The Socialist Origins of Big Data (2014) - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/13/planning-machine <comment><USER2> It's the causation problem.

Big Data is getting better at giving us lots of odd correlations -- people buy poptarts before a hurricane. Uber knows where people are going to go. This information is extremely useful.

But what we're missing here is this central fact: correlation data is only good inside a very limited set of preconditions. Once you have a WalMart or an Uber, it helps them operate better. It does not have the ability to create the next WalMart or Uber.

That means that Big Data, as it is now, will always be able to continue to optimize within a limited system, but will not be able to see outside of that system. Big Data will not be able to create the next paradigm-changing thing like Uber, because paradigm-changing things are by definition outside the scope of the data already collected.

Recently there was a a study published by some MIT students about startups. It ran a bunch of numbers and gave you advice: pick a small name, operate outside the valley, use older workers, and so on. But as somebody pointed out, you really need to have a great idea, spot-on execution, and market traction. If you have that, the rest of it doesn't matter. More to the point, if you have all of those things the MIT guys came up with, they're not going to give you the other things you need. As it turns out, the things you need for a great startup are still fiercely debated -- hence the MIT study in the first place. Correlation does not equal causation.

I see this in big companies all of the time. Our projects are running, on average, 100% late! So somebody looks at the data and finds that most of the time is spent testing. What do we need? Better testers, of course!

Simply because you can point to a couple of different things that track together does not mean you understand anything. And in IT, unlike Big Data, we _do_ have to worry about causation, because we're inventing the universe every time we ship.

You always optimize complex systems from the bottom-up, never from the top- down. Otherwise you're just fooling yourself in various interesting ways. That's true no matter what the system is.

</comment><comment><USER3> Recommended Eden Medina's Cybernetic Revolutionaries: [http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/cybernetic- revolutionaries](http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/cybernetic-revolutionaries)

</comment><comment><USER4> The article doesn't show that the Cybersyn experiment actually influenced the modern big data movement (or anything for that matter). I think that "The socialist origins of the Big Data nation" is much more accurate, since even though the article didn't show any influence on current government big data initiatives, at least there is a lot of similarity.

In spite of being a free market supporter, I think that command economies have been useful at times, e.g. the PRC and the USSR in their early stages. Both these countries practiced something similar to what Chile tried, in the 70's and early 80's. My theory is that before communism these countries were practicing a a very corrupt state capitalism. So a logical step before capitalism, was to rationalize state capitalism by making government decisions based on utilitarian goals instead of corruption.

EDIT: modified my request for title change after I read the original title more carefully.

<comment><USER5> Prior to their communist revolutions, both the USSR and PRC were actually practicing something not very different from feudalism. In fact, one of the reforms of the last Tsar was to unbind (legally, if not in practice) serfs from their estates.

<comment><USER6> >In fact, one of the reforms of the last Tsar was to unbind (legally, if not in practice) serfs from their estates.

Serfs were freed in 1861[1]. A year before slaves were freed in the USA[2]. By Alexander II - the grandfather of the last Tsar.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_reform_of_1861](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_reform_of_1861)

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> There will always be power and profit in being able to monitor and control what people are going to do. This is a scary fact of life in the human arena. And though this is not the first time that technology has advanced so far so fast, some pretty scary basic concerns about governance and fundamental rights have been raised in recent years.

Eventually, in the midst of the well-wishers there will come those souls who are not good actors, and they do seem to seem to spoil the bunch sometimes - don't they?

Given enough power, anything is worthy of unusual inspection. Similarly, the current success of Uber is no different. Regardless of whether the social, political and market narratives about Uber are currently accurate, fair or not, it is the sudden nature of company power and the driving essential questions around the nature of new economies that compel articles like these. Uber and AirBnB are challenging fundamental labor and property rights shibboleths, and demanding real consideration from people across the philosophical, commercial, and political realms.

Similarly, the 20th century spread of dictatorial socialism was incredible. No matter how much I try to sympathize with the promises of various ideologies, I always return to the premise that in all circumstances, it is the CONCENTRATION OF POWER that is the problem. It is even more disturbing for pragmatists and empiricists when they see something moving fast that is denying anyone the chance to scrutinize, test and debate the merits of the method, the motives, the means.

As a good friend says though - it is easy to make these conceptions "heuristics" and see someone's intent as globally bad. Some people's intentions can be good and means and methodology sound. Yet with data as with literacy at large, the medium by which the person't intent is made manifest is the very means by which the power will be exercised and the rules challenged. In this case, massive volumes of data are being generated that have multi- dimensional consequences for all humankind. This IS a concentration of power. Even though a witch hunt is far from a beautiful thing, the world citizen has very real reason to be concerned, and truly should be immediately concerned, about the very topics that are daily discussion here on HN. Matters of technology, privacy, rights, commerce and liberty are not weak, and neither are musings on the mating habits of whales.. from time to time.

HN is a fount of a certain kind of literacy. How does that literacy get expanded to all, and seen as a human right?

<comment><USER8> Another good read on related subjects (i.e. data-driven management, and the dilemma faced by Socialist state in trying to remove prices - i.e. market forces - as self-regulating mechanisms) is "Red Plenty" by Francis Spufford. Here is the website: [http://redplenty.com/Red_Plenty/Front_page.html](http://redplenty.com/Red_Plenty/Front_page.html) but I heartily reccomend reading the book.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> One thing the often bugs me is when management demand more analytics on the work flow of a department. This usually entails more manual logging by the staff, which takes time out of their day. 'But we need this information,' they say, 'otherwise we're just flapping about in the dark not knowing the full picture.' Or something to that effect.

The thing is, how is it that we seemed to manage _just fine_ without all those business analytics in the past? Somehow people were able to exercise their judgement and run the department effectively. Not that there's no room for improvement of course, but maybe you'd be better skipping straight to diagnosis/solutions rather than spending time logging and collecting indicators.

<comment><USER8> I believe this is a result of the shift from production of physical goods to a more service-oriented economy. If your main concern is "manufacturing X" it is usually fairly simple to tally "Number of X produced" (even "Number of X produced by operator #128") number of defective parts, number of returned items after sale... If you deal with software development, translations, advertising, copy editing getting an idea of "productivity" is far more complicated. Do you count "lines of text written by operator #128"? This might make marginal sense for translators (and you are still missing any idea of quality/defects, because even if a customer rejects your work as "completely wrong" you won't get any specific metrics) but completely misses the mark for the other examples I listed.

So yeah, we are stuck with the idea that "you cannot control what you cannot measure", but we have a serious deficit in terms of measures.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Check out Morozov's amazing work on the philosophical underpinnings of one of the web's most powerful figures: [http://www.thebaffler.com/salvos/the-meme- hustler](http://www.thebaffler.com/salvos/the-meme-hustler)</comment>


Google Targets Amazon's 'Prime' With 1-Day Delivery - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2011/12/1/2604032/wsj-google-preparing-fast-delivery-service-taking-on-amazon-prime

<comment><USER2> This would be great. Shipping is incredibly painful (in terms of cost and time) when ordering from anyone but Amazon...</comment>


In honor of my grandpa - <AUTHOR>

I have seen here people sharing all kind of unique stories and great articles and I decided to add here my story too or it would never be told.
It all started in 1979 in the Czechoslovakia when my grandfather decided to leave the communist Czechoslovakia and emigrate to the Sweden. He prepared the whole escape plan, prepared family and told to his best friend that he decided to emigrate. And what his best friend did? He went to the nearest police station and told everything. One week later my grandfather, father and grandmother went to the boarding control on the boarders between West Germany and Czechoslovakai, with only necessary stuff and with all money hidden inside wheels of their car; prepared to leave their family and life they had lived. Unfortunately, their names were there long before they came. Afterwards, my grandfather spent almost 4 years in jail, my grandmother 4 months and my 17 years old father 1 month. Half of their property was confiscated by the government, my father was expelled from high school and grandmother fired from work.
Almost after 30 years since that happened, my grandfather was admitted as a political prisoner and got refund from the government of the Czech Republic. On the beginning of 2011 he came to and gave me a half of the money and told me -  Go for your dream. In May 2012, in age of 23, I got my l first  job, here in San Francisco, in Silicon Valley.
To my grandfather, who passed away after long illness one month before I fulfilled my dream. Thank you. <comment><USER2> Very strong history. My grandfather also lived a hard time. Hunger, deaths, jobless. The whole Europe was scourged in the 1900.

</comment><comment><USER3> Holy ... Chills everywhere in my body. Truly inspiring story! Thank you for sharing it.

</comment><comment><USER4> This is an inspiring story. You have honored him by sharing the story here.

</comment><comment><USER5> Thank you for sharing this story, and congratulations!

</comment><comment><USER6> Keep on honoring him - with your actions.</comment>


Ask HN: Do you hold corporate bonds in your private portfolio? - <AUTHOR>

Edit: I am also asking about corporate bond ETFs.<p>I found many sources that go against buying corporate bonds, because it's too risky/expensive. They prefer government bonds and shares. But investment advisers keep using them. <comment><USER2> Yes, I hold variety of Bond ETFs in my portfolio including High Yield Corporate and Government Bond ETF (HYG), Emerging Market Bond ETF (EMB), Investment Grade US Bond (AGG), Inflation adjusted US Treasury I-series Bond. I believe in keeping a diversified portfolio of different asset classes. All asset classes have different risk and return profile and have different correlations with each other.

As for corporate bond being more risky/expensive than government bond, ask investors who invested in Greece Debt vs those who invested in Apple debt.

You may want to consider reading up a few books in investing and finance. /r/personalfinance, /r/investing, /r/financialindependence, and /r/finance are a few good subreddits with some smart regulars. Also these subreddits have good list of recommended books.

</comment><comment><USER3> You can invest in them, of course. I think the confusion is that fixed income may serve two different purposes.

According to Markowitz, you buy fixed income as "risk free" asset, to offset an optimal portfolio of risky assets. That way, once you have a target combination of risky assets, you just need to decide that % to put on that, and you put the rest to the risk-free asset.

Government bonds are usually very low risk. Of course, they are never risk free, plus you hold inflation risk. But Germany, US, etc. have negligible risk compared to corporate bonds or emerging / distressed government bonds. So they are good to plug into the "risk free" basket of that methodology.

Corporate bonds (as well as some government bonds) are much more risky, so you cannot use them like that. But they can be part of the risky portfolio, as they give much more interest and volatility, with which you can earn more (or lose it!).

So it's a matter of treating them as a different thing as government bonds, and understanding that when people talk about fixed income, they refer to the low risk government one, unless it is obviously otherwise.

<comment><USER2> > when people talk about fixed income, they refer to the low risk government > one

I am sorry to say this is incorrect. No knowledgeable person will refer fixed income as "low risk government one". Fixed Income covers a broad range of assets that are typically debt-based, non-equity based that generate periodic payments/interest. This includes Government Bonds, Corporate Bonds, and other debt securities (Real Estate, Consumer Loans, Invoice Financing, come to my mind). Fixed income is a very large and complex (much more than equities) field and calling it as just "low risk government one" is a disservice to the field.

> According to Markowitz, you buy fixed income as "risk free" asset, to offset > an optimal portfolio of risky assets.

I would like to see reference that attributes this to Markowitz. Markowitz's Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) refers to "risk-free" rate but never specifies if fixed income equates to risk free. There is no risk-free assets. Anything close to being considered "risk free" is very short-term (not long term) government paper issued by US, UK, Germany, Switzerland and Japan.

<comment><USER3> Yes, sure, it was a simplification. And probably not Markowitz paper will display verbatim "you buy fixed income as "risk free" asset". But I think you're nitpicking. Markowitz defined the Modern Portfolio Theory as working with risk-free assets. Sure, that does not exist. But there are approximations. FI is normally used as such.

Also:

> No knowledgeable person will refer fixed income as "low risk government > one".

Being knowledgeable is not something binary, and you have lots of people in the internet talking about holding stocks and bonds. Whenever you see investment advice stating "hold your age as percentage of FI", they are not referring to junk bonds, nor securitizations or whatnot. They are talking about low risk, low yield, typically government bonds.

EDIT: Context is also to consider. In some contexts, people equate both things.

In any case, rereading my post, it now sounds a little bit defensive, so sorry for that.

<comment><USER2> No problem. Thanks for the clarification. I just didn't want readers to assume that Fixed Income always equates to low risk.

<comment><USER3> No, that was precisely my point :) sometimes it is, sometimes it's not. And you need to know what are you buying.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> andrew-lucker I don't hold corporate bonds. That seems really easy to screw up if you don't know what you are doing. I think it is a reasonable option for financial professionals to choose if they are looking for slightly higher returns and are willing to invest the time to do due diligence, but for everyday investors I agree definitely stay away before you lose your whole investment.

</comment><comment><USER4> I have a handful of high-yield corporate closed end funds. The biggest downside is that some of the payments are non-dividend distribution (such as return of capital) which are tax-free but lowers the cost basis when you sell.</comment>


Analog Hacker Raises $20k to Make Handmade Lockpicking Tools - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2010/08/analog-hacker-raises-20k-to-make-handmade-lockpicking-tools/62084/

<comment><AUTHOR> I've backed this project: [http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/schuyler/lockpicks-by- op...](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/schuyler/lockpicks-by-open- locksport)

I think they're going to be a great set of picks/sets of locks.

Also you can see a lot his project updates here: [http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/schuyler/lockpicks-by- op...](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/schuyler/lockpicks-by-open- locksport/posts)

</comment><comment><USER2> What a great video. He comes across as a really likable guy who knows what he's doing and loves it. I've seen a few other marketing videos around that could learn a lot from his honest, personal approach.</comment>


Monthly-Connected VR Headsets on Steam Pass 1M Milestone - T-A https://www.roadtovr.com/monthly-connected-vr-headsets-steam-1-million-milestone/ <comment><AUTHOR> Was recently looking into VRs again...and still concluded let's park it for another year or so.

The "affordable" ones still have poor resolution, which kills the experience for me.</comment>


HN "Beta testing" section? - <AUTHOR>

I think it would be cool to have a special section on HN where we can post beta versions of our sites and get feedback from the web-savvy people on HN, without the pressure and traffic that might result from a "Show HN" posting on the main board.<p>This would especially help those of us who don't live near a major tech hub and don't have a network of friends in the startup scene. <comment><USER2> Tried launching something like that with another HN user here, but it never really took off:

<http://letmebeta.com></comment>


Stallman Spreading FUD about Gates & His Charity Fund - <AUTHOR> http://neosmart.net/blog/2008/richard-stallman-expert-in-the-art-of-fud/

<comment> captain-m I agree that Stallman's stab at the gates foundation is cheap and uncalled for. However, if you're going to write an article accusing someone else of FUD you'd better make sure you're not guilty of it yourself.

>"Is Richard Stallman seriously suggesting that it's right to illegally obtain copyrighted software?"

No he isn't. He's suggesting that Bill Gates should have allowed people to share his software.

>"It's one thing to say that Gates should never have charged for his software and another to say that it's OK to use it without paying."

Stallman is saying that the software should have been free as in speech, not free as in beer. Nowhere did he imply that it's OK to use the software without paying.

<comment><USER2> FWIW, Stallman wrote long time a piece saying that it might be simpler and braver to make dozens of copies of expensive commercial software and giving them away on a street corner. He didn't do that and instead tried to create alternatives. But it was some kind of "what is wronger" question.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> You think that's bad?

ESR just compared Obama to Hitler. No, I am not kidding.

<http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=301>

Quote: "There is a pattern in the lives of the really dangerous charismatic tyrants that they tend to have originated on the geographical and cultural fringes of the societies they came to dominate, outsiders seeking ultimate insiderhood by remaking the "inside" in their own image. Hitler, the border Austrian who ruled Germany; Napoleon, the Corsican who seized France; and Stalin, the Georgian who tyrannized Sovet Russia. And, could it be…Obama, the half-black kid from Hawaii?"

</comment><comment><USER4> The author is clueless about RMS:

>is Richard Stallman seriously suggesting that it's right to illegally obtain copyrighted software?

Software is recored knowledge. Human progress means always building on top of somebody's knowledge. "Ownership" of knowledge is immoral and takes away human freedom. 'Copyrighted software' has no more rights to exist than 'copyrighted math'.

<comment><USER5> I disagree. Code is more like literature than software. It is wrong to take it without prior owner's permission.

Algorithms, and software ideas, however, are like math. So _patents_ on software make no sense. There's a difference between code and algorithms; algorithms shouldn't be copyrighted/patented; code, on the other hand, is the property of whomever wrote it, and thus it may be copyrighted.

<comment><USER6> _Code is more like literature than software._

What code are you talking about? All of the code I have is software.

 _It is wrong to take it without prior owner's permission._

Is that always the case? It certainly isn't always true about literature. As an american I'm happy my country's founders didn't have to worry about getting permission to use the ideas that went into the literature of our government.

 _Algorithms, and software ideas, however, are like math._

They aren't just "like" math, they _are_ math. They may be other things as well.

 _Code is the property of whomever wrote it, and thus it may be copyrighted._

Not all code is or should be that way.

If you're going to compare code and literature, please keep in mind that the early history of literature was almost entirely devoted to maintaining social order and mundane matters of business transactions.</comment></comment></comment>


How customer development prevented another failure - <AUTHOR> http://toddwilliams.me/how-customer-development-prevented-another-fa

<comment><USER2> this is really flawed logic. i hope no one takes this advice. including todd. here is sample size calculator - <http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm>

if he had 100 clicks and 3 buys, then his margin of error with 95% certainty is +/- 3.4% - maybe that's enough to make a difference?

but more importantly, companies like twitter never happen under this methodology. i guess this may be sort of ok to use for incremental products, but nothing big will ever be developed this way.

</comment><comment><USER3> I find CD to be very dangerous. Let's say you have a decent idea. After creating the landing page you toy with 300 dollars worth of adwords, facebook ads and other media buys. Lets say you end up with 3000 visits. The problem is that you are not likely to get the right sample with that small amount of visitors. You probably need to go through a multitude of ad variations and segmentations to find the right market.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree and in fact was starting to wonder if I was developing false negatives. However, if you get a positive response it is less likely to be a false positive.</comment></comment>


15 Questions That Prove You Don't Know Squat About Silicon Valley - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/15-questions-that-prove-you-dont-know-squat-about-silicon-valley-2010-2

<comment><USER2> Wweb sites that have two sentences and then a link to actually read the article drive me nuts. I just can't understand why anyone would want to do that. I barely understand articles that split the content into two pages, let alone ones like this. Dear Web Sites: I have scrolling capabilities :-/

(No offense to the submitter Hunchr who was just submitting the information. I don't want this to sound like a complaint aimed at you. )</comment>


The CIA uses board games to train officers - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/03/the-cia-uses-board-games-to-train-officers-and-i-got-to-play-them/ <comment><USER2> It's worth noting that JFK and Henry Kissinger were big fans of the game Diplomacy.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy_(game)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy_\(game\))

<comment><USER3> Great article from Grantland (RIP) on Diplomacy:

[http://grantland.com/features/diplomacy-the-board-game-of- th...](http://grantland.com/features/diplomacy-the-board-game-of-the-alpha- nerds/)

<comment><USER4> The writer got absolutely roasted in that article. LOL.

       "Are you going to be paid for writing this story?" a Scottish player asked me. "Because I am losing three days' wages to be here so that I can get screwed by you."

(why does HN still not support decent formatting)

<comment><USER5> I usually quote like this:

> _"Are you going to be paid for writing this story?" a Scottish player asked > me. "Because I am losing three days' wages to be here so that I can get > screwed by you. "_

The leading > and italics make it clear that it's quoted and it avoids making the reader scroll horizontally. Not perfect but it's about the best you can do here, AFAIK.

<comment><USER4> It is best you can do and it is horrible HN still doesn't have good and easy comment formatting.

Try posting small piece of code. You hear me HN?!

<comment><USER6> I really wished HN supported markdown personally.

Edit: I found the formatting doc for HN [https://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc](https://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc)

 _> Text after a blank line that is indented by two or more spaces is reproduced verbatim. (This is intended for code.)_

So that might be the answer to putting code on here.

      function say(message: string, volume: number): void {
          //do text to speech code here
      }

but still markdown would be nicer. just do and depending on the phaser/styling it will even do code syntax coloring to increase readability.

      ```typescript
      new line with the code
      ```

(Edit again: Without the 2 spaces, HN put my markdown example all on one line)

I guess moving HN to markdown could be done. Just say all posts after X date are markdown(or add a boolean to the post in the DB saying so. Then have the editor have like a preview button(but I know HN likes to be lite on JS stuff) but the md could be generated server-side, but do the preview client side.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm not surprised. I think games, especially board games, are infinitely better for developing strategic and tactical acumen than infinite seminars. Games actually have a feedback loop where you are rewarded for correct planning and sequencing and punished for mistakes.

<comment><USER8> Not just strategy but working together. The article mentions that Collection compares favourably to Pandemic.

I've seen people start to get agitated at each other playing Pandemic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I recall going on a 3-day course to a marine officer training camp somewhere in VA. There was a obstacle course which was hard, i.e. you had to swim in cold muddy waters (October time), climb fences, dig trenches etc. 80% of teams finished within the deadline of 4 hours. And then there was a exercise room which the Marine instructors said was designed by CIA. You're locked into a room with some instruments and are given an assignment to be completed under a deadline. The outcome was binary: yes/no. Success rate was like 10%. The odds were so that they can identify the best decile.

<comment><USER10> i heard something similar about designing questions for maths exams -- about half the questions should be pretty basic, so students who have studied and have a basic grasp of the concepts should be able to get them right and pass the course. then the rest are harder, with e.g. one or two questions being more difficult extensions of what was covered in the course.

it sounds like the structure of the marine officer training camp avoids the problems some students have with poor "exam technique" \- if you are given a fixed block of time to use to attempt all tasks (e.g. the obstacle course, the exercise room) then there is the risk of students spending all their time on the hardest task, and not leaving enough time to succeed at the other easier tasks.

edit: on another hand, you could argue that "a student's poor exam technique" could equally well be called "poorly designed exam / measurement process"

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Large corporations also do this with their more senior folks. They pay big bucks to consulting firms to get a custom designed game that is similar to their industry.

<comment><USER12> Very interesting to know. I wonder if the Federal Reserve ever train similarly?

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I love love love Diplomacy but will never ever play it with people I care about. This game is "the breakup". If you want to win you basically have to lie and betray. Trust is easy to break and hard to gain.

<comment><USER14> That's funny, I sort of feel similarly about Settlers of Catan lol.

Taught that game a few years ago to my Boston friends (back when I lived in Boston) and it ended up being a big hit _and I never won a game again._

I'm too nice, I guess.

Not sure if relevant but the guy who tended to win the most now heads a multimillion-dollar company. So there's that...

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Ever wonder why Russians are so good at politics and espionage?

There's a very popular board game they're also very good at, and have been for at least a century.

Humans are humans. And game theory is the same for every game, only the medium changes.

<comment><USER16> Are you trying to imply that Russia is skilled in politics and espionage because they're proficient at chess?

<comment><USER17> I'm a neophyte player (1250), actively learning. I can definitely see how learning chess to a respectable level (~1500) can help you make decisions in everyday life. I could elaborate a bit but this is a subject about which much has already been written.

<comment><USER18> I really don't think so. Getting really good at a game involving a discrete territory relies heavily on developing spatial intuitions that are specific to the game. Through experience and study of prior games, you get increasingly aware of the possibilities of positions many moves in advance; humans aren't built to exhaustively analyze game trees like the naive chess AIs of the 90s. If the game isn't a transparent metaphor for something else in life, then the intuitions won't apply either. Real life doesn't have things that move like knights, or shape the board like pawns.

<comment><USER17> An Elo score of 1500 is not considered being "really good" at chess.

In real life, you have to make choices. Some choices preclude certain futures while enabling others. Sometimes you can make a sacrifice now in order to "win" later. Etc.

I am _not_ saying that memorizing complex mating patterns for example can be directly transposed to real life decision making. Rather, realizing these exist, and appropriating the patterns of thought that make such analyses possible is what is beneficial.

You are right that we aren't "built to exhaustively analyze game trees", but this is precisely what makes learning chess a good thing: you get to train your mind to do that. Transposing that skill in real life is, I believe, beneficial.

<comment><AUTHOR> I had always assumed ELO was an acronym of some kind, turns out it's the surname of the system's inventor; Arpad Elo. [0] And, according to Wikipedia, 1500 would be a mid-level player, so not _really_ good, but certainly not beginner either.

> _In general, a beginner is around 800, a mid-level player is around 1600, > and a professional, around 2400._

0\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arpad_Elo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arpad_Elo)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The story at the end of the article about the trainees duping the IT guy is just gold.

<comment><USER20> Meanwhile Snowden allegedly got access to classified info by convincing 20 people he needed their passwords for his job as sysadmin.

<comment><USER21> You mean he's been manipulated by the red team?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> How can I download these and print them out? I could definetly turn these into a party drinking game.

<comment><USER23> If you like heavy strategy games based in historical events, you should take a look at the COIN series (COunterINsurgencies) by GMT [http://www.gmtgames.com/](http://www.gmtgames.com/). Actually, their whole catalog is full of great historical games, including the the highest-ranked game on BoardGameGeek for many years _Twilight Struggle_. They are definitely NOT party drinking games though, and require both time and dedicated study.

If you're looking for a 20min party game on the same vibe, I can't recommend _The Resistance: Avalon_ highly enough. A more recent take on the _hidden role and voting_ genre is _Secret Hitler_ , but I didn't try that yet.

Links:

Twilight Struggle: [https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/12333/twilight- struggle](https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/12333/twilight-struggle)

Cuba Libre (COIN series): [https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/111799/cuba- libre](https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/111799/cuba-libre)

Other COIN games: [https://www.gmtgames.com/c-36-coin- series.aspx](https://www.gmtgames.com/c-36-coin-series.aspx)

The Resistance - Avalon: [https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/128882/resistance- avalon](https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/128882/resistance-avalon)

<comment><USER24> A buddy of mine bought me a copy of the Steam version of Twilight Struggle. If you have a willing friend to play with, the PC digital version is just fine.

Matchmaking is there as well as async play, so you can get a game going with a stranger. but, it might take awhile.

I've played it (with a friend) about 30 hours so far, it really is a great game. After a few brutal losses I started to get the hang of it. There is depth, sacrifice and tough decision making. I'm definitely a fan of the game, now.

Speaking of which, I ought to go take my turn.

<comment><USER23> [https://twilightstrategy.com/](https://twilightstrategy.com/) This blog features a detailed analysis of each card in the game. It's a useful reference if you want to become a true pro.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I'm excitedly telling someone about this and reading the comments on the ars website where people say this was done before in the military and the thought suddenly came to me that we really need to find more excuses to play games like this in our tech jobs.

Is there some kind of training we need that awesome board games could help with?

<comment><USER25> When you're working on a problem having a short break and thinking about something unrelated allows you to return to the problem with a fresh mind. People often report this kind of short break is a powerful tool in problem solving. This short break could easily be a game of something.

When you're working in a company sometimes people are in different silos. Opportunities to discuss things across the company are lacking. But these discussions are often useful; a problem in one department might be a simple fix from another department. People hate meetings. People like games. A games afternoon once a fortnight would help people discuss this stuff.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> They should play 7 wonders, mafia, resistance, werewolf etc. Definitely reflects some real world interactions

<comment><USER27> Out of geeky (but impractical) things, here is my "A mathematical model of the Mafia game": [https://arxiv.org/abs/1009.1031](https://arxiv.org/abs/1009.1031) :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> There used to be a PC game genre called Real-Time-Strategy (RTS). Former famous game series were Age of Empires, Command and Conquer, War Craft, Empire Earth (and some more). The genre was very popular in 1997-2005. Sadly casual Free2Play Facebook games, mobile touch and console gamepad destroyed the genre. Today no Triple-A game worth mentioning gets released in the RTS genre.

RTS is very useful and you can learn a lot.

<comment><USER29> What? RTSs are still around... Starcraft 2 was released in the last 5 years or so, for example.

<comment><USER30> Almost 7 years ago actually[1], in the gaming world i think that's a very long time.

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

<comment><USER31> Games that are played competitively tend to stick around for longer. Neither players nor audiences want to re-learn everything every year or two.

<comment><USER28> You can play old games for many years yes. But after a while it gets boring anyway.

Some of the 10-20 year old RTS games got released as HD-editions recently. But they are just the same old games. What is really needed are new games with new content. Not just lame cheap re-releases named "HD". The world needs new Triple-A RTS games, that are not clones of Star Craft 2. Star Craft 1, Age of Empires and Command and Conquer series were better games in many respect and this is what is missing today - non-causul non-F2P new RTS games with realistic scenarios like in C&C Generals and Age of Empires or Empire Earth series.

<comment><USER32> Aoe2 has got a couple of expansions that added more factions, however from my perspective I don't really look for more content in updates as much as better features... Spectating a game in aoe2 is a joke and watching the casters struggle with disconnects and having to synchronize replays is kinda sad.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Life is but a game.

Also, to put yourself in the shoes of a country (in terms of crisis). Imagine you're a guy with several women:

Some women are chill with being friends and understand that. Some women want you to settle, but you don't or can't. Some women just hate you. Some women share no interest but could be converted depending on time, resource allocation (e.g. time or else), etc.

After a while things seem simple, then you notice time conflicts, argument conflicts. Then you begin to think: "What if they're doing the same thing I'm doing?"

Then comes in the role of intelligence collection and plausible deniability as well of minimizing evidence showing alternative events of the same story.

Then, of course will come a time when alliances are formed. Are you with them, or are you not? Intel sharing? What if they compare the metadata of x and y event and see an outlier?

</comment><comment><USER34> Interesting. I submitted this same story about a week ago and nobody cared until Ars Technica picked it up.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13863084](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13863084)

<comment><USER35> I feel your pain. I wanted to build board games for training in my org three years ago and management said it wasn't an interesting idea!

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Reasoning under uncertainty, game theory, and counterfactuals.

</comment><comment><USER37> They should try Tak. :)</comment>


Ask HN: Is it a good idea to switch jobs now? - <AUTHOR> Here's the situation: I currently have a stable position in a stable company set in a stable country. Most things are going well, but there are some aspects that do make me absolutely miserable. I tried changing these, but it's sisyphean. I was about to quit, but then Corona came along with a potentially severe recession in the wake.
What next? Insulate myself from the annoyances and remain fast? Or switch while things are roughly ok?
Crises can be an opportunity, so maybe jumping aboard the right ship at the right time could be one of the better decisions I can make.
Tips? People in a similar situation? <comment><USER2> probably a bad idea to quit today. focus on making your interview skills top notch and on making your finances rock solid.

then you will be in demand and safe from most all crises.

for now, when something annoying happens at your job, just smile and nod, and then forget it :)

good luck!!</comment>


Tales from Comcast's data cap nation: Can the meter be trusted? - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/09/tales-from-comcasts-data-cap-nation-can-the-meter-be-trusted/?href= <comment><USER2> > (Note: there are 24 hours in a standard Earth day.)

Obvious, but unfortunately irrelevant, since you can run multiple instances of Netflix simultaneously.

Accidentally leave it auto-playing some long series and it's not hard to believe that you might actually be watching 33hrs a day.</comment>


Nike Says Its $250 Running Shoes Will Make You Run Much Faster - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/07/18/upshot/nike-vaporfly-shoe-strava.html <comment><USER2> Articles like this make me want to get a NYTimes sub, excellent reporting on something mundane with enough statistics to make it worth the read.

If we ban shoes now, will we ban other augments in the future? Will this stunt the progression of such human performance augmentations?

<comment><USER3> We seem to take it very much case by case. Running efficiency augments are controversial. Drugs are verboten. But better bicycles are OK, and football players can wear eyeblack and grip-enhancing gloves.

The closer a sport is to pure human performance, though, the more sensitive we seem to be about it. Perhaps out of a sense of continuity through the ages. Yeah, we train better than Athenian athletes. But we still run the same way with the same air and the same gravity.

I'm not terribly worried about stunting development of augments; it's practically the DoD's charter to develop and productize unfair advantages.

<comment><USER4> > We seem to take it very much case by case.

The principle is very consistent: You can't do something that gives you an unfair advantage over other competitors. Everything banned basically falls into one of three categories:

\- It would be prohibitively expensive for others to adopt the technology. This is why you have weight minimums for bikes, boats, etc.

\- Others would have to risk their health to compete. This is why you have bans of performance enhancing drugs, blood doping, etc.

\- Others would have to break the law to compete. This is why you have bans on illegal drugs, even if they're not necessarily performance enhancing.

Occasionally things are also banned to preserve comparability to current records or to preserve the aesthetic sense of the sport, but for the most part when something is banned it's for one of the three enumerated reasons.

<comment><USER5> "unfair advantage" is particularly hard to define. We are not born equals, so there are already folks among us who have unfair advantage due to their genes, their upbringing, their social background, etc... I would say the definition is still blur. What if you have a medical condition that impairs you in some ways but make you stronger for doing one type of tasks? Is that unfair?

<comment><USER6> Genetic advantage is what we're testing for in these running experiments though. It isn't an unfair advantage, it's the whole point.

<comment><USER7> I like your comment and agree with it. The purpose of such sports, especially the Olympics, is to test for genetic (and, I'll add environmental & epigentic) advantages.

Your thoughts on Caster Semenya's "advantages"?

<comment><USER8> Events like the Olympics - and athletics as we know it - will lose the public's attention if the most publicsed events (e.g. men's 100m) become giant genetics microoptimization pissing contests - but it's the direction the sports-science industrial complex is heading in anyway; but I hope it will lead to less contested sports becoming more popular.

<comment><USER9> Genetics will be interesting, but I wonder if we eventually reach a point where it's even beyond that. To use Gattaca as an example, a person with vastly inferior genetics was able to outperform genetically perfect individuals through sheer "human spirit" (the film's term) which manifested as work ethic, drive, will, etc.

I could see a future where we've settled on the perfect genetic template for specific disciplines so we progress on to brain chemistry and/or psychology in order to reproduce the spirit aspect which separates the merely genetically blessed from the world class athletes.

<comment><USER8> [Gattaca spoiler warnings]

> outperform genetically perfect individuals through sheer "human spirit" (the > film's term) which manifested as work ethic, drive, will, etc.

I didn't like Gattaca's message for that reason: it's fallacious to suggest those mental attributes aren't also subject to genetic advantages.

Another issue with the story is that the protagonist has a heart condition, and in the end he got on the spaceship's crew, which meant other people's lives were put at risk if he collapsed due to that heart condition in-transit. Salute the human spirit, but he put others at risk for his own benefit, and that's irresponsible and immoral.

> I could see a future where we've settled on the perfect genetic template for > specific disciplines so we progress on to brain chemistry and/or psychology > in order to reproduce the spirit aspect which separates the merely > genetically blessed from the world class athletes.

Adderall, lol.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The aggressive opinion on regulating these shoes seems over the top to me, the next best shoes, the relatively unheralded Nike Streak, provided a 3% performance improvement, and more runners achieved a personal best with those shoes. And improvements with the vapor fly 4% were smaller for faster runners. Also many runners choose shoes based on injury prevention and comfort - if a shoe gets you to the starting line uninjured with plenty of training miles that's an infinite time improvement over pulling out of the race injured.

Wired did a good analysis on this too [https://www.wired.com/story/do-nike- zoom-vaporfly-make-you-r...](https://www.wired.com/story/do-nike-zoom- vaporfly-make-you-run-faster/)

<comment><USER11> If it were just "the shoes make you faster" there would be nothing to discuss. The debate centers around a qualitative difference: "The shoes have a 'spring' in them that make you faster."

It's similar to a mini version of prosthetics such as Pistorius's that were banned from Olympic competition, as they are basically big metal springs on the end of your legs. The Vaporfly was explicitly designed to use this spring principle, i.e. store mechanical energy in a carbon fiber plate and release it back on toe-off.

So some, like me, feel that shoes for competition should not be allowed to mechanically assist the runner. It's not about percentages, it's a simple binary criterion.

<comment><USER10> If you think the plate is such a qualitative difference you may have fallen for Nike's marketing. The vapor fly 4% is very lightweight with an excellent cushioning to weight ratio thanks partly to Nike's new zoomx foam (which possibly provides superior energy return too). Shoes with plates in them have been around for a while and nobody complained - Mizuno shoes have plates like this as does the Nike zoom fly (different shoe), neither shoe is very high on the list or higher than you would expect based on its weight alone.

Look at the top shoes on the list - the Nike streak is a super lightweight shoe without Nike's new foam and it is second fastest. This should tell you weight alone is probably the most important factor. Two other highly rated shoes are Adidas shoes with boost foam, a type of foam similar to Nike's zoomx with a better cushioning to weight ratio. So the newest generation of foam probably provides a small benefit apart from the she's weight alone.

Runners capable of running a three hour marathon probably know the single most important factor in a running shoe for speed is weight. If they still choose to run in Saucony Guide or Hokas there's probably a good reason. What percent of runners who switched to the Saucony Guide were injured and used the shoes to recover, and what percent of runners in heavier shoes with more cushioning and stability features made it to the Starting line vs runners in Nike streaks? It's possible the heavier shoes provide protection from injury or greater comfort - there's a reason runners don't race marathons in track spikes.

I don't think the plate provides much benefit apart from weight and cushioning, my guess is that it is there for the feel of the shoe and without it the new foam would feel too mushy.

<comment><USER11> The point isn't whether I think it works in providing mechanical assistance. The point is whether it is intended to provide mechanical assistance, which as you mention from Nike's marketing, seems to be yes.

Try this: [http://sportsscientists.com/2017/03/ban-nike-vaporfly- carbon...](http://sportsscientists.com/2017/03/ban-nike-vaporfly-carbon-fiber- devices-future-performance-credibility/)

By the way, it doesn't really bother me if 3-hour marathoners want to wear them, or even 2:30 marathoners, but if you're competing for prize money, I think this sort of thing should be banned. At least the sport needs a discussion of where to draw the line on such devices.

<comment><USER10> So if a faster shoe came along (Vapor Fly 5%) that didn't use a plate, that would be okay? But if people preferred the Vapor Fly 4% over the faster shoe, they couldn't use it because of the plate? . . .

The patent application Ross Tucker cites has close to zero applicability. Nike has been working on a different energy return "spring" shoe that probably would be illegal - the patent could be for those shoes. And people claim lots of things in patents, that doesn't make the claims true. All shoes have some combination of firmness and cushioning, and shoes have used an embedded firm plate design before, and nobody complained.

What if a biomechanics lab proved the Vapor Fly 4% is not acting as a spring but makes runners more efficient through some other mechanism (firm underfoot feeling but lots of cushioning)?

<comment><USER11> > _So if a faster shoe came along (Vapor Fly 5%) that didn't use a plate, that > would be okay?_

Right, according to my logic, it would be fine if there was a shoe that was faster empirically but not designed to cheat. (In other words, cheating is still cheating even if you're bad at it.)

Analogy: if a silver medalist is on EPO and the gold medalist isn't, the silver medalist is still cheating and the gold medalist still is not.

Your second paragraph does not match my understanding of the issue. I believe the Vaporfly is the shoe with the embedded carbon fiber plate, and I don't think other shoes (except maybe spikes) with this technology have ever been worn, at least in top level races.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> >Compared with typical training shoes, the Vaporflys are believed to wear out quickly: Some runners have said they lose their effectiveness after 100 miles or so.

This is about two weeks of peak marathon training, although if the shoes are as advantageous as the article claims that's impressive in any case. I suppose one could reserve them for races and train with cheaper shoes.

<comment><USER13> The idea is that you don't train in them, you save them for the race.

(My last marathon training period peaked at a little over 70mpw. Normal trainers last me about 500-600 miles, my lighter shoes (Kinvaras) last 400-500, and my race flats even less than that)

<comment><USER14> You don't use your race as an occasion to test your running shoes.

<comment><USER15> With these you do. Maybe do a 3 mile tune-up run to make sure there are not hot spots and it fits well, then you go race in it. Can't spend 50 miles breaking in a shoe with a life of 100 miles.

<comment><USER14> Maybe not a particular pair, but you have to have experience with any types of shoes. I would frequently buy two pairs, one I would normally train in and the other will be reserved for events. Even the pair reserved for event I would typically test run (hahaha!) at least once during training to spot any problems.

Now, this is pure conjecture, I don't think the shoes magically make you more efficient. Efficiency is something you learn when running over long period of time. I would expect, to reap benefits of these shoes (assuming there are) you would need to get used to the new mechanics of running that the shoes will require.

<comment><USER15> A carbon fiber spring isn't magic, it's mechanical engineering. Your foot has a natural spring built into it. This is just slightly more efficient.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> What a phenomenal piece of journalism. If anything, I think a piece like this can expose the limits of statistical analysis to the unfamiliar. They made a very thorough analysis of something rather boring, all without making untrue statements about the limitations of each approach. I enjoyed this a lot.

<comment><USER17> Either that or a brilliant piece of Nike PR masquerading as journalism. Doesn't Nike also sell $400 basketball shoes that make you jump higher?

<comment><USER18> Having worked for Nike on ads and in the publishing industry (on branded print content), I am very comfortable saying this is 100% an ad. If it weren't, it simply wouldn't be run, because that would justify future Nike ad $$$ to competing publications so as to not clump too much branding in one outlet, a tell-tale sign of a _deal_. It takes a unique very scenario for a pub like NYT to just hand something like this to a company like Nike; nothing about this even moves that needle. I am similarly comfortable asserting the rough draft was written by Nike in-house, simply because their people have this stuff falling out of their heads already. NYT leading this would cost multitudes in efficiency.

<comment><USER19> I think it would be illegal to run this without disclosing that it's an ad.

<comment><USER18> I don't. It's done all the time regardless.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Best review of the shoes: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXdxKamJDg8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXdxKamJDg8)

<comment><USER21> Does he blink?

<comment><USER22> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXdxKamJDg8&t=20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXdxKamJDg8&t=20)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Whatever happened to the whole "born to run" thing, which surveyed a lot of evidence that running shoes - recent inventions - cause injuries almost universally, that you're better off with totally minimal shoes if not no shoes at all.

<comment><USER24> Generally found to be untrue. Lots of different running styles and gaits. Runners generally take the "shoe for every stride" approach now rather than a "one style fits all" mindset.

<comment><USER25> Not saying you're wrong but do you have any evidence to say it's "Generally found to be untrue".

<comment><USER26> The question is more whether the "barefoot is best" meme was ever more than theory/anecdote.

[https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/05/is-barefoot- style-...](https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/05/is-barefoot-style- running-best-new-studies-cast-doubt/)

As others have said, people are different. There might well be a subset of runners for whom a barefoot/minimal style is best, but AFAICT it's a minority at best, so "generally found to be untrue" is a pretty good summary.

<comment><USER25> To be honest that article just says that both techniques are similar in efficiency, which I think no one really disputed.

There is also a claim which I'm not so familiar with which is that bare foot runners think their feet will become more "taught and spring like", ,not really familiar with that idea.

What I'm interested in, and the article doesn't discuss is the injury rate between runners who run barefoot and without shoes. I haven't any studies which say I'm more likely to be injured when going barefoot.

I think the real reason more people wear shoes is that there is seems to be something taboo about going shoeless. As a bare foot runner I feel judged for taking off the shoes and going for a run.

Edit: To the point about people who tried barefoot shoes and were injured, that's probably because just running without shoes on with the same technique for 10 weeks isn't an advisable way to run without shoes. It's quite a different exercise.

<comment><USER26> > I haven't any studies which say I'm more likely to be injured when going > barefoot.

Can you cite any studies at _all_ on the subject, even showing the converse? It's not clear why the entire burden of proof should be on one side.

> As a bare foot runner I feel judged for taking off the shoes and going for a > run.

I've only been running a bit over four years, and I've seen plenty of judging from both sides. Personally, I have something that works for me, even through New England winters when barefoot simply isn't an option. If somebody half my age and half my annual mileage wants to look down their nose at me because I wear pretty standard shoes, all I can do is laugh.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> If these shoes really can provide a measurable improvement in times they probably _should_ be banned. Otherwise it will go the way of swimming, where a bunch of world records got set before they ended up banning those full body suits.

<comment><USER28> As a runner I want shoes to get more efficient and better. What is about todays running shoe that makes them acceptable, and that anything better is some form of cheating? I don't agree with what they did in swimming, those body suits where amazing, and that they got banned was really sad. But even if you agree with banning them. Shoes in running are a not comparable to full body swimming suits. Shoes are an central part of running, the swimming suit is not that in swimming. If you ban improvement on something so core to running as the shoes, what is left to innovate on?

<comment><USER29> Because the sport is better for everyone if you aren't required to buy $250 shoes to have a chance to win. It's the same with the swim suits. If a new piece of equipment comes out that makes you 5% more efficient, then anyone who wants a chance to actually compete needs to buy it. It's just like a tax on competitors.

Otherwise running and swimming would just turn into cycling where you are basically forced to buy an expensive bike to compete.

<comment><USER30> No one other than a small group of elite athletes is ever expected to win a marathon, it's mainly a race against yourself.

<comment><USER31> Not when it comes to boston qualifying, or running scholarships.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> So at what point can we just start using jumping stilts [1] or something similar? I mean the shoes are $250 and the stilts from Amazon [2] are like $50 more when you include shipping.

WRT to carbon fiber plate... how is that not "cheating" like the stilts? Its like electric motors in bicycles if you ask me.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCqvUGFwee4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCqvUGFwee4) [2] [https://www.amazon.com/Air-Trekkers-JUMPING-EXTREME- Exercise...](https://www.amazon.com/Air-Trekkers-JUMPING-EXTREME-Exercise- PROTECTION/dp/B01EBL5OCW)

<comment><USER13> IAAF rules already prohibit that:

> (e) Use of any technical device that incorporates springs, wheels or any > other element that provides the user with an advantage over another athlete > not using such a device.

Nobody has brought a challenge over this shoe and its debatable use of a "spring"; the IAAF may in fact decide it's a mechanical advantage if/when somebody does

<comment><USER32> Great comment. Now, how often are officials confiscating shoes and sawing them in half to see what is really inside?

Corked bats? Hidden motors... etc...

<comment><USER33> Nobody had even a proof of concept for a shoe that looked like a running shoe on the outside but had "springs, wheels" inside, so the officials didn't need to. Compare it with competitive cycling, where for a hundred years officials didn't need to X-ray the bike to check for hidden motors, but now they regularly do [0].

If the Nike shoe is banned from professional competition, athletes will stop wearing it, and officials will investigating other shoes for carbon fibre inserts, and will likely catch some. They're not stupid.

[0][https://cyclingtips.com/2015/04/hidden-motors-for-road- bikes...](https://cyclingtips.com/2015/04/hidden-motors-for-road-bikes-exist- heres-how-they-work/amp/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> This reminds me of the powerful arguments that Christopher McDougall presented in his book (Born to Run[1]) around bare-foot running [2]. I've tried running bare-foot and using old-ragged shoes and absolutely love it.

[1]: [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6289283-born-to- run](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6289283-born-to-run)

[2]: [http://www.chrismcdougall.com/born-to-run/the-barefoot- runni...](http://www.chrismcdougall.com/born-to-run/the-barefoot-running- debate/)

<comment><USER35> Any reason this should be down voted? I read that "born to run" was partly a scam book (can't recall exactly, but the cover was photoshopped for one, and the stories about some runners never getting hurt was just totally false, etc...)

But barefoot running is a great way to run, no knee or back issues after doing this for years.

<comment><USER36> possibly because these shoes and the article are exactly the opposite of barefoot running?

<comment><USER35> It still seems like a relevant response if these shoes (long term) are even more detrimental to our bodies the previous designs. He was pointing out that the appeal of these shoes appears to be simply mimicking what the body already does. I took this as a valid criticism of these shoes.

This is especially relevant because there's been decades of shoe manufacturers designing for poor running form.

Surely HN isn't just for commenting on support of a product in a linked story, but also considered criticism?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> There's something interesting at play here — clearly, they're selling these shoes to enthusiasts, rather than just targeting elite athletes.

While I can see a competitive athlete reaching for whatever legal means they can to try and buy themselves a victory or podium or some other high-profile result that buys them sponsorships, there's just no good reason why amateur runners should care — you don't magically become a fitter, better runner by posting faster numbers through fancier shoes. Selling people on to the idea that they _should_ care about this is, depending on perspective marketing at either its finest or at its worst.

<comment><USER38> This isn't really stated or testing, but one of my biggest issues with running is how much pain I feel on my joints. I actually find it really enjoyable to run through the woods with my dog, but my knees just get mad. If these shoes relieved just a tiny bit of that pain I would find them almost worth it. Not saying one should buy an expensive pair of shoes, but if it was the case, maybe the shoes don't just make you run better, but actually walk better and more safe?

<comment><USER39> If your knees hurt it's either a form problem (you're likely overstriding or lifting your knees too high and slamming your feet into the ground), or a shoe problem (shoes are only good for 300-600 miles of running, assuming you never wear them walking and that you let them bounce back at least overnight after a run, or you're wearing like... motion control and heavily padded shoes when you need less stability or less padding, or vice versa)

Other options are bad knees (unlikely, honestly. Not many people have knees that are so genuinely shot that they can't run, unless they're former paratroopers or are very years old)

Or, if you're carrying a lot of extra weight (backpack full of water? I don't know, people do whatever they do), that'll hurt.

Since you're talking about running in the woods, it's almost definitely not the sidewalk, but, some people need to build up their muscles and tendons by going from softer surfaces (not so soft like sand, but grass) to ashphalt, to concrete.

<comment><USER40> Don't forget lack of ankle mobility. If the ankle can't do the job, the knee tries to, and that doesn't work all that well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> It's fun and exhilarating to run faster, but very few people, almost by definition, enter the ranks of elite runners. One of the best pieces of advice I heard while training for my first marathon was "No one here in this (beginner) training group is going to finish in first place." Obviously, I knew this was true about me, but it always reminded me to keep my goals for doing a marathon in perspective.

I had set a goal for myself and a faster set of shoes might have gotten me to the Boston marathon a year sooner, but it was the journey not the destination that was so rewarding.

<comment><USER42> > "No one here in this (beginner) training group is going to finish in first > place."

Almost always true. But it's fun to dream about being in Bill Rodgers' situation (in running or any other activity). In 1973 he was chain-smoking bar-regular who liked eating pizza topped with mayonnaise and who had no interest in running marathons. In 1975 he was the fastest American ever.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Shoes so fast they might have to be banned. Good old marketing trick.

</comment><comment><USER44> When cleats were first introduced to soccer decades ago people had the same debate. I think technological advancements changing a sport is inevitable. What if Adidas makes a similar shoes that makes you 3% faster? 2% 1%? where do you draw the line?

<comment><USER45> Why not make pro football players wear standardized shoes during a game? The issue with customized shoes I see is wealthier teams will have better equipment.

<comment><USER46> > Why not make pro football players wear standardized shoes during a game?

I don't know whether this image is accurate, but: [https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/es- footb...](https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/es-football- boot-deals-graphic.jpg)

Really though, standardised boots would probably not kill this market. In cricket, for example, it's common for players to use a bat that is dressed up to look like the product of their sponsor, while actually being manufactured by someone else entirely. This is a bit of an open secret, so I guess that footwear companies would also be willing to pay good money to have 'their' boots worn by the big stars, even if the public knew that they weren't allowed to be meaningfully different from the boots everyone else was wearing.

A genuinely good reason not to force standardised boots is just how different everyone's needs are. Feet don't just differ in size, but in shape (in three dimensions), not to mention all the other things that can affect a person's natural gait, weight distribution and so on. I think it would be hard to write regulations tight enough to preclude an unfair advantage for richer teams, without also forcing some players into boots that would be not only sub- optimal but even dangerous (in the sense of increasing the risk of injury).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> If true I wouldn't discount the benefit, even small. It reminds me the theory of _marginal gains_ popularized by Team SKY in cycling. In the aggregate all these small details add-up and may make the difference.

<comment><USER48> True. At the absolute top probably 0.1% will already make a big difference.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Props to whomever at Nike PR got this article released. Now I want a pair. Its better to be controversial (Uber, Lime, Bird) these days than on the up and up. Help us fight for consumer rights!

<comment><USER27> Comparing these shoes to Uber's issues seems a bit odd. Particularly since there isn't anything all that amoral about them.

<comment><USER49> Just the initial Uber launch issues. I view municipalities questioning whether Uber should be allowed to operate in their jurisdiction as akin to should these shoes be legal in races.

<comment><USER27> Ah, that makes a whole lot more sense. I completely misunderstood.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Running shoes are funny things. Due to the fact that they are basically a weight at the end of a long fulcrum, the heavier they are the slower you will go. Plus they are full of padding which messes up the natural springs you already have built into your feet.

It is not surprising someone invented a shoe that is somewhat lighter which makes it faster. I find the spring idea somewhat dubious but maybe they do give you a slight boost. My question would be how fast you can run in these vs with no shoes on at all.

<comment><USER51> Vaporfly is actually heavier than some other racing flats that have performed worse, like the Nike Zoom Streak 6. So your theory of what is happening doesn't fit, unfortunately.

Regenerative braking makes cars heavier and generally only returns 4-5% energy, but you don't see people demanding their electrics don't have it, do you? This is the same sort of thing for running shoes, but with energy returning foams and plates making their weight worthwhile for improving effectiveness instead.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> I'm surprised they didn't compare the Vaporfly 4% to two other shoes: the Nike Zoom Fly and the Reebok Floatride Run Fast. The former is an identical shoe, but with the Pebax replaced with another foam (Lunarlon?). The latter is another Pebax foam shoe, but in a different form factor. That way they could tease out of it is the material or the shoe design.

</comment><comment><USER53> I know nothing about running shoes, but there is a very quantifiable difference between a $100 pair of road cycling shoes and a $250 pair. Stiffness of sole, comfort, weight, a lot of things.

As in many things in road cycling there is a certain point of diminishing returns (a $550 seatpost hand blessed by some artisan in italy is not significantly better than an aluminum Thomson).

</comment><comment><USER54> Maybe it is a self-filtering effect, they should have shown a graph of shoe price vs improvement, and improvement over time.

That would capture if those willing to pay more are self-selecting for being better, training more, etc. And if today the effect is stronger than a year ago, perhaps because of rumors of it making you faster.

</comment><comment><USER55> I think they didn't answer an important question: Did runners switching back to other shoes get slower again?

<comment><USER56> "Runners who improved their performance in Vaporflys and then switched to other shoes got slower.

There were very few runners in our data who met this criterion: We counted just 24 such races. But these runners finished about 7 percent slower on average than they did while wearing the Vaporflys. (Of the 24 races, 17 races were slower, and 7 were faster.)"

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> This is cool, but since I'm not a professional runner I'd love shoes that could reduce the likelihood that I develop an injury.

</comment><comment><USER58> To quote Mars Blackmon, "It's got to be the shoes."

(In ref. to Nike's Air Jordan ad campaign)

</comment><comment><USER59> I have been hearing the motto: "High tech shoes: low tech runner"

Not sure how accurate it might be...

</comment><comment><USER60> Very likely an ads in disguised, such a shame seeing things like this in newspapers.

</comment><comment><USER61> But then what would be the point? Are we going back to old hunting tactics?

</comment><comment><USER62> The title image animated gif should come with a seizure warning lol

</comment><comment><USER63> Yes, but will they make me get off my ass and go running?

<comment><USER64> I bought an expensive carbon fiber bicycle and the price tag made me feel guilty if i didn't ride it more.

So, maybe.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> I don't know, sandals work pretty good.

> they have a carbon-fiber plate in the midsole, which stores and releases > energy with each stride

... the achilles tendon + calf already play this role.

Just don't heel strike.

<comment><USER66> Ahh yes, of course, sandals. A few people have won the Boston marathon in sandals, right?

<comment><USER67> It's possible to run at or near an elite level without modern running shoes. For example the 1960 Olympic marathon was won by a barefoot competitor (his winning time of 2:15:16.2 would be considered sub-elite today) [1].

One can speculate why all elite runners use shoes. Worth noting that running shoes designed for racing, as opposed to training, tend to be thinner and lighter and closer to a simple sandal [2]. I personally reverted from bare feet back to shoes after the occasional thorn or bit of glass getting stuck in my foot became too annoying.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abebe_Bikila#1960_Rome_Olympic...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abebe_Bikila#1960_Rome_Olympics)

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> Placebo effect.

<comment><USER69> No. If this were really a psychological boost given by switching to a new pair of shoes, regardless of model, then the Vaporflies would show no statistical difference to other similarly priced shoes in the 'switching' test.

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> This isn't journalism, this is marketing.

</comment><comment><USER36> I hope they somehow collected the official gun and chip times for those runners because the times and distances on Strava are _never_ the official ones and can vary massively (GPS accuracy, when people pressed start on their watches and so forth)

<comment><USER71> GPS distances can vary somewhat, but is there any reason to believe they should be biased in favor of GPS-using runners with these shoes instead of averaging out?

<comment><USER36> no but that's not the point: if the data is unreliable then it's unreliable.

And here it's unreliable in a way that cannot be accounted for since it can be massively (e.g. minutes) over or under the actual time per individual.

<comment><USER71> You're still talking about data error magnitude as if it explains bias. It does not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> Can someone please explain to me why this isn't a classic "correlation does not imply causality"?

This is not a randomized trial, which means that if there is a bias of "better athletes spend more on their shoes" then it can also explain the 4% increase of Nike Vaporfly.

<comment><USER73> Sure, the NYT will explain that very thoroughly to you if you'd like to read the article.

</comment></comment><comment><USER74> Wear running shoes that save your feet. Utilize a wide toe-box that help prevent Morton's Neuroma and other foot injuries. Maybe you won't get there as quickly (debatable) but you'll still be able to walk when you're older ... long after the confetti has been cleaned up.

</comment><comment><USER14> There might be a simpler explanation. People that are willing to spend $250 on racers mmay be more serious than average runner. It might also be that the act of putting on $250 shoes may have purely psychological effect to stimulate runner as not doing their best could have additional perceived cost of wasting money spent on very expensive shoes.

<comment><USER71> They did attempt to control for this in other ways (at least skim the article), but it's true that at the end of the day you cannot control for any psychological factor.

<comment><USER14> "Attempt to control" is not the same thing as proving it. You yourself admitted "you cannot control for any psychological factor". Well, maybe you can, but definitely it is not easy.

Now, you get a lot of data on lots of people running in non-laboratory setting. The people tested actually bought the shoes and we know, if they paid for them, they have invested in them and the idea that the shoes represent.

The idea behind this pair of shoes is "extreme efficiency even at high cost". What you get is you get people that may have been biased by the act of selection based on the idea and then you compare them to other people who chose to buy other pair of shoes.

Let's test this idea. Let's say you are comparing Lamborghini to Fiat with regards to whether the car is safe. Instead of doing laboratory tests, you decide to mine data of all miles ever driven in all cars ever produced. Now, you see that, on average, Lamborghini last less between crashes and then are more frequently totaled.

Is your conclusion that Lamborghinis are less safe than Fiats or maybe your conclusion should be that it is actually difficult to say given the data because there might be other factors at work (for example, Lamborghini buyers may be biased to be drivers that tend to drive faster and less safe?) It might also be that the act of sitting behind wheel of Lambo may cause you to drive less safely.

<comment><USER71> > "Attempt to control" is not the same thing as proving it.

Understood.

> You yourself admitted "you cannot control for any psychological factor".

Your comment suggests we disagree, but I don't think we actually disagree on both the possible impact and lack of ability to control for psychological factors.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Why do women always feel colder than men? - <AUTHOR> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5106854.ece <comment><USER2> My wife's a portable furnace and I'm cold-blooded. Incidentally, she also grabs the comforter at night, hooks it under her torso and rolls up in a burrito. I have purchased a second comforter.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm going to write an 'informational' article today about keeping cool with 'helpful' and convenient links to products from stores that have in no way anything to do with this article, myself or my company. And of course there will be no sort of financial agreement that benefits me as the author in exchange for sending traffic to these web stores.

/end sarcasm

</comment><comment><USER4> Anybody who thinks women ALWAYS feel colder than men has obviously not lived with a menopausal woman... Talk about role reversal!

</comment><comment><USER5> Women have less blood than men (and narrower blood vessels), so they can't keep their extremities warm as effectively.

EDIT: Didn't notice this was an actual link, but that's probably what the article says anyway.

<comment><USER6> The article says this:

 _And women really do feel the cold more than men, but this is because they are better at conserving heat than men. Mark Newton, a scientist at W.L. Gore, the company that makes Gore-Tex, and a researcher at the University of Portsmouth, explains: "Women have a more evenly distributed fat layer and can pull all their blood back to their core organs."_

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Spoiler alert: boobs.</comment>


Could we make encrypted text look like some random unencrypted text? - <AUTHOR> Would it be useful to (say, using ML) encrypt text such that the ciphertext looked like intelligible text itself? So you could hide an encrypted message in plain sight? Has this been done? <comment><USER2> You don't even need ML. Let's say you use some standard encryption routine to turn text into a string of numbers.

You could then use those numbers as an index into another text corpus, let's say a known copy of the Bible.

The only hiccup would be to make sure each verse is unique so you can decrypt properly.

</comment><comment><USER3> The field is called steganography.</comment>


Kim Dotcom reveals Mega will offer 50GB of free storage - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/01/17/kim-dotcom-reveals-mega-will-offer-50gb-of-free-storage-hopes-to-offer-megaupload-data-transfer/ <comment><USER2> They'll have their work cut out for them making a more compelling product than dropbox.

</comment><comment><USER3> Any guesses on how payments will work?

<comment><USER4> My guess? My hope? Bitcoin.</comment></comment>