead of banning ISPs from doing so.

<comment><USER3> Did the MPs you contact at least get back to you, even with a form letter toeing the party line? I wrote to my MP and tried to contact him through Twitter and, at the time, made my letter public. I never got a response.

<comment><USER4> My MP would get back to me, but as she was a party whip the toeing of the party line wasn't just expected but mandatory. A mostly pointless exercise.

<comment><USER5> I don't think it's pointless.

When your job is "representing" a group of people, you'll take notice when a pile of those people disagree with what you are doing.

We can't break the camel's back if we don't add straw.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This appears to not affect programs like Tempora operated by the GCHQ (the British NSA), which intercepts all internet traffic in Britain. Instead, local & federal police are the ones who will have their own mass spying programs slightly impinged, with a new agency called the Office for Communications Data Authorizations taking requests and vetting them.

Now, this could go one of two ways. Hopefully, OCDA will thoroughly vet each request, rejecting most of what is currently rubber stamped and do limited interception of specific citizens connections for short durations.

Alternatively, this could become another rubber stamp FISA kangaroo court, where the OCDA doesn't have the manpower, tooling nor the inclination to do much more than sign nearly every interception request form.

I'm hoping for the former, but betting on the latter. Despite that, Brits are still having their data stolen by the GCHQ.

<comment><USER7> The historical problem in the UK has been that surveillance powers that were rushed through parliament to tackle "terrorism" have ended up being made available to every single branch of government. And 99.9% of the time they're used for petty, local government issues, like collecting council taxes or speeding fines, often by people without any law enforcement training at all.

Even if the OCDA ends up rubber stamping requests from the police, it'd be a huge improvement on the complete free-for-all there has been in the past. If they at least reject requests from a guy in the council refuse collection department who wants to spy on his ex-wife, then that'll be an improvement.

<comment><USER8> The vast majority of RIPA applications are made by Police, not local councils.

<comment><USER9> Where is that information available? AFAICT local authority requests are via JPs in local courts and no centralised numbers exist?

<comment><USER8> They are in the OSC's annual report, for example. [1]

Councils also sometimes respond to FOI requests, although they don't have to. e.g. over a three year period this council [2] made 11 requests for Call Data Records (who somebody phone) and 29 applications for in-person surveillance (checking people who claim to be unemployed are actually unemployed).

In 2015-2016 (the most recent OSC I can find) there were, for example, 9147 applications for Directed Surveillance of which a MAXIMUM 8.5% were possibly by local councils.

Do you have any evidence that suggests, it is, in fact, 99.9% from local councils?

[1] [https://osc.independent.gov.uk/wp- content/uploads/2014/09/An...](https://osc.independent.gov.uk/wp- content/uploads/2014/09/Annual-Report-of-the-Chief-Surveillance-Commissioner- for-2013-2014-laid-4-September-2014.pdf)

[2] [https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/use_of_the_regulation...](https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/use_of_the_regulation_of_investi_9)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> One of the many reasons we should remain within the EU. Time and time again EU law has stopped our government in its tracks or forced it to change direction on overreaching or just plain stupid policy like this.

<comment><USER11> Really? ..... Really?

I ... you want an external actor, over which you have no control, to have judicial power over your government, because _right now_ the decisions go the way _you_ want them to?

<comment><USER12> > to have judicial power over your government, because right now the decisions > go the way you want them to?

Very few[1] cases that go to ECHR from the UK are sucessful, because ECHR sees the UK as strongly protective of the human rights of its citizens. If the UK stops being protective of my human rights I absolutely want an external actor to have some control. Why wouldn't I?

[1] [https://fullfact.org/law/uks-record-human-rights- cases/](https://fullfact.org/law/uks-record-human-rights-cases/)

<comment> bjelkeman-again It is good to note that Brexit isn't automatically an exit from European Court of Human Rights, if I read this correctly. These are separate institutions.

[http://www.e-ir.info/2017/07/27/implications-of-brexit- for-t...](http://www.e-ir.info/2017/07/27/implications-of-brexit-for-the- european-convention-on-human-rights/)

<comment><USER13> That's true, but the current PM has long been opposed to the ECHR. Even when apparently in favour of the EU.

With the overpowered repeal bill, she can use Brexit to get us out of anything with 'E' in the name, without bothering to put it to parliament.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Meanwhile there is a miserable little controversy running over Damien Green having porn on his Westminster PC, supported by Nadine Dorries saying "you can't prove it was him we all share passwords with our interns."

Nobody in government understands information security.

<comment><USER15> What's wrong with porn?

<comment><USER16> The issue IIRC is [extended] use of work computer, during work time, for porn. That would get you sacked from most corporate jobs; it seems being an MP shouldn't be an automatic pass from such scrutiny.

<comment><USER17> How about playing games while being paid to legislate?

[http://zeus-origin.snopes.com/photos/politics/solitaire.asp](http://zeus- origin.snopes.com/photos/politics/solitaire.asp)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> In related news, GCHQ are still trying to wriggle out of oversight: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15842969](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15842969)

<comment> bjelkeman-again I am constantly surprised how I appear to live in the same society as the people suggesting these clearly undemocratic efforts to sidestep the democratic oversight. But, they think it is ok and I think it really isn't, at all. I am surprised our world views differ that much.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> None of this matters as long as Technical Capability Notices are still part of snoopers' charter. TCNs are basically National Security Letters with _even less accountability and limitations_. It's extremely ripe for abuse.

If you create a secure communication platform startup in the UK, you will receive a TCN and you will be forced to subvert your platform for government data collection. You can't tell anyone about the TCN and you have no recourse other than going to prison for failure to comply. At least in the US when you receive an NSL you can talk to a lawyer to potentially contest an unreasonable or unlawful order.

</comment><comment><USER20> I just totally dispair when it comes to this. I feel powerless to stop my country becoming the distopia imagined in V for Vendetta. Both main parties are supporting legislation beyond the wildest dreams of 20th century despots..

</comment><comment><USER21> I have no way of directly knowing anything about situations like these. But I suspect that no matter what they say, they're collecting the data. I don't want to hear about court rulings, I want to hear that their hardware has been removed from the telco rooms, and that facilities like Bluffdale have been dismantled. I feel that there is quite a bit of theater going on where the various surveillance monsters acknowledge getting caught and act as if they got spanked and reigned in, when in fact they're just getting bigger and more capable every day.

</comment><comment> fraa-orolo To recap: the problems are that data is accessed without independent permission, and data is collected for reasons other than serious crime.

So the solution is to create a government body to rubberstamp access requests, and reclassify more crimes as serious?</comment>


Finger-free phones, full body gesturing, and our "touchscreen" future - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/05/looking-ahead-at-touchscreen-technology-where-do-we-go-from-here/

<comment> alok-g >> Where we are going, we don't need keyboards!

At least on PCs, people are majorly opposed to using touch-screens (in the favor of keyboards...)

Poll with >2000 votes:

<http://polldaddy.com/poll/6880911/?view=results>

More than 400 comments, majorly opposing touch-screens on PCs:

[http://news.cnet.com/8301-13845_3-57581910-58/does-it- make-s...](http://news.cnet.com/8301-13845_3-57581910-58/does-it-make-sense- to-buy-a-pc-with-a-touch-screen/)

</comment><comment><USER2> It's a rather dull future. Bret Viktor written a really good post on why it's so: [http://worrydream.com/ABriefRantOnTheFutureOfInteractionDesi...](http://worrydream.com/ABriefRantOnTheFutureOfInteractionDesign/)

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm notoriously bad at predicting what technology trends are going to work and which ones aren't... I'm leaning towards this just wont catch on, which I've learned means it will probably catch on like a wild fire. Haha</comment>


What are the best essays you read in 2017? - <AUTHOR> <comment><AUTHOR> For me it was Richard Hamming's You and Your Research.

(Tip: Any essay longer than 2 pages, I put on a Google docs, print out and read offline.)</comment>


Node.js Advisory Board - <AUTHOR> https://www.joyent.com/blog/node-js-advisory-board

<comment><USER2> Joyent's response to the recently launched Node Forward ([https://github.com/node-forward](https://github.com/node-forward)) initiative, I'm guessing.

</comment><comment><USER3> node is tied to v8 correct? if so, why? are there technical reasons that node cannot be made to work on spidermonkey or rhino, or is it that v8 has supplied underlying tech that node depends on and the same would have to be done in the other engines? It seems like a full blown node/npm running on the jvm would be useful...

<comment><USER4> > It seems like a full blown node/npm running on the jvm would be useful...

sounds almost like [http://openjdk.java.net/projects/nashorn/](http://openjdk.java.net/projects/nashorn/)

<comment><USER5> Nashorn is a JavaScript interpreter which would make it a competitor to V8 or SpiderMonkey. Node is a framework that is tightly tied to the V8 implementation. Untying node from V8 would let it run on Nashorn or any other JavaScript interpreter.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Gotta keep control over that ™ I guess?

<comment><USER7> If I could roll my eyes any harder I might throw an exception.

Trademarking node, who do they think they are, Oracle?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm not a fan of Joyent at all. I wish they would go away. The whole trademarking the Node logo makes me not want to do any node anything forever!

Then I lift my head up in shame as I type more javascript... a tear falls and twinkles in the monitor light.

One day the Javascript fairy will come and make all my wishes come true.

I'm a real boy!</comment>


A quick post about depression and software development - <AUTHOR> http://tosbourn.com/2013/09/personal/a-quick-post-about-depression-and-software-development/ <comment><USER2> Thanks for sharing :) I too deal with depression (1 in 10 people do), and I think it's important to share experiences to help normalize it for those around us who don't have to deal with it (if I had a dollar for every person who just said 'get over it', I'd be very wealthy).</comment>


Music Industry Threatens to Sue UK Pirate Party over Pirate Bay Proxy - <AUTHOR> http://torrentfreak.com/music-industry-threatens-to-sue-uk-pirate-party-over-pirate-bay-proxy-121210/ <comment><USER2> I wonder if they will also go after Google which hosts everything that ThePirateBay does:

[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:eAYXcZa...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:eAYXcZa8GdkJ:thepiratebay.se/browse/201/0/7+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk)

If you don't use torrents, then you must understand TPB don't use 'torrent files' any more. They use 'magnet links' which are just hyperlinks with the seed info embedded, so when Google caches their pages they cache this info too.

You can initiate torrent downloads from that page exactly as you can from ThePirateBay.

<comment><USER3> Tthey are effectively saying distributing a 160 bit number is effectively illegal. Magnets are just SHA1 hashes of a torrent file.

Then again, you could argue any media or program stored is just a really long many-bit number, so I guess we have been making numbers illegal for decades.

<comment><USER4> The magnet link is basically a hash of a bunch of hashes of copyrighted content.

If distributing that is wrong, is it okay to distribute a hash of many hashes that are all each hashes of hashes of copyrighted content? (The magnet link to a list of magnet links) Suppose I merely mention the name that you can google to find the hash of many hashes of hashes of copyrighted content? I wonder how many layers do we have to add before everyone admits that the situation is absurd?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Is it a common practice for corporations to sue political parties?

</comment><comment><USER6> This will make for an interesting legal argument. The ruling compelled ISPs of a certain size to block access to TPB and the Pirate Party is not an ISP. It would be good for this to go to court to be re-examined given the ineffectiveness of the remedy.

Don't forget to donate to the Open Rights Group (www.openrightsgroup.org) if you support an open internet.

</comment><comment><USER7> Pirate Party UK Donation page: <http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/Help>

</comment><comment><USER8> (Much needed) publicity for PPUK, and the issues of a censored internet.

</comment><comment><USER9> I wonder if they'll go after the smaller ISPs as well which do not block anything at all?</comment>


Time-wars - <AUTHOR> http://www.gonzocircus.com/xtrpgs/incubate-special-exclusive-essay-time-wars-by-mark-fisher/

<comment><USER2> Great article - wish the title was better so more people would read it here, particularly this:

> No doubt this chronic shortage of time goes some way to accounting for the > stalled and inertial quality of culture in recent years. The neoliberal > gambit was that the destruction of social security would have a dynamic > effect on culture and the economy, liberating an entrepreneurial spirit that > was inhibited by the red tape of bureaucratic social democratic > institutions. The reality, however, is that innovation requires certain > forms of stability. The disintegration of social democracy has had a > dampening, rather than a dynamic, effect on culture in highly neoliberalized > countries such as the UK. Fredric Jameson's claims that late capitalist > culture would be given over to pastiche and retrospection have turned out to > be extraordinarily prophetic.</comment>


Illustrating Group Theory: A Coloring Book (2017) - <AUTHOR> http://www.coloring-book.co/ <comment><USER2> Discussed at the time: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15326480](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15326480)

</comment><comment><USER3> Why not call it "Symmetry: A Colouring Book". The title is misleading given that you won't learn much about the standard results of group theory from this book.</comment>


Open Access to Scientific Publications:The good, the bad, and the ugly - <AUTHOR> http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2010/2/69353-open-access-to-scientific-publications/fulltext

<comment><USER2> I think publishers provide the valuable services like proofreading, aid the peer-review process and content filtering. They SUCK at distribution though and should not be in the distribution business.

Now who is good at distribution? arXiv is. Their costs are less than 7$ per publication, they are seriously lean and efficient.

<quote> How much does arXiv cost to operate? The annual budget for arXiv is $400,000. With over 60,000 new submissions per year one may think of this as an effective cost of <$7 per submission. Alternatively, with over 30,000,000 full-text downloads per year this is an effective cost of <1.4 cents per download. We believe that arXiv is an extremely cost-effective service. </quote> <http://arxiv.org/help/support/faq>

Now the question is how to keep the useful aspects of publishing and not have to pay for them. An army secretaries, a bunch of typesetting gurus and some method for peer-review... tall order i know.

<comment><USER3> So you're suggesting the separation of the editorial and peer-review services from the publishing service?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> From the article: "But the proponents of Open Access quickly realized that online publishing is not free, nor cheap. Management, equipment, and access costs add up quickly. [...] [PLOS] charges between $1,350 and $2,900 per paper, depending on the journal. In fact, many in the profession estimate that to be sustainable, the author-pay model will need to charge up to $5,000–$8,000 per publication"

WTF? $8000 per article would pay for each article to have its own EC2 instance for >10 years, including bandwidth costs. Something not right there...

</comment><comment><USER5> This came up in my feed yesterday, but it was blocked (I'm not an ACM subscriber). I thought that was rather ironic.

</comment><comment><USER6> What a travesty of an article. Beaudouin-Lafon is nothing more than a shill for ACM and the entire scientific publishing industry.</comment>


Danish numbers - <AUTHOR> http://www.olestig.dk/dansk/numbers.html <comment><USER2> [https://i.pinimg.com/736x/45/2c/2d/452c2d0569d1015f4a0b2ea27...](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/45/2c/2d/452c2d0569d1015f4a0b2ea27311e196 --different-languages-learning-french.jpg)

Edit: Now that I think about it, maybe the Swedish 90 (_nittio_) should be seen as "9×10" (_nio_×_tio_), since that's at least the etymology. I don't know what to make of the German _-zig_ in _neunzig_. Regarding Japanese, I dont' speak any. Finally, if you allow yourself to dig deep enough into the origins of the French and Danish 20 (_vingt_ and _tyve_, respectively), it appears that they too could be split further as "2×10".

<comment><USER3> That is a beautifully succinct and funny capture. The French numbers confused me when I was learning (was it 420107, 42017, 8017, or 97?).

German, being logical and little endian, wins by getting the most significant part last, about when you finally pay attention :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > The "logic" of the system is NOT transparent nor generally known to native > speakers.

Totally true, you often find people wondering what exactly the pattern is. A good language teacher will tell you though.

> A Scandinavist language reform movement tried to get the 20-based forms > replaced by 10-based like Norwegian and Swedish have. With absolutely no > success.

If this is a real movement, they need better PR. I've never heard anyone make this case. What's the point anyway?

Interestingly if you look at French, there's a similar thing with the numbers between French French and Swiss French. Soixante-dix vs septante, and similar for 80 and 90.

<comment><USER5> >What's the point anyway?

Well it would be easier for learners to pick up for one, but I actually think the system is annoying, even as a native speaker. When someone tells me a phone number or similar, I will often ask them to read out the digits one by one because writing down the numbers can be difficult with the alternating order.

<comment><USER4> That's another weird thing. You CAN read out a number as 8 individual digits, but most Danes will give you 4 two-digit numbers. It's almost a shibboleth, like that movie where the non-native German speaker uses his pointing finger instead of his thumb to count "one".

<comment><USER2> I had a teacher, who, when enumerating, say, three points in his address of the class, used his thumb all three times.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> While the numbers have interesting etymological roots, in practice we just have more "named" numbers than most similar languages. English has special vocabulary with obvious roots for all tens up to 100 and ordinals are regular except first, second and third.

In Danish we just have a lot more irregular ordinals. Practically no-one in Denmark knows about the 20-based number system.

> A Scandinavist language reform movement tried to get the 20-based forms > replaced by 10-based like Norwegian and Swedish have. With absolutely no > success.

Danes are unusually stubborn that way.

<comment><USER7> I asked a younger Dane how to say "sixtieth" (for example). She couldn't tell me -- she only know how to say "number sixty". Even the textbook only gave ordinal numbers up to 31, for giving the date.

Every Dane I've asked just _knows_ the numbers. It's confusing for foreigners, since many (most?) also know at least two other European languages. When I hear "tres" I'm thinking "three", and it obviously does mean three. It's difficult to think "sixty" instead.

<comment><USER6> That's a great anecdote! I don't think I knew how to produce the ordinals above 39 consistently for most of my life either. And I've probably said "fyrrende" instead of "fyrretyvende" more than once!

That's the thing about irregular words: if they are rare, native speakers tend to use the regular form, and in this case we have a peculiar situation where there is no regular form!

When learning the 10's in Danish, I think it is very important to leave logic behind and not look for a system. As a kid I had a lot of trouble with 50 and 60 and eventually settled on "the one with "half" is smaller than the one without" and did the same with 70 and 80.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Situation when norwegians visit denmark: [https://youtu.be/xpj2x5s7DkM?t=3m16s](https://youtu.be/xpj2x5s7DkM?t=3m16s)

<comment><USER9> I'd say watching the full 4:17 is worth your time [https://youtu.be/xpj2x5s7DkM](https://youtu.be/xpj2x5s7DkM)

Note, this is a parody aired by Norwegian TV, hilarious to anyone who tried learning Danish at least;)

Edit: on the same theme, how to pronounce any Danish word [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DAAkBMeXoAAzpZV?format=jpg](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DAAkBMeXoAAzpZV?format=jpg)

<comment><USER10> This is fantastic. I'm an American who's been learning Danish casually, and as a native English speaker the pronunciation is... challenging. Even a year or so in, developing an ear for it is still an ongoing process.

<comment><USER11> Learn swedish or norwegian first. Then get drunk and talk while you're eating. You're now speaking danish

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> English: one two three four five six seven eight nine ten eleven twelve thirteen fourteen fifteen sixteen seventeen eighteen nineteen twenty: normal from here on (twenty-five, seventy-three, one million forty-eight thousand five hundred seventy-six)

Spanish: uno dos tres.... (15) quince, normal from 16 on.

French: normal begins at 17 (dix-sept), but runs into trouble later on (courtesy of a friend):

70 - soixante-dix, sixty-ten, 80 - quatre-vingts, four-twenties ("score"), and 90 - quatre-vingt-dix, four-twenty-ten.

That makes 99 "quatre-vingt-dix-neuf".

German is the same pattern as English, normal after 20, but prefers the smaller numbers first.

I have heard that the Russians need to study their conventions intently...

<comment><USER13> Russian numbers are ten based and rather straightforward;

odin dva tri ... desyat (10) odinnadtsat dvenadtsat trinadtsat ... dvadtsat (20)

there is no irregularity other than 40 which is sorok instead of chetiredesyat

<comment><USER14> Foreign learners do not generally find Russian numbers to be "straightforward". Not only do nouns qualified by numbers take different numerative cases (the genitive singular for 2–4, the genitive plural for 5–10), but the declension of compound numerals is also surprising for speakers of many languages.

Compound hundreds are also unpredictable. Yes, historically the varying forms are clear (the back yer in Common Slavonic _sŭto_ '100' was lost or strengthened depending on position), but learners today without any background in the Slavic languages simply need to learn them by rote.

<comment><USER13> True, sound changes like dvesti÷trista÷semsot make learning harder, but i'd say that's not really the property of the number system but of a language as a whole, since similar shifts are present in other places too.

For me Russian numbers were simpler than French because you could learn the basic idea quickly, and then pick up subtle sound shifts by watching tv/reading.

(disclaimer, i am not a native speaker but learned Russian at school age so may be misgudging the difficulty of the language)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I really wish the danish numbers had been reformed. It is a drag to communicate numbers verbally and then write them down. It is very prone to errors since the verbal number sequence is so strange.

Exampel: 54. It is pronounced: fire-og-halv-treds (four-and-half-threes.) As you might notice, the spoken sequence is backwards compared to the written number. this gets even more confusing when saying a number above 100. 136 is et-hundrede-og-seks-og-treidve. (One-hundreds-and-six-and-threes).

<comment><USER16> Even worse, it's actually four-and-half-three-twenty or in plainer terms four, plus three and a half twenties.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> In English, I've noted people do not like thousands. e.g:

\- 20,000 is 20 k or 20 grand.

\- 1900 is 19 hundreds not 1 thousand 9 hundred.

In Japanese numbers are also different:

\- there's a word for 10,000 (man), therefore 20,000 is not "20 x 1,000" (ni jyu sen) but rather "2 x 10,000" (ni man).

\- there's a word for 10^8 (oku), making 1 billion = jyu oku (10 * 10^8).

<comment><USER18> Also, man doesn't work the same way as the lower powers of 10.

The lower powers 10–1000 take a prefix of 2–9 to multiply them, and omitting the prefix means one.

1 ichi

2 ni

10 juu (not ichi juu)

20 ni juu, literally two ten

100 hyaku

200 ni hyaku

The powers of 10000 seem to take an obligatory prefix 1–9999, formed the usual way (I've never heard just "man" for 10k, always "ichi man", and 12340000 would be literally translated to "thousand two hundred three ten four ten- thousand", while none of the smaller powers seem to ever take a prefix > 9.)

The above is based on not living in Japan, though, so the sample of numbers I've seen might well be missing some things that occur in actual native speech by someone not teaching a first-year class.

<comment><USER17> Yes. Every "myriad" (10^4) they have another word. Meaning they have one for 10^4, 10^8, 10^12, 10^16 and so on... [http://www.sf.airnet.ne.jp/~ts/japanese/largenumber.html](http://www.sf.airnet.ne.jp/~ts/japanese/largenumber.html)

Largest one I've seen is 10^68.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Funny skit on Danish language and counting - [https://youtu.be/8_iixmqSBQw](https://youtu.be/8_iixmqSBQw)</comment>


Atari Coin-op Archive Footage - <AUTHOR> https://arcadeblogger.com/2019/12/26/atari-coin-op-archive-footage/ <comment><USER2> Choice quote from Atari's early 1980s market research:

> _Players want detail, movement, three dimensional effects, color & color > changes, unexpected events, faster games with more realistic & dynamic > sound_

Good basic principles for any game developer, from the 1980s to the 2020s

</comment><comment><USER3> Interesting that they did 100% incoming part inspection on their ICs going into the arcade machines. I'm not sure if ICs were less reliable then, or they just built a higher quality product.

That semi-automatic pick and place was neat.

<comment><USER4> They also had a much higher part count in their systems than is common today, so even a low rate of bad parts would result in a lot of malfunctioning systems.

<comment><USER5> Mobile phones and computers today have a pretty high IC count.

I mean, an arcade board is pretty big, but the parts density is also pretty low.

<comment><USER4> You might be surprised. Modern electronics are highly integrated; a modern smartphone is probably no more than a few dozen ICs. Vintage arcade hardware tended to rely heavily on discrete logic; even a simpler game like Asteroids had somewhere around a hundred ICs on its main board.

<comment><USER5> I'm no stranger to 74xx. ;)

iPhone X has 72 integrated circuits on the main board, and quite a few more on other assemblies.

I agree that Asteroids has approximately 100. We're really not too far apart in device count.

Then when you look at, say, pin count, there's no contest at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Dig dug made $2 million a console in 1982 dollars. $2 million! That would be fantastic today. $5.25 million in 2018 dollars. That was a staggering amount of money. Assuming a console today might cost a couple thousand to manufacture, imagine if you made $1 million after designing and programming a game per console sold. That was a golden age in many ways.

</comment><comment><USER7> I did not know that Silicon Valley had that nickname even back in 1980. (About 9:30 in first video)

<comment><USER8> The Computer History Museum has a blog post -- [https://computerhistory.org/blog/who-named-silicon- valley/](https://computerhistory.org/blog/who-named-silicon-valley/) \-- where they try to identify the origin of the nickname, which dates an in-print occurrence back to 1971, and probable use in the mid-to-late 60s.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> The Chubby Checker recorded Dig Dug song is a terrific find.</comment>


Evite Attempts to Clone Paperless Post Pixel for Pixel - <AUTHOR> http://www.betabeat.com/2011/11/30/clone-wars-paperless-post-up-in-arms-over-evites-new-copycat-site-postmark/

<comment><USER2> This is a big part of what startups need to think about from the get go.

You can find offers on Craigslist and elsewhere for $500 jobs to clone a Meetup or a Groupon.

Typically it's the little companies copying the big ones, not the other way around.

But in the end, its cheaper to focus on execution than to head to court. Evite will make a lot more people aware of this market, and Paperless Post has the opportunity to steal them away.</comment>


Dalton Caldwell: App.net is not Vaporware - <AUTHOR> http://daltoncaldwell.com/appnet-is-not-vaporware <comment><USER2> I think it's going to be very hard to pull this off. I feel like Dalton is living in a bubble of people who are willing to pay to avoid ads. But for most everyone else, a social network with ads (that are not TOO annoying) is much better than one that ask for your money. He might be able to find enough people to pay to become a profitable business but I doubt he will ever reach facebook or twitter like scale. And if it doesn't scale, the paying members will leave eventually.

<comment><USER3> I listen to the podcasts of precisely six people . Four of those six people have already voiced support for join.app.net ((Dan Benjamin, John Grueber, Marco Armenti, John Siracusa). I expect the other two would join fairly quickly, and, given the "open" nature of join.app.net, I expect anybody who wanted cross-posting from twitter over to join.app.net, wouldn't have much difficulty. Just have the client post on both locations (much like Path posts to both Path and Facebook)

I really only want about a dozen people on Join.App.Net, and most of them are already there. So, for _me_ it just has to scale to twelve people - it just needs to be the _right_ twelve people - and so far it looks good.

<comment><USER4> Honest question: what stops you from simply browsing a twitter list of those twelve people?

Or, more pragmatically: what incentive do I, a person who doesn't really care about 'openness' and uses Twitter for a billion other reasons anyway, have to pay $50 and subscribe to app.net instead of just following the twitter list of those twelve people?

<comment><USER5> The incentives are A) to hedge against future developments of Twitter throwing you under the bus for $0.50 and B) joining a social network of people who explicitly value that network who you believe will have a generally higher signal to noise ration than the unwashed masses.

Today you can follow those 12 people, but if this takes off then it promises a return to the nostalgic '06 and '07 of Twitter when the community was small and everyone there was "interesting". The cognoscenti of tech may well abandon Twitter in favor of this un-walled, membership-only garden.

Now who really should care about this? Certainly not most people. It won't compete with Twitter, but it won't have to because it will have a fraction of the infrastructure costs, and it will avoid the eternal september that plagues every popular free service. This will be a niche product, but if successful it will potentially be highly valuable to that niche, and also it will be quite novel as a paid product of this type has never taken off as far as I know. If you really buy into the hype, you might even think that the success of app.net could signal the high water mark of free services as it becomes apparent just how much better a service can be created when it's paid for directly by users.

I'm not saying I believe any of this, but I do see the potential.

<comment><USER3> Point of information - the precursor example of a social networking product supported by users might be <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_WELL> , which had a good 20 year run.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> What's the real-world problem App.net solves? I'm not being cynical, just curious. If I back the project, I want to know the pain point I'm solving and if it's a pain point that actually is worth solving versus something else. The other question I have is, who's the market? People are using the HN vs. Reddit comparison, but HN is about as niche as it gets and also doesn't really do much other than provide a place for us to share some data. Muggles don't usually visit HN and I'm wondering if they'd have a need for App.net.

I'm considering backing it, but like all investments, there's some due diligence involved. There's also the opportunity cost for the money that should be considered. I'm also wondering why kickstarter is appropriate as opposed to traditional VC and seed funds. If there's a sustainable business there, it would seem like the App.net team would have a very easy time raising money -- they seem competent, capable and passionate (at least enough to warrant a small seed round.)

<comment><USER7> I don't think it solves one, I think its providing a way for developers to stick it to the man. In this case, Twitter, Craigslist, and Facebook.

<comment><USER8> If by "sticking it to the man" you mean "creating a business model based on an open api and not the content in the platform the API uses," then I agree.

The problem with Twitter and Facebook is that they've moved away from supporting external developers into media companies (so the argument goes).

If that's true, then Twitter and Facebook are looking for the best interests of it's advertising partners like every media company (radio, television, print, etc.) rather than the consumers.

In the case of Facebook and Twitter, it means rolling out features that benefit the advertisers. Now, it is certainly possible that the features rolled out could benefit both sides, but the moment Twitter/Facebook has to make a decision between the two they'll pick the advertisers since that's how they butter their bread.

App.net, by contrast, only has one option which is make the best choices for the developers/users. In some sense, this is really more of a B-to-B venture than a B-to-C since, ideally, App.net focuses on the API and let's the developers build the robust applications.

Frankly, I like this idea.

<comment><USER6> So what's the business model? Are there enough developers willing to pay real money for access to an API? It seems hard enough to get developers to actually buy a license for Sublime or TextMate (or even pay $0.99 for a song on iTunes.)

I could see some potential in the enterprise space to license out the API for companies to then build their own information services atop of.. but that seems to get away from the "power to the people" idea this project seems to be capitalizing on.

>App.net focuses on the API and let's the developers build the robust applications.

Robust applications that do what? I'm not sure what the value of the API is, isn't the point of a Twitter-like API to allow people to use Twitter data. The API side of the equation isn't that hard to do.. it's the content accessed with the API that would be useful. I can see and appreciate the tech in this project, but I'm not sure why a developer would build an application to consume an API without much data..

I'm confused. I don't mean any disrespect to the folks involved or their supporters, but I'm not sure what this project will accomplish -- is it a technology platform or a content platform? And is the technology that "hard" -- it seems to me that getting the content would be the hard part.

<comment><USER8> I don't understand the confusion folks have about the business model (earnest confusion, not "yur dumb" trolling confusion). App.net creates an API and people pay money to have access. Different tiers demand different prices. $500,000 in membership fees makes it sustainable (says Dalton). The big question and, quite frankly, the whole point of Dalton's experiment (as I read him anyway, I don't know the fellow personally), is to test if there is actually a market for it, hence the kickstarter like campaign. There are paid version of all sorts of web services that are offered for free that are sustainable. I pay for a server space and a domain names yearly. I don't know why something like this couldn't also exist for those who wanted more control. Will Dalton's work? Time will tell, but something like this will happen and will happen soon.

EDIT: Incidentally, you do know that other people are trying similar things, right? Heello, for instance, is rebooting with a slightly different model: [http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/08/08/twitpic-founders- he...](http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/08/08/twitpic-founders-he..).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Just to be clear, app.net is a centralized messaging service, to be owned and operated as a private company, allowing integration to whoever it sees fit, at whatever cost it sees fit?

The upside is they promise not to show ads?

<comment><USER10> No, the upside is that as app.net relies on people paying money, the users are customers instead of being the product.

<comment><USER9> What's the product then?

<comment><USER11> Have you taken a moment to read anything about it? It is abundantly clear.

join.app.net, in case you really haven't, which I'm hoping is the case.

<comment><USER9> That's no answer. As far as I can tell, the product is people willing to pay for their message updates and then a rev-share between the apps that allow them to do it, and Dalton's service.

If that's your idea of a product... good luck.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I read HN every day. It is probably the site I read the most after Google reader. It is my go to for filling time between doing actual work and doing more actual work. I'd like to think I'm vaguely down with the Internet kids, but..

Wtf is App.net and why do I care? Am I supposed to know about this already? Is this supposed to be as common knowledge as twitter or facebook in my nomenclature?

Dalton is sure as shit not going to tell you, and the site is far too awesome to waste its time telling you either.

Reading the API docs (really, I have to read API docs to work out what this does?!) tells me it's a "real-time social service where users and developers come first, not advertisers.".

Taking that knowledge on hand and looking at alpha.app.net, it looks like a twitter clone, but presumably one that you pay for.

Aren't there free twitter clones already?

Anyway, rant over, colour me confused. Idk... there are lots of projects people could be building, and there is every kind of possibility this has really useful stuff in it, but from the outside it just looks like another twitter clone.

<comment><USER13> What? It says "App.net is a real-time social feed without the ads." right at the top of <https://join.app.net>, and "Continue to join.app.net, our Kickstarter-like project to create a real-time social feed." right on app.net.

How is he supposed to tell you what it is if you don't even go to the website?

<comment><USER12> I clicked the link in his blog post, which took me here: <https://alpha.app.net/>. You're right though, 3 paragraphs into the blog there is a link to join.app.net.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Incidentally, whatever additional stuff dalton is planning to add and let developers add, the alpha currently appears to be enough of a Twitter clone that it should be compatible with Twitter clients. Therefore, I'm much more likely to pay for this (before or after the funding deadline) if someone convinces Tapbots to add support to Tweetbot... or, equivalently, releases a Twitter API to app.net proxy and a hack to redirect it to there.

</comment><comment><USER15> I would have worded a message like this much differently - I would keep it positive. I would not mention my app name and the word vaporware in the same article, I would just include the bit where I demonstrate who is using app.net, and link the code. I would also not give lip service to doubters who say the funding goal won't be reached.

This message may feel nuanced to the author, but it's tone is negative and defensive.

<comment><USER16> I think it works for this sort of audience. We're skeptics. I was skeptical that their Kickstarter would be successful. This has convinced me otherwise.

I'm still not convinced that the project itself will be successful, but time will tell.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I just signed up. Actually a rather slick sign up process. Well done. Emails look nice.

Only weird thing was the confirmation of my Twitter account. To start with I selected the tweet option and the sign up process seemed to end with me being redirected to my Twitter account page, but somehow I didn't feel "finished".

So then I went back and authorised the app with Twitter as well and that seemed to properly complete the process. Maybe I just needed to wait a bit for the original tweet to be picked up, but that wasn't obvious.

</comment><comment><USER18> StatusNet is also not vaporware. Furthermore, it's also open source and federated rather than being yet another proprietary walled garden run by a corporation.

<comment><USER19> The thing with projects/apps/sites is that there's a threshold of time before it's considered passe. It's not logical and we in turn waste a lot of time and resources reinventing the wheel but that's the truth of the matter.

I can't shake the feeling that this initiative suffers from the worst of both worlds. It's not entirely open AND it's a paid service.

<comment><USER5> Maybe you're right, but you could just as easily frame it as the best of both worlds:

It's driven by the user's interests and it has the polish of a commercial product.

<comment><USER19> That's the goal...I'm skeptical but hope they can prove me wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I think a paid model will be the only way forward for the set of people that value privacy and control over their data.

I dont know that app.net hits the right ($) spot for that user group. The implication of facebook's revenue is that users are willing to trade privacy and data ownership for about $4/yr (the current monetization rate of a facebook user), which means getting to $50/yr seems somewhat arbitrary and hard to decode.

I think at some point in the future people will see $50/yr for those two things (privacy and data control) as a relative bargain. I do today, and backed this proposal due to these concerns.

I think driving developer investments may be critical to getting to their funding goal, and frankly they are offering to take away a _potential_ threat and not making a strong enough case about what value they are adding. It often requires an explicit threat to get people to pony up for security, not an implied threat.

<comment><USER21> >> I think at some point in the future people will see $50/yr for those two things (privacy and data control) as a relative bargain.

I can't remember ever hearing anyone mention privacy/data control issues outside of HN. Facebook has ridden slipshod over these issues many times and yet I've never heard anyone bring them up in conversation. The echo chamber here is booming with concern but who actually cares? Users care about the communication advantages of their online accounts but how many value the identity associated with them? People change their phone number because they want a new model that isn't available on their network. Do they see their online identities as any less interchangeable? If this is the case what kind of explicit threat could possibly justify paying money for protection of such an identity?

<comment><USER20> I am not in Silicon Valley nor connected to any technology companies.

I know of a number of people within my own circle that refuse to use Facebook or Twitter due to privacy concerns. I have heard a growing number of stories from people concerned about protecting themselves and their friends, families from the potential down sides to an over-shared life and deleting or abandoning accounts due to those concerns. These are not people inside of the echo chamber on Hacker News or the technology field or Silicon Valley, these are people in retail, in investments, in hospitality, education.. from all walks of life.

Facebook (as an example) wants to become an identity service. They are _selling_ themselves on their ability to authenticate identity. It is impossible to delete a facebook account, and attempting to do so will merely ensure that you are the only one without access to the collected data.

I reiterate the point that "in the future" people will see $50/yr as a bargain for privacy and data control. My first thought when seeing App.net was "awesome idea.. 18-24 months too soon, especially at that price point."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> It seems that development is going full steam ahead even though the project hasn't reached it's funding goal yet. What happens if the goal isn't met by the deadline? I can't imagine Dalton will just drop it. I guess what I'm asking is, what's the significance of the funding goal being met or not?

Am I missing something?

<comment><USER23> If they don't meet the goal, they don't get any money from people who have already pledged. So it's very significant.

<comment><USER24> Is the funding goal about the financial significance? I'd argue it's more about the significance of proving there are 10,000 paid members as the foundation for the community (a notion of PG's that Dalton has referenced).

I'm a backer, and I'd argue the brilliance of this is two-fold: Dalton gets to spend a month to see if there is enough demand to build this out for an initial community (instead of 8 months finding out the hard way), and us as backers will only be charged if there is a critical mass of interesting folks to launch the community.

Neither of these are about the financial significance of $500,000 or $200,000 for that matter.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I think it doesn't have to just be a Twitter rival. Twitter is heading into the mainstream direction. Focusing on news, celebrities, etc. A voice will develop if this does go to plan and Twitter could be Reddit while App.net could be Hacker News.

</comment><comment><USER26> It's definitely _not_ vaporware. I have backed the project, and I'm impressed so far.

</comment><comment><USER27> I don't understand why a big company (or even a medium sized company) with no stake in the newsfeeds of Twitter or Facebook, or at least no interest in those being monopoly, doesn't fund this 100% just to reduce the power of Twitter and Facebook. $500k is not a huge amount of money if Twitter is disrupting your business (SMS carriers? Conventional blogging service? Print publication? Portal? Yahoo?)

</comment><comment><USER28> After August 13, how much can the _business model_ of App.net change?

Is it possible that a _free-tier_ could be added that allows the average user to access and use the service without paying? Additional developer & other features would be available to those who pay for them.

In determining a business model for App.net, it seems they've never addressed why there isn't a free tier.

<comment><USER29> There is a free tier. Anyone can read the global feed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I won't say it'll fail only because he's so persistent in gaining mind share. Sooner or later, someone will "acquire" this project.

</comment><comment><USER31> Who has accused it of being vaporware?

<comment><USER32> I wouldn't say it has been accused of being vaporware, but I think the reason some people aren't backing it is because they believe it may just be an API and nothing more (when in fact there's a working proof-of-concept alpha version).

Also, to those that've backed the project and want access to the alpha: email email@example.com and you'll be able to get in. :-)

<comment><USER31> I don't think it is a widely held opinion. Hopefully this move helps you find the rest of your backers. :D

Backed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> >Additionally, if you take a look at Kickstarter's official stats, it would appear that of 35,138 unsuccessful projects, only 2,026 of them ever reached 41% or more of their funding goal. In other words, only 5.7% of Kickstarter projects that don't succeed ever manage to reach 40% of goal.

Oh no. This is not how we Bayes. I don't have the mental energy to translate these natural language statements into statements of probability and actually apply Bayes' theorem, but I'm pretty sure if I did, the result would be a lot less inspiring of confidence than "only a 5.7% chance of failure!"

</comment><comment><USER29> Can anyone yet point to something done with app.net that twitter won't or can't do? $50 is a lot to pay for something that so far acts just like twitter. Without those new and interesting apps, which right now do appear to be vaporware, it's not worth a premium over twitter. I don't think clients that just show you the feed or your feed count, because twitter can do that.

<comment><USER5> What app.net can do is offer you as a developer the credible promise that whatever you build on it will not be shut down because it conflicts with business decisions made 1, 5 or 10 years from now.

This of course trickles down to the user, since you are virtually guaranteed that there will be new clients for as long as the service exists. With Twitter you are virtually guaranteed that no new client ideas will see the light of day unless they come from Twitter themselves, and those will all be designed to increase your usage of the service with any increased utility merely serving as the hook.

<comment><USER29> I do understand this, and would like it to be true. But until at least one application actually exists that twitter won't or can't do, this is all promises, and those apps (which I hope aren't limited to user clients) are, in fact, vaporware. To a user, this $50 isn't today buying them anything they can't get from twitter, which is why app.net might not get funded.

<comment><USER5> Well this has only been promoted for like 3 weeks, so give it a minute. There's a chicken or egg problem, if no one buys into the dream before it's reality then it will fail.

<comment><USER29> It doesn't take half a million dollars to come up with one single actual demoable application that does something twitter won't or can't do. The point of this thing is supposed to be better apps. Fine, show me one, and I'll pay $50 to see more.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Do people really care about this? That might be the core problem.

That said, I really respect Dalton for going all out on it.

</comment><comment><USER35> Now I got it. This is a twitter clone.

Give me 3 reasons to use app.net instead of Twitter?

How do you different from Status.net & Yammer?

</comment><comment><USER36> The only reason I didn't sign up was that I felt that I'm paying for the cause and not the product. Not that I support the reason behind app.net but it just makes me hesitate. If it's simple as "pay for this great product", I might have. Good luck on meeting your funding goal!!

<comment><USER37> You are paying for the product though... You're paying for an account and alpha access to the product.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Dalton stated he will return all the money if he does not raise the full amount.

Now why do I have the feeling that there is going to be a annex to that statement in a few days? He'll probably figure something out that allows him to (be allowed to) keep the money raised.

<comment><USER11> Your baseless pessimism is annoying at best.

He is by no means a private figure -- a move like that would certainly destroy his reputation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> re: Kickstarter stats, when 59% is remaining _and_ that remaining percentage is over $250,000 I don't think there are any Kickstarter projects that have ever come back from that position. Very few have ever had $500k targets...

</comment><comment><USER40> @dalton you need to pimp up the alpha design. That counts too, if you want a larger audience.</comment>


Walk through crowds - <AUTHOR> http://howto.wired.com/wiki/Walk_Through_Crowds

<comment><USER2> There is a much more selfish, and imo, effective solution to this.

Instead of looking down or focusing much on what other people around you are doing, look up and away from the direction you're walking and walk quickly and confidently. I usually focus on the 4th or 5th floor of the buildings across the street. There's still enough awareness via peripheral vision to avoid colliding with people, and that's the only thing you need to worry about.

The other humans will be subconsciously aware of the direction your eyes are pointing and be fooled into thinking that you can't see them and are about to run into them. They will basically be forced to move out of the way.

Since I discovered this technique a few years ago, I've used it hundreds of times. So long as there's some foot traffic flowing in both directions, you can always get into the oncoming traffic lane of the sidewalk and use this method to make people scatter out of your way.

</comment><comment><USER3> I've used "The Shark Fin" in basically every GA concert crowd I've ever been to, didn't know it had a name .. very effective indeed.

I can't tell if this article is entirely serious as it promotes a method of walking that makes you seem very cold to the people surrounding you, but at the same time - this is all very efficient.</comment>


Open offices have driven Panasonic to make horse blinders for humans - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/17/open-offices-have-driven-panasonic-to-make-horse-blinders-for-humans/ <comment><USER2> TechCrunch just frustrated the hell out of me with the worst bit of UX that I have seen recently. I made a webm in case it's only happening to me for some reason.

[https://gfycat.com/SerpentineDirtyAmericanpainthorse](https://gfycat.com/SerpentineDirtyAmericanpainthorse)

As I scroll past the end of the article it struggles to spit out an ad and then actually locks me out of scrolling back up the page. I have to use the back button to get back to the article.

Who comes up with this stuff? I'm genuinely curious as to why this was implemented.</comment>


Increasing generality in machine learning through procedural content generation - <AUTHOR> We recently published a paper on increasing generality in machine learning through procedural content generation:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42256-020-0208-z
if (paywall) then (preprint):
https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.13071
Outside of games and game-like environments, what are some ways you think we can use PCG and PCG-like methods to help fight overfitting and create more general intelligence? <comment><USER2> Looks cool!

Meta: How is this under "Ask"? Are these paid submissions?

Answer:

\- Generate a grammar of a natural language. Generate against a grammar + other models to generate text/code. \- Generate proteins/RNA

\- Generate lattices/materials

\- Generate objects in pure maths: knots, planar graphs, polynomial rings, solutions to diophantine equations, error-correcting codes

\- Generate "neural nets" deep learning graphs, and see what they do, and see how they work as starting points for different tasks/trainings

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm not sure if this counts as "game-like", but what I'm doing is a random character/story generator: [https://random-character.com/](https://random- character.com/)

Many people think it's game-like, but the purpose is to stir ideas like a deck of cards to help writers (game designers, movie scripts, authors) out of writer's block.

My next plan is to have a part done with PCG, and another part done with some kind of language model. For example, the next stage I might take a popular dramatic pattern - the Three Act Structure, consisting of [setup] [confrontation] [resolution].

[setup] might generate 1-2 dramatic elements. [confrontation] might have 4-6. [resolution] would be one, though exclude <deliverance/rescue> as well as some bad ends like <disaster> or <cruelty>.

So let's say I randomly roll up <murderous adultery> as the intro. This consists of say, <villainous wife>, <victim husband>, and <anti-villain murderer/lover>. In resolution, this could spawn into other plots like <revenge for a crime>, <supplication>, or <fugitive>.

I can then generate characters based off this. Rolling off my existing generator, I have 1) <female> <villain> <damsel in distress> <blatant liar> 2) <male> <anti-villain> <adorable> <right cause> <wrong side effect>, and 3) <male> <support> <big> <stoic> <loyal>

All procedurally generated. Now we have a pile of tags. There's some hard coded descriptions on the current prototype, and while they work, 80% of the development time and the output quality has been in the writing and display of these tags. What I'd like to do is feed these tags into some natural language model to generate a description, and maybe even string together a plot in a way a human wouldn't.

tldr: I use PCG and popular patterns to generate plot curve, characters, then feeding it into something like GPT-3 to illustrate them.</comment>


Transit of the future needs smarter routes, not more gadgets - <AUTHOR> http://www.vox.com/a/new-economy-future/real-transit <comment><USER2> One thing that's useful is priority signalling at traffic lights that gives buses a green light on busy routes. In my hometown of Munich, this has cut journey times on some routes by 20%:

[pdf] [https://www.mvg.de/dam/mvg/ueber/unternehmensprofil/mvg- imag...](https://www.mvg.de/dam/mvg/ueber/unternehmensprofil/mvg-image- englisch-s.pdf)

This in turn means cost reductions as fewer buses/ drivers are needed to run the lines.</comment>


Ask HN: Math,how many unique melodies can be created? - <AUTHOR>

If number of musical notes are fixed how many unique melodies can be created? <comment><USER2> I played with this idea when I was doing an algorithmic composition project. I started with a Markov chain analysis of a simple Chopin etude, which gave me parameters, such as: \- The distance between the lowest and highest note is 2 octaves \- The key won't change, so there are only 8 notes per octave and given the first parameter, I only had 17 notes to choose from. \- The shortest note was an 1/8th and the longest was a half. Most were quarters and there were a few dotted quarters (if I recall) so there were 4 note lengths to choose from. \- The main melody in the original was 4 measures (again, if I recall) so my generated melodies were set to be that length, and always end on the root

Given all of these parameters, there were still many thousands of combinations. Applying the Markov chain limited that a lot, but that was only to make it sound like Chopin (which it did, a little). However, most of the thousands of combinations sound like crap, which is not an insignificant point. If you're willing to call some random sequence of notes a melody, then there are an infinite number

<comment><USER3> You may be interested in David Cope's work with his program Emily Howell. It can create quite convincing (and beautiful) new works in the style of any composer, given a sufficient input database.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Mozart had a dice game to create minuets.

(<http://sunsite.univie.ac.at/Mozart/dice/>)

(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musikalisches_W%C3%BCrfelspiel>)

Your question is tricky because you haven't mentioned anything about time signatures or length of time for each note, nor how many octaves you want to work with.

A regular piano has 88 keys.

So, 88 notes with a 32 note length sequence (with fixed times etc) means 88 ^ 32 or 1.6728057e+62.

<comment><AUTHOR> Leave the octave and think about the 7 notes. Basic notes, A,B,C,D,E,F and G and probably flats/sharps associated to those.

You said 88 keys = 88 notes but they are just same basic notes,one of those 7 +sharp/flat.

<comment><USER4> 12 ^ 32 = 3.4182189e+34

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> More melodies need at most a 2 octave range (especially in pop), which limits us to 24 choices for each melody note.

(Actually less, if you factor in the constrains of the specific key the tune is in, but let's be maximalist and get an upper bound).

Now, a melody also comes with a rhythm / syncopation pattern, but let's just count simple 8th notes in our test case (one can consider a whole note as 8 consecutive "legato" 8th notes of the same pitch for our purposes).

How many bars? 8 bars might be a good starting point (many pop verses are that, eg: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-two-bar_form> ).

So, that would gives us: 8 bars * 8 eights with 24 notes for each eight, which gives us roughly: (8*8)^24 different melodies.

Which is like, a lot, man (think 40-figure range).

In practice it could be from much less (considering key constraints which limits the notes you could use) to much more (considering higher than 2 octaves Zappa or avant-guard like melodies, durations shorter than 8ths, etc).

Another major factor is the "melodic quality" of the melody, which is kinda subjective. 8 bars of 8th C notes, for example, wouldn't be that interesting, and many people would not even consider them a melody.

Still that would leave billions of quality melodies in the millions of trillions of possible melodies.</comment>


Need a Remote File System for my desktop application. Forum experiences and suggestions.  - <AUTHOR>

Hi All,

   I am  working on an desktop application idea for which I need a remote file system. Each user should be able to mount it as a shared drive on windows and similarly on unix. Ideally I want to mount when my application is run (developed using Eclipse RCP ) and unmount it when closed.

 I have searched on internet for some solutions but frankly speaking I don't know what am I supposed to search. I found several products like samba, webdav, jcifs, amazon s3. Obviously I would need quotas , sharing etc to some extent.
If possible I don't want to build anything from scratch. I would like to use something off the shelf? May be like amazon s3 or Nivanix. I know that amazon/nirwanix does not provide ability to mount as shared drives.
I seem to find some kind of webdav to s3 adapter etc.
My question to the forum is how do a typical remote filesystem is implemented? What technologies are used? What are your experiences in this regard. <comment><USER2> Try S3-FUSE or SSHFS.</comment>


Why the FTC is showing up at hackers' biggest conferences - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/08/07/why-the-ftc-is-showing-up-at-hackers-biggest-conferences/

<comment><USER2> I wonder how much extra money is spent by the U.S. tax-payers funding two agencies that have diametrically opposed missions (the FTC and the NSA)?

<comment> white-flame Granted, the notion of checks & balances is an inherent part of our founding structure. If one unit of government might overstep their bounds, having another unit incentivized in opposite direction (but both having reasonably defensible mandates) is fine.

Government moving slowly through bureaucracy is one level of protection against individuals usurping the system and establishing their own agenda. (though there are many ways they still do this)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Wasn't one of the Lone Gunmen from The X-Files an FTC agent?

<comment><USER4> As I recall, it was the FCC; this is from the episode where they are at a trade fair and one of them is manning the FCC booth.</comment></comment>


Aerosol and surface stability of SARS-CoV-2 compared to SARS-CoV-1 [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.09.20033217v1.full.pdf <comment><USER2> I think the important result of this study is that HCov-19 has essentially the same half life on every surface they tested as SARS-CoV-1 except cardboard. "In general, there was no statistically discernable difference in half-life between the two viruses on any given surface except for cardboard: all other 95% credible intervals for the difference in half-lives overlapped 0".

Importantly, "Our results indicate that the greater transmissibility observed for HCoV-19 is unlikely to be due to greater environmental viability of this virus compared to SARS-CoV-1."

Edit: Remove line number from copy and pasted quote. Also fixed SARS virus name.

<comment><USER3> Can someone please explain if there's some semi-obvious subtext to the caveat -- that greater comparative transmissibility is NOT due to comparative longevity on surfaces.

Is there something else specifically, or is this just a general observation that greater transmissibility must be due to 'some other factor(s)'?

<comment><USER2> The longevity is exactly the same, therefore it is likely that the greater transmissibility is due to a different factor. I think that's the only reasoning that's going on.

<comment><USER4> Latency and silent cases is probably enough.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> About the same range as influenza, which is thought to be about 48 hours, but significantly longer than most common cold viruses, which remain active for only a few hours at most.

</comment><comment><USER6> Validates the Chinese approach of essentially banning doorhandles - jam doors open, and for those that can't be jammed, wrap them in cloth covered in disinfectant.

<comment><USER7> I wish designers can now go with a kick button, that will allow you to open the door.

Put the kick button a few inches off the floor, so anyone can easily kick it, and it activates a mechanical arm that swings open the door for you. Mount it on the wall next to the door, and of course, you will need two, one on each side of the door.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Aside: this paper demonstrates an interesting use of Bayesian regression to get the full posterior distribution over plausible decay rates rather than just a single point estimate. See the last few pages.

Is this pretty normal in these sorts of papers?

</comment><comment><USER9> That means any items you buy in a supermarket (greens wrapped in plastic, toilet paper, packaged meet, tin cans) should be set aside at home for 3 days? And you need to disinfect yourself after each round to the store...

<comment><USER10> correct. also quarantine deliveries.

<comment><USER9> Could i use commercial UV-lights (like for tanning or medicinal appliance) and illuminate the items to kill off the virus?

<comment><USER11> Good question. I _suspect_ viruses are less UV-sensitive than bacteria

However the main issue is that protecting yourself from the UV blast might be more complicated than just disinfecting the product using traditional means

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It looks like we can now get COVID-19 from Amazon Prime. Free 2-day delivery for all!

A tired warehouse worker, forced to work overtime by Jeff Bezos, with no health insurance or paid sick time, and with a robot that watches his every move to make sure he isn't slacking, gets sick with the virus, and sneezes on your order. The package gets delivered to you in 2 days, and you open it up, and hold it in your hands, thinking the product is clean and sterile. Then 3 days later, you get a strange cough, then the next day, you develop a high fever. Boom! You just got infected with COVID-19.

It didn't come from China, but from your friendly (and sick) Amazon warehouse worker.

</comment><comment><USER12> Perhaps it's a good idea to place copper tape on all door handles and other frequently touched objects. It's certainly very cheap to do so. Here's some discussion on that idea with more evidence: [https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/LwcKYR8bykM6vDHyo/coronaviru...](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/LwcKYR8bykM6vDHyo/coronavirus- justified-practical-advice-thread)

<comment><USER4> Silver could be even better. (including nanosilver coating as used in some food processing hardware such as refrigerators)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> > Caution: Preprints are preliminary reports of work that have not been peer- > reviewed. They should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health- > related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established > information.

Now I really hope this report turns out to be flawed.

<comment><USER14> So do I, but it still seems prudent to act like it is true: The extra hygiene measures are a very minor inconvenience, especially compared to the major inconvenience of catching the virus.

<comment><USER15> If I have to be hospitalized, and nobody should enter my apartment for three days to take care of my cats, and it turns out it's unwarranted, that's a big inconvenience for me.

<comment><USER16> Get an auto feeder for food and water that can feed your cats when you are not around for 5-6 days.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I like to think of it as, the US is one big cruise ship but with coronavirus instead of norovirus.

</comment><comment><USER18> Reading that the virus is stable in the air for 3h, you would think that the R0 would be closer to measles, i.e. ~18 instead of ~2. Any ideas why this is not the case?

<comment><USER4> Lack of symptoms in many more cases, for longer time. If measles had no symptoms for a week, it'd spread way more easily.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> The half life estimate is more interesting. 13hours on steel. 16 for plastic.

<comment><USER20> Is it? Don't all viruses die after a more or less fixed timespan? Do they decay like radioactive elements?

<comment><USER21> If viruses died at a fixed timespan, I think that would point to there being a stateful element that keeps track of elapsed time, like a molecular sand timer.

If viruses die because of spontaneous reactions, eg interaction with surfaces, interactions with photons, or a spontaneous chemical reaction like oxidation, then I would expect half-life decay similar to radioactive elements.

I don't know how viruses die. I wonder if they can be preserved near indefinitely in a non reactive gas or vacuum in the dark.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Why weren't other materials tested? Brick, concrete, woods?

</comment><comment><USER23> What is the temperature (room temperature) during the test?

<comment><USER24> 21-23 degrees Celcius, 63% humidity

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Has anyone considered the probability of the virus spreading via overnight e-commerce packages inadvertently containing infected steel/plastic?

<comment><USER26> Don't many overnight packages go through some really cold (warehouse/flight) or really hot (desert trucking) scenarios? I imagine it's mostly viable in comfortable human conditions

<comment><USER27> It is my understanding that viruses tend to enjoy cold, and the temperatures aren't deep enough to kill them.

Also why don't we say virii anymore?

<comment><USER14> Because loan words tend to get adapted to the grammar of the host language with time?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


I'm Wil Wheaton. I Live with Chronic Depression and Anxiety. I Am Not Ashamed - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@wilw/my-name-is-wil-wheaton-i-live-with-chronic-depression-and-generalized-anxiety-i-am-not-ashamed-8f693f9c0af1 <comment><USER2> My therapist recommended a book to me a few months ago, and reading it honestly changed my life. It's called, "I Don't Want to Talk About It: Overcoming the Secret Legacy of Male Depression", by Terrence Real.

Read the summary here [https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Want-Talk-About- Overcoming/dp/06...](https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Want-Talk-About- Overcoming/dp/0684835398)

The thesis of the book is about how depression often manifests in men in ways society doesn't recognize as depression. Examples would be rage problems, substance abuse, "workaholism", and many others.

I don't know, maybe the book just caught me at exactly the right time in my life, but it has been profoundly transformative for me.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm glad a celebrity is willing to come out and talk about this stuff, it makes me feel less insane for suffering through it myself.

But there's not much actual advice here. It sounds like the main thing that helped him were pills.

Also:

> as a white, heterosexual, cisgender man in America, I live life on the > lowest difficulty setting

What a pathetic, and wholly incorrect thing to say.

<comment><USER4> > as a white, heterosexual, cisgender man in America, I live life on the > lowest difficulty setting >What a pathetic, and wholly incorrect thing to > say.

It's disgusting.

<comment><USER5> Maybe so, but please don't post unsubstantive comments to HN.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> So what do you guys think: hunter-gatherers, then feudal farmers and then now - how does median/average suffering per capita compare?

We all have better luxuries now than kings had hundreds of years ago. Less famine, life threatening situations and so on. But we do have a way to compare ourselves with best parts of lives of many interesting people around the world. We have antibiotics and painkillers, but we also seem to have way more options and anxiety.

I'd assume there's much less physical pain. But what about suffering that can be caused by things like depression?

Do you think it's about the same, much better, slightly worse?

<comment><USER7> We have the luxury of operating at much higher levels of Maslow's hierarchy of needs than generations past. I would much rather worry about whether my life truly matters than worry about whether my life will immediately come to an end if I can't kill or grow enough food. Depression was probably always an issue, today we just have the privilege of it being the most pressing problem for many of us.

<comment><USER8> Many of the most memorable, meaningful, and exhilarating experiences in my life are derived from times that were desperate, physically gruelling and dangerous. I think it's what we're designed for. A ship is safe in harbour but that's not what ships are for.

The periods of depression in my life were quite safe and comfortable, and strongly associated with wondering if my life really matters, and you can't think about that too hard because when you do, you recognize that, no, your life is actually pretty trivial in the grand scheme of things.

Hunter Gatherers didn't have that problem, because their whole world revolved around their one little tribe, and at that scale, yes, their actions and choices really did matter.

<comment><USER9> > A ship is safe in harbour but that's not what ships are for.

What a powerful little phrase I'd never heard before. Thanks for sharing this!

<comment><USER10> For background on the quote: [https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/12/09/safe- harbor/](https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/12/09/safe-harbor/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> 'anxiety is the dizzyness of freedom' ― Søren Kierkegaard, once one accepts ones mental illness and instead of running from it, accepts and attacks it head on can one truly make progress. The paradox is that [mental] illness hinders ones ability to do so.

</comment><comment><USER4> Is there any evidence that talking about depression openly, or talk-type therapies, help to reduce depression? My experience of colleagues talking openly about these things is that it becomes a self-perpetuating cycle, and ultimately makes things worse.

<comment><USER12> Relevant background:I'm a psychiatrist.

"Talking about it" and "talking with a therapist" are different, and a good therapist using an evidence-based approach to therapy is effective. Evidence- based therapies are different than "chatting with a buddy."

That said, finding a good and well-trained therapist is often difficult. In approximately 10% of people, psychotherapy makes things worse rather than better. Sleep hygiene and regular exercise are always a good idea, and in some cases medication is worth considering.

<comment><USER13> > Evidence-based therapies are different than "chatting with a buddy."

Do you have any experimental evidence for that?

<comment><USER12> Yes, here's a good place to start: [http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/understanding- psychotherapy.as...](http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/understanding- psychotherapy.aspx)

<comment><USER13> Great username by the way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> For all the people in this thread musing that our ancestors had it good- a little risk, sure, but plenty of fulfillment & meaning- I can't help but wonder if the stigmatization on the left & among techies of serving in the military, could have unintended consequences.

I've never served, but if you want to live in a small tight knit group, live adventurously with real danger and do physically grueling work and get your hands dirty- you still can.

<comment><USER15> The military's purpose in the US is far from meaningful unfortunately.

Go into the fighting forces and it's endless war against fake enemies that does nothing to help the nation. Come home broken, with terrible support. If you're badly broken enjoy winding up on the streets in your mid twenties with PTSD and no future.

Or for techies, maybe you'd go into the clandestine services and then find it's massive overreach, spying on your own citizens, and building the tools to bring about dystopia.

It's a pity because otherwise you're right. And it should be as you say. It's just that's not what our military is sadly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Is there any progress being made with regards to gut microbiomes causing depression? it's such a new area of research that it has the potential to bring out a cure for depression if we figure out why it's caused. I don't believe it's some un-crackable enigma living in the mind, because neuroplasticity is very very easy to change.

</comment><comment><USER17> He's probably been adversely affected by a scene he's acted in.

In this particular scene, a nasty bald-headed old man shouts "Shut up, Wesley!" at a young Will Wheaton. It's immensely popular on YouTube, the click-count alone probably haunts his psyche daily.

<comment><USER18> Alt.wesley.crusher.die.die.die can't have helped back in the day, either. He has been a techie his whole life, so he can't have missed USENET.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> This article strikes me as partially honest and raw and then the other to be very planned and calculated.

Let's get this out now: I'm glad he finally sought help, and that he's getting it.

The things about this article that bug me:

1\. He starts off with the article with a "trigger warning." The title is about depression and anxiety. Having a 'trigger warning' is either insulting to the reader, or it's a weird posturing thing. Seems a little offputting when he's trying to write about his own experience and then in a way has to apologize for it.

2\. He talks about his huge accomplishments and then he discounts himself due to his 'identity': " I have run out of space in my office for the awards I've received for my work, and as a white, heterosexual, cisgender man in America, I live life on the lowest difficulty setting — with the Celebrity cheat enabled." (Why is that even important to talk about your sexuality, race, or even standing... if he's trying to do a raw and honest appeal this seems a little off to me) This topic has nothing to do with those categories. Leave it for a later addressing of remarks to discredit due to those attributes (this is an issue that can affect anyone, even Trump, [insert who you hate])

> My life is, by every objective measurement, very very good.

Clearly not if you're suffering.

3\. The apology to his mother. Again why is he apologizing for what he's going for? This to me seems like: 1. an improper sharing of a message to a close family member 2. a projection of his relationship to his mother, etc. This just seems really weird with respect of the audience of the talk.

EDIT: If you want to communicate how it's affected people close to you.. tell the audience. I spoke with my mother on this. Her concerns were x,y,z. That would give the audience a template of how to do the same if they feel it's needed.

4\. The ending which he's trying to become an activist. He's trying to call for political influence and then trying to endorse organizations.

At the end of this, I'm left wondering:

Why did he write this?

What does this piece mean? It goes from being very personal and revealing to impersonal and political/advocating. Why not split both of those up. Let the next question be: "How can we address that? Give the audience a way to say "I'm seeing these things.. what can I do?"

Is this a vehicle for him to talk about "change" he wants to see?

<comment><USER20> Devils advocate, personal experience, personal interpretation, and understanding of current literature:

1) Reflects current consensus in the field. Some may argue as 'coddling'(and consensus and approach may change) but is in general regarded as the safe empathetic thing to do, slightly analogous to epilepsy considerations.

'Posturing' could be considered an uncharitable assumption here... "What is the agenda behind any posturing?"

2.a) Presumably pointed out to show that it can indeed affect anyone. B) likely reflects a common thought cycle of his (guilt at feeling this way due to position etc.; this becomes part of the self hate cycle). C) to precisely acknowledge that this article doesn't intend to undermine other precarious or disadvantaged positions).

"> My life is, by every objective measurement, very very good. Clearly not if you're suffering."

This is precisely the point he was making, I believe(...?)

3) is important to those readers that still cannot bear to even imagine burdening their loved one with a similar admission. At least one of this article's readers wept imagining the value, freedom and weightlessness that may come from finally saying this, and by extension realising the inevitability of that statement vs a more unsatisfactory ending. (I.e it was valuable to one reader , at least).

4\. Seems appropriate to ask for funding to reduce net negative emotion in the world.

I would assume that your downvotes are due to your answer showing appearing unnecessarily hostile and uncharitable to the article, which is probably being interpreted on face value and being written with good, empathetic intention (not a hidden agenda).

<comment><USER19> I don't agree with all of your points/responses. But I do appreciate the respect shown in the response!

Hidden agenda: I'm terrible at those. I want to see him, as I would to other speakers looking to speak, with a better and more consistent speech. My dog in this fight is that I want to see him lead people to improve.

If it's important: I really don't like the guy. (If I'm going to be consistent I don't like how he projects himself) He doesn't seem to have a respect for people he disagrees with and he comes off really smug in some of his work. My criticisms were about his speech and how I saw it and was made uncomfortable about where I felt it was going.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> That little voice in the back of your head that tells you that you're shit, is a liar. Depression is a constant fight with that voice.

</comment><comment><USER22> > It's just an illness. I mean, it's right there in the name "Mental ILLNESS" > so it shouldn't have been the revelation that it was

I think this is actually a big part of the problem. In most other contexts we encounter, stuffing an adjective in there means "NOT". Soy milk? Not real milk. Computer science? Don't see anyone using the scientific method.

I'm absolutely certain that mental illness is real, and deserves real study and real treatment, but even so, whenever I hear "mental illness" I can't help but hear a twang of "... (not _real_ illness)". The phrase "physical illness" is relatively rare because we normally just call it "illness".

Is there a better word for mental illness, which stands on its own? Names matter, and I don't think this one is doing us any favors.

<comment><USER23> After wrestling with this linguistic problem for quite some time, the best term I've come up with this far is "mental injury". I strongly prefer it to "illness" because illness connotes a disease of the flesh, and there is no proof that any of the things we typically call mental illness (with a few notable exceptions like alzheimer's and possibly seizures) are actually based in the body.

In contrast, most of the common "mental illnesses" can be linked to specific forms of psychological trauma or injury. For example, depression and anxiety being caused by emotional abuse. Or PTSD resulting from a traumatic event.

The other term that comes to mind is "fracture" or "break". Like, I fractured my femur when I was in college. I got surgery, the femur healed. My femur didn't get an "illness" and I certainly don't feel any stigma or shame around the experience, other than regretting skiing way too fast.

It would be cool to say the same about the depression I experienced.

"What happened to you?"

"Oh, I fractured my mind after a really bad relationship with an emotionally abusive ex. Yeah, my mind broke pretty good, but thankfully it was a pretty clean break, I got it set right and after a few years of psychoanalysis and some quality entheogens it's as good as new."

It's time to ditch the illness/disease model for mental illness and use terms like injury/fracture/break that both accurately describe the situation and clearly indicate that the situation can be remedied. The idea of chronic and untreatable mental illness is a self fulfilling prophecy and does far more harm than good.

<comment><USER24> _there is no proof that any of the things we typically call mental illness (with a few notable exceptions like alzheimer's and possibly seizures) are actually based in the body._

Then where are they based? Literally all we are is a body.

 _The idea of chronic and untreatable mental illness is a self fulfilling prophecy and does far more harm than good._

Who has this idea? I've never heard of depression or anxiety being described as untreatable.

Just like the common cold is an "illness" and nobody claims it's untreatable.

<comment><USER23> They are symbolic constructs, based in the mind and expressed through the body. Like memes. As opposed to genes, which are also expressed through the body but which are chemical in nature.

Perhaps "garden variety" depression and anxiety aren't the best examples here, although both of them do have their severe forms and even clinical labels like "treatment resistant depression". I'm thinking particularly of more severe diagnoses like bipolar or schizophrenia, which are generally assumed in mainstream western psychiatry since at least the 60s to be lifelong illnesses whose symptoms may be treatable with medication but for which there is no known "cure".

I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who watched his sister receive a bipolar diagnosis after a suicide attempt in late teens, and then watched her develop more severe "bipolar" behaviors as a result of the so-called antipsychotic drugs she was prescribed. Only years later did I realize that her suicide attempt was a direct result of severe chronic parental abuse that she was enduring at the time. Of course the relevant information never made it to the doctors who were forced to come up with a reason for a young girl attempting suicide, hence bipolar. My sister died by suicide last year. I can't speak for others, but in her case the bipolar label was both a convenient cover-up for severe child abuse and essentially a death sentence for my sister's soul and ultimately her life. I suspect that the same could be happening in many cases where abnormal or self-harming behavior is in fact a reaction to abuse. It's just so much easier to tell someone that they have a chemical imbalance in their brain and it's nobody's fault, rather than confront a child abuse situation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I feel like capitalism separates people based on intelligence because value is added to businesses/society by your ability solve problems/create.

Manual labor is something literally anyone can do(barring major physical disability).

While this isn't a new idea in human history, the intelligent have always had it better, it's become a new problem recently that people who are of average intelligence cannot live decent lives.

This is just a theory but I feel like up until the past 20 or so years even if you were of average intelligence you could live a very decent life just working, raising your kids, etc.

Factory workers of the 60's made enough to do well for themselves and family.

Now with automation, outsourcing, etc, only the people who create the automation and can compete with the best minds from around the world have decent jobs, (i.e. STEM which isn't accessible intellectually to a fair amount of people).

So we're ALL competing intellectually now whereas before only some people were needed to be the brains and the rest could live a decent life.

I feel like constantly having to compete on this level with your mind having to constantly perform at its peak... not just to get ahead...but for basic survival without a foundational safety net, really lends itself to mental disorders or exaggerates existing ones.

Just my personal theory.

<comment><USER26> > Manual labor is something literally anyone can do.

No, it's not; people can just as easily lack the physical capacity for manual labor as they can lack the intellectual capacity for knowledge work. There are plenty of people who can do knowledge work but would be unable to do manual work.

<comment><USER25> I think human beings have been doing manual labor since they emerged from the forests 50k years ago: hunter/gathering, agriculture(pre-industrialization)

Manual labor is our default condition.

Everyone can do manual labor, or they can eventually get in shape enough to do it.

<comment><USER26> > I think human beings have been doing manual labor since they emerged from > the forests 50k years ago

Believe it or not, the conditions humans live in now are different than 50K years ago; it's much more common for someone able to survive to adulthood without being able to do manual labor now.

> Everyone can do manual labor, or they can eventually get in shape enough to > do it.

Stephen Hawking, for a fairly extreme and well-known example, was quite capable of knowledge work, but could not have done manual labor, and could not have gotten in shape to do such labor, either.

<comment><USER25> Sorry I should say 99.9(repeating)% of people.

The industrial revolution happened 300 years ago.

We were farming and huntering/gathering for 50,000+ years before that.

Our bodies have not lost the ability to do manual labor in under 10 generations.

<comment><USER26> > Sorry I should say 99.9(repeating)% of people.

That's exactly the same, and therefore exactly as wrong, as 100%.

As of 2010, 12.2 million people in the US had disabilities for which they needed physical assistance with tasks like "doing housework, using the phone and preparing meals."

[https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/miscellane...](https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/miscellaneous/cb12-134.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> This guy has a lot of stories about how Shatner was rude to him without cause. Well he has turned into shatner and is rude without cause to many people, including myself.

I now think his real psychological problem is that he's a sociopathic narcissist and this entire article is just manipulation.

Wow, downvoted and flagged Within literally 5 seconds of posting.

Only certain opinions are allowed here?

<comment><USER5> Personal attacks and name calling aren't opinions, and aren't allowed here. Please don't do this again, regardless of how you feel about someone or how badly they behaved.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)</comment></comment>


2011: Year of the Mac? - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.computerworld.com/17423/opinion_2011_the_year_of_the_mac?source=rss_blogs

<comment><USER2> Just like 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007...?

Yet, yet, yet again - I seriously doubt it.

<comment><AUTHOR> The article makes a pretty convincing case. There is no doubt that Apple has had a stellar few years recently, even surpassing Microsoft's market cap.</comment></comment>


Show HN: CloudPebble adds a UI editor - <AUTHOR> https://cloudpebble.net/ More details at: https://developer.getpebble.com/blog/2014/08/08/CloudPebble-Graphical-UI-Editor/ <comment><AUTHOR> More details at: [https://developer.getpebble.com/blog/2014/08/08/CloudPebble-...](https://developer.getpebble.com/blog/2014/08/08/CloudPebble- Graphical-UI-Editor/)</comment>


Contact bloggers... - <AUTHOR>

what is the most effective way to contact bloggers...<p>I am building a blog aggregator and wanted ask HackerNews about this. any good suggestions?? Thanks <comment><USER2> There are several communities online: go there and post your invitation. Twitter Lists, Alexa etc. can also provide you details about pro bloggers

<comment><AUTHOR> would love it if you could provide me details about pro-bloggers thank arpitnext .. appreciate your help</comment></comment>