The Mystery of S., a Man with an Impossible Memory (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-mystery-of-s-the-man-with-an-impossible-memory <comment><USER2> For a slightly more modern occurrence of something similar, the actress Marilu Henner also has total, perfect recall: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilu_Henner](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilu_Henner)

<comment><USER3> There was a 60 minutes from several years ago with her and a handful of others with this ability.

[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-gift-of-endless- memory/](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-gift-of-endless-memory/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This explains a lot about S. The mystery book with an additional story in the margins and various artefacts tucked in the pages.

[https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17860739-s](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17860739-s)

</comment><comment><USER5> As a memory researcher, I'd be interested in conducting case studies on such superior (not perfect) recall. In particular, I'd like to examine relational memory under incidental encoding conditions with materials not easily verbalized with relations that are arbitrary. hat is, I am interested whether their hippocampal dependent memory is superior, and/or whether it depends mostly on extrahippocampal processes such as semantic-based organizational mnemonics.

<comment><USER6> Do you have an example of something like that?

<comment><USER5> I'm not sure what you mean exactly. If you mean what kind of paradigm may be used to try to get performance to inordinately depend on hippocampally- mediated binding processes? See Konkel and Cohen, 2008 _Hippocampal amnesia impairs all manner of relational memory_ or my own paper, Lee et al 2016: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4733390/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4733390/) ..although these were not under incidental encoding.

<comment><USER6> > incidental encoding conditions with materials not easily verbalized with > relations that are arbitrary

An example of such conditions and materials.

<comment><USER5> [https://i.imgur.com/dqBFwBp.png](https://i.imgur.com/dqBFwBp.png) from Konkel et al, 2008

Objects which are hard to name and have little meaning (very novel), and the relations between them (e.g. spatial position, temporal order) are arbitrary. These tend to impede organizational encoding or retrieval strategies. Not impossible, but harder. You might be able to tag a color, but after seeing a few dozen, that is hard.

<comment><USER6> Interesting. Thanks for the examples, those do seem challenging. I suspect I'd do astoundingly well on that test in the medium to long term, at least compared to population norms, and quite abysmal in the very short and short term without time to process and encode the memories.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > The editor picked up a newspaper and read at length from it, challenging S. > to repeat everything back to him. When S. did so verbatim, the editor sent > him to have his head examined.

Not sure whether intentional but this is the funniest thing I've read in a long time.

<comment><AUTHOR> There are all sorts of hilarious little absurdist anecdotes in the book. Take this one:

 _S: I 'm sitting in a restaurant—there's music. You know why they have music in restaurants? Because it changes the taste of everything. If you select the right kind of music, everything tastes good. Surely people who work in restaurants know this._

<comment><USER8> Well, that's not really absurd or far for the truth. Music is selected for its effects on the consumer in all kinds of commercial establishments, and besides trial-and-error (this kind of music works best for people to drink more in our bar etc) there are lots of commercial research into it.

<comment><AUTHOR> In the context of the story and Shereshevsky's personality, it is. To him, a person with extremely strong synesthesia, musical sounds literally have flavors, flavors that are as strong as actual real food to a normal person.

He isn't saying, "Restaurants play certain music to push customers to feel a certain way," he's literally saying that the flavors of music can match and enhance the flavors of food.

<comment><USER9> It could still be argued that the difference is in degree rather than in kind- that the 'extra bandwidth connecting his senses' allowed him to clearly articulate as sensation a phenomenon much more subconscious in the typical patron's mind.

<comment><AUTHOR> No, not really. If you read the book, you will see that his mind was very idiosyncratic and the associations he made were highly unique and imagination- based, and _not_ some sort of heightened sensory input.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Very interesting. I find myself in the odd position of having an extraordinary memory akin to (though perhaps not as extreme as) Shereshevsky that is not especially useful to me.

I often put it as "I don't think my memory is that good, but I've never met someone with a better memory to check it against". I often find myself reminding people of interactions we've had, conversations, what we had for dinner, what they were wearing... Largely ephemeral recollections of no particular relevance.

</comment><comment><USER10> A small discussion from last year: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14997702](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14997702)

</comment><comment><USER11> A friend of mine has a very, very good memory. He says it not always an advantage as he can't forget the bad things either.

</comment><comment><USER12> Am I the only one thinks that The New Yorker takes 5 pages to give 1 page of information? Their articles are so frustrating to read!

<comment><AUTHOR> The New Yorker is a literary magazine, not an encyclopedia. If you're reading it purely for gathering information, I suggest the Wikipedia article [1] or Luria's book itself instead. [2]

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

[2] [http://arteflora.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Luria-The- Mi...](http://arteflora.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Luria-The-Mind-of-a- Mnemonist.pdf)

<comment><USER13> I've always wished "long form" articles would put an abstract at the beginning.

<comment><USER14> Me too.

I even tried to see if such a "summary" would be a viable business: [https://github.com/simonebrunozzi/MNMN/blob/master/Weekly- Su...](https://github.com/simonebrunozzi/MNMN/blob/master/Weekly- Summaries/2016-10.md)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Do y'all think folks with such memory will make better programmers?

<comment><USER16> From what I'm reading on Wikipedia it isn't equivalent to being able to memorize information. The skill is limited to being able to recall autobiographical details...so what you had for lunch in 1992 but not what you read in this CS textbook.</comment></comment>


The Next 5 Years of Chip Technology - <AUTHOR> https://semiengineering.com/the-next-5-years-of-chip-technology/ <comment><USER2> tl;dr - Existing technology will be pushed to the limits first. There are lots of new technologies currently being researched, but it's not obvious which will take over. New ideas will "scale over the next 10 years", not over the next 5 years.

Moore's law is not ending because of physical limits. It's slowing down because we don't know which option to pursue.

We are currently at 10 nm [1]. After that is 7 nm (2018), then 5 nm (2020), then 3 nm.

FinFETs will be used at 5 nm. Another technology might come at 3 nm, or later.

3D NAND memory is currently stacked at 48 layers. It will be increased to 96, 128, maybe even 256 layers. The challenge is to keep thin wafers flat when stacking them on top of each other.

DRAM will be around for a while. There are new ideas such as MRAM and XPoint, but DRAM is faster and lasts longer.

Personal addition: Existing technology will get us 2TB SDXC cards. After that we'll need a new industry standard for larger cards.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_nanometer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_nanometer)

<comment><USER3> That schedule is optimistic given recent trends. Intel has been stuck at 14nm process technology for almost 4 years now and everyone else has caught up.

<comment><USER2> The market's pretty harsh to those who don't catch up. Apple's already started making their own A-series chips. Intel will most likely get their act together soon, or pivot out of the market and move into services like IBM did.

In "The Next 5 Years" though, I think Intel will still be around, and hopefully catch up with the silicon.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Moore's law is slowing because of the exponential increase in R&D and manufacturing costs to push to the next generation.

<comment><USER5> Transistor counts are still climbing. These used to be more strongly correlated with performance, but these days it's different.

GPUs have seen exceptional gains generation to generation, ARM is absolutely on fire, and AMD just dropped a bomb with their Epyc server chips. Don't think it's dead yet. It just had a hangover from Intel getting drunk on success with the Core series of chips.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Semi industry: "A 5x denser memory cell with _no_ process changes is "too risky" "

Also semi industry: "Yeah go ahead and pour half the periodic table with ~5nm layers each on die for MRAM"

</comment><comment><USER6> Also this fanatic focus on the FEOL needs to stop, ~80% of the power consumption, even in an OoO CPU, is in the BEOL.

<comment><USER7> Could you elaborate about FEOL and BEOL?

Do those correspond to the most base layers of structure creation and modification on a chip and then the larger structured interconnect layers that get added later respectively?

<comment><USER6> FEOL = Transistors, so all the fuss about FinFETs, GAA-FETs, carbon nanotube FETs, etc.

BEOL = Interconnects. You know, the stuff that's RC quadratic and ~80% of the power consumption.

<comment><USER8> Maybe the future of interconnects is mechanical after all.

[https://www2.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2017/EECS-2017-...](https://www2.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2017/EECS-2017-21.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> No love for monolithic 3D?

:/</comment>


How things float - <AUTHOR> http://datagenetics.com/blog/june22016/index.html <comment><USER2> I have always been fascinated how little space of giant ships is actually below the water [0].

[0] [https://blog.windfluechter.net/files/uploads/fotos/AIDA/Hamb...](https://blog.windfluechter.net/files/uploads/fotos/AIDA/Hamburg_AIDAluna_im_Dock_DSC_2470.JPG)

BTW: I like how the author uses curly braces to depict water :)

<comment><USER3> Yes, it's true. I did use curly braces! Well spotted :)</comment></comment>


Founder of Silicon Valley "as detestable as he always appeared" - <AUTHOR> http://www.newstatesman.com/200607030058 <comment><USER2> Anyone have any idea what the author's agenda is here? Why am I reading a hit piece on Shockley written 17 years after his death?

</comment><comment><USER3> Is this article saying that if you think that biological inheritable traits exist, then you will be a sociopath and a failure like Shockley ---despite the best science?

<comment><USER4> Well, he was an advocate of eugenics. He looked at the data available to him and came to a reasonable conclusion. But "reason", you may have noticed, can really, really piss people off when it goes up against conclusions they've drawn from other sources. As an experiment, write down the 10-15 best arguments you have against the practice of tattooing. Then, go up to someone who has tattoos and say, "Here are the reasons why tattoos are bad." Prepare for some incredible, but mute, rage staring you down after that.

Now, try the same thing with human biology: "Here are the top 10 reasons why low-IQ people should undergo voluntary sterilization". The reaction is quite a bit worse.

<comment><USER5> Hmm... Create an arbitrary definition of superiority. Weed out everyone who doesn't meet said standard. Sounds a lot like high school.</comment></comment></comment>


Google prefers to acquire startups that are pre-revenue - <AUTHOR> http://www.techvibes.com/blog/goolge-wants-to-do-even-earlier-exits

<comment><USER2> That's probably because people who do have revenue are much harder to negotiate with, and demand higher price.

<comment><USER3> That's the slightly cynical view. Another is that they want the team.

Yet another that seems most plausible to me is that pre-revenue probably means pre-baggage. If they want to shut down the service & use the technology in some new or existing Google service but some users have already prepayed for two years, how do they get out of that?

A variation of your suggestion is that they aren't really interested in your revenue so they don't want to pay for it. Most of Google's products are not directly revenue generating. That makes some sense to me. They don't want 200 $5m businesses. They want to add another billion to their existing businesses or build a new billion dollar business.

Look over these acquisitions. In which case was google out to 'buy a business' in the revenue/cashflow sense? <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acquisitions_by_Google>

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Remember folks: "Google prefers to acquire pre-revenue" is not an excuse for your startup to have no business model.

</comment><comment><USER5> I hope google buys <http://www.tineye.com/> they could integrate it into image search and make it awesome.

</comment><comment><USER6> Google's strategy: Acquire pre-revenue for low valuations so that they can make money down the road with the startups most valuable resource, the founding team.

Google's strategy works because they don't often acquire the startups for the startup's business. They acquire businesses for the people working on them.

Acquiring talent, as opposed to businesses, is cheaper and provides a ton of value and wealth creation for the company down the road.

<comment><USER7> If so, it sounds like they are basically just hiring with a larger-than- typical signing bonus.

I wonder if the teams being acquired in that fashion view it that way?

<comment><USER8> Dodgeball is one example where the team did not view it that way. The founders were excited at the time of acquisition with the directions they thought they could go with Google. After the acquisition, they found it difficult to get resources or traction within Google to improve Dodgeball. This led to them leaving.

Maybe today's teams coming in feel differently, since the Dodgeball story seems to be well known. Plus articles like this one.

That being said, there are plenty of examples where an acquisition by Google did take off. Android is the most high profile right now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Most of the time Google just wants the engineering talent. And, as a secondary advantage, additional technology that they can incorporate to their products.

</comment><comment><USER10> It would be nice if they preferred to buy my startup...

</comment><comment><USER11> It's a great recruiting shortcut -- in the Malcolm Gladwell "Blink" kind of way. And, it's a great way to snap up talent, bring it in house, see if it (the people) sticks, if not let 'em go. It's basically a real option acquired for pocket change. And that's a good thing (for Google).

</comment><comment><USER12> How do I get in on that? I can't exactly call Google and say "hey, I'm willing to sell my pre-revenue startup for $FU_MONEY"

(that offer is for real, btw, if any Googlers are reading :-) )

<comment><USER13> The caveat here is that since they are looking for pre-revenue startups they are basically using the process as a short-circuited recruiting/hiring system. You are not going to get big money out of the deal because you have nothing that they want to pay for other than your future labor: the "acquisition price" is your hiring bonus.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> But they want users (I think).

Or do they also buy pure tech startups - the software equivalent to a fabless semiconductor firm (e.g. ARM) - just a patent and a demo?

</comment><comment><USER15> Google has one of the best M&A strategies IMO.

On the same note, Yahoo probably has one of the worst.</comment>


Ask HN: A Good Makefile for Go? - <AUTHOR>

can someone suggest a good Makefile for Go projects? <comment><USER2> A coworker of mine landed on a skeleton that seems to work for him. I'm not entirely sold on the choice of libraries, but it's a good starting point if your goal is to go from source code to a deployable binary (we use CentOS so it builds you an RPM) with sensible choices for logging and testing.

[https://github.com/blalor/go-template](https://github.com/blalor/go-template)

</comment><comment><USER3> This[1] is what I used for a toy project of mine. Nothing fancy though, and probably not what you're looking for but could at least prompt some ideas.

[1] [https://github.com/renstrom/go- wiki/blob/master/Makefile](https://github.com/renstrom/go- wiki/blob/master/Makefile)

</comment><comment><USER4> You don't need a makefile for go. Generally all you need are "go build" "go install" "go test". If you have some generated source you can now used "go generate".

<comment><AUTHOR> I use those now, but I want to setup some other ideas such as prompting for the database username/password to write into a config.go before compiling. I did not want to store information like this in a public git repo

<comment><USER5> I suggest that instead of compiling it into the binary, that you use environment variables instead. Or make it command line flags.

Then you can have a bash script that you don't check in that executes the variable with environment variables/ flags.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the suggestions, I ended up taking a simple Makefile and calling a sub shell to a perl script to change placeholders in a config.go with my environment variables on the default target if they were not already set in config.go</comment>


Ask HN: Google Glass and finding missing people - <AUTHOR>

I've recently been interested in Google Glass and wondering whether it'll be widely adopted or not. Besides it's obvious applications, do you think it might be useful for finding kidnapped or missing individuals? This could be in form of an app that has access to some database that constantly scans in the background. It'll be up to the user to decide whether or not to turn it on as they go about their daily activities.How feasible or ridiculous is that?<p>Thanks. <comment><USER2> It doesn't seem too far off from distributed volunteer computing like BOINC or Folding@Home. It'd be interesting, but I'm sure people would gripe about privacy.

</comment><comment><USER3> The same could apply to convicted people. As Caffeinewriter says, privacy issues are huge.

<comment><USER2> If you give a man a match, he may start a fire, cook food, and feed the hungry, or he may burn down every house in a five mile radius. Everyone will point the finger at what might happen. So as cool as this is, I bet it could lead to some serious legal issues.</comment></comment>


The queen of code - <AUTHOR> http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-queen-of-code/ <comment><USER2> "As a rear admiral in the U.S. Navy, Hopper worked on the first computer, the Harvard Mark 1."

No, as a lieutenant junior grade, Hopper worked on the Mark 1. Maybe I'll read the rest later, but the first sentence does not build confidence.

[edit: I should have said "second sentence".]</comment>


For Hire: Dedicated Young Man With Down Syndrome - <AUTHOR> http://projects.aljazeera.com/2014/portrait-of-down-syndrome/index.html <comment><USER3> I worked with mentally handicapped kids a lot as an educator when I was younger (albeit in a different country). This wonderful article captures perfectly how, in the right environment, children with Down Syndrome can blossom, but how hard it can be for them as adults once society & red tape & bureaucracy all come into play. (I also worked with children who had Down Syndrome and had not grown up in the right environment- think abusive/dead/incarcerated/etc. parents. That got very depressing very fast, and I'm not sure I could do it again).

I think this also highlights how the increasingly geographically fragmented familial unit is problematic: in a culture where several generations of the same family lives under the same roof, the situation wouldn't be as dire. However, in our culture it is typical to have only small portions of a family living together, and for children to move away and live on their own, potentially hundreds of miles away. No situation is perfect, of course - <USER2> it's still something to ponder (and it affects other social groups as well, for instance the elderly).

There was a wonderful American Life a while back on a similar topic, about a mother dealing with her adult son who had a mental disability (can't remember if it was autism or Down), and fearing for what would happen once she passed away. Can't find it right now; will edit this post if I do.

<comment><USER4> There was a satirical article in the Onion that exposed a similar truth. I wish I could find it now but it was along the lines of "Learning Disabled Man is Only Decent Employee in Local Burger Bar". He was the only diligent employee and the rest were teenagers that couldn't give a shit.

<comment><USER5> [http://www.theonion.com/articles/developmentally-disabled- bu...](http://www.theonion.com/articles/developmentally-disabled-burger-king- employee-only,462/)

<comment><USER4> Thank you. Your Google skills beat mine ;-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I was afraid that this would be a tacky post hinging around hiring a guy solely because of his disability (i.e., charity) and instead it's a really thoughtful, insightful post about what it's like as a father of a young man with a disability and how hard it can be for people with disabilities to get hired.

One thing I wonder (and I don't know if the author comes here): is there no Office of Vocational Rehabilitation or something similar? The author mentions Penn State and I know Pennsylvania has an OVR, even though it can be very hard to communicate with them sometimes.

I had this problem when I was younger and had just gotten a cochlear implant. I always fretted about whether or not I would be able to get a job somewhere since I couldn't hear in moderately noisy environments (think fast food, movie theaters), couldn't use the telephone, and sometimes had difficulty understanding people I'd never met before. It was really scary thinking that I would have to live with my mother for the rest of my life, unable to get a job.

Being rejected from all of the entry-level jobs I applied to at the time only made my fears worse.

I found some good jobs and have a great one now, but I feel for this young man.

</comment><comment><USER7> I barely made it through this article. After the 10th minute of pushing through my tears to read, I had to resolve that nothing would stop me.

On HN we dream big. And we all agree that we can dream big and maybe hit it big. Imagine what it feels like to realize at a young age that you DONT get to go after your dreams because you are missing the tools. Imagine what it feels like to believe something is wrong with you because you talk to yourself sometimes. Now get back to starting your company.

And yet, you can be happy to commute, to have co workers, to have some freedom from our parents.

<comment><USER8> I totally agree about the sadness that must accompany realizing you are "missing the tools" to follow your dreams.

A wonderfully written account by his father, one which makes me hope I can be continually thankful for the gifts bestowed upon me going forward.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I remember when I worked in an auto-industry factory (as part of my training) in Japan, we wore caps with colored bands that denoted rank/category. New employees were dark blue. Equipment/facility maintenance people wore yellow bands. "Management" inside the factory, as well as the white-collar employees had light blue. Outside guests wore red.

Amidst this, workers with disabilities wore caps with green bands. Many were hearing impaired, but there were some with leg issues and others with some form of mental illnesses.

This kind of categorization perhaps wouldn't fly in the States, but it seemed to aid the company's goal of having 5% of their factory workforce composed of people with various forms of disability (iirc).

As knowledge workers, it's easy for us to dismiss bluecollar positions like these, but working at a enormous Toyota group company, receiving a great deal of training and a respectable wage (you can make quite a bit with overtime), and being part of something that produces countless goods into the world is a pretty good deal for people in a country where it's not illegal for potential employers to ask about your existing medical conditions during the interview process.

<comment><USER10> > This kind of categorization perhaps wouldn't fly in the States

I see this as a bit of a paradox in the States. There is always some discussion about how everyone should be treated as equal, yet your "race" (whatever that means in the age of genetics!) is recorded by the government, and minorities are tracked by employers even though this is absolutely not related with their skills. If i think too much about it, I'd call it madness.

<comment><USER11> "Race"? In France it is forbidden to ask or record the religion or color of skin. Thus, it is forbidden to make statistics about it. Of course it is not the same about people with a handicap.

<comment><USER10> By the way, in Germany, they don't track your race, but they ask you for your religion when you move there. And it's actually a trap ! If you answer that you have any, suddenly you'll see a religion tax (deducted from your salary every month) going to your religion of choice. In Germany is literally "pays" to be agnostic.

<comment><USER12> Lol. Why on earth do they do this?

<comment><USER13> Are you kidding me? This is a great idea and incredibly fair.

Why should non-believers fund churches with their tax money?

Believers should be responsible for funding their churches/temples/holy places without relying on those who don't care.

<comment><USER14> I'm curious where you're from. In the US, the government being separate from religion is a pretty big deal so having taxes going to churches at all would seem strange.

The system in the US, for instance, isn't that non-believers fund churches with their tax money, it's that no one funds churches with tax money at all, members of the church donate directly to the church.

(Before someone comments, yes churches are often tax-exempt like other charities and non-profits, but that is different from actually receiving money from the government)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Not downs, but we had a guy with a pretty bad speech impediment interview with us a while back. He had a well controlled stutter which resulted in pauses of 10s+. The guy was awesome (better than the average across our team) and had wonderful written communication skills. That's all we need as we email each other all day (we're a very disparate team). Unfortunately my asshat boss decided that he wasn't suitable for the position due to a number of made up concerns and vetoed our acceptance.

Pisses me off every time I think about it but that's how a lot of companies operate.

<comment><USER16> God damn, I would've been so furious at that. I'm young and have been known to make irrational decisions at times and don't have many responsibilities, and I don't know I could've stopped myself quitting (though I'm not having a go at you for staying!). That's such a big red flag to me :(

<comment><USER15> It is to me too.

There are ways to make everyone a winner than the asshat though.

Karma was served here. The individual in question got a referral from me to another position, got a call and a job with a golden handshake and I got a £500 referral fee from the agent, which was spent on a nice new oscilloscope (an essential part of my exit strategy).

He won because he got a job at a better company and cash.

I won because I got a rep with the agent, £500 in cash and two steps closer to the door.

Asshat lost because we still haven't found someone for his position and they're two steps closer to finding a replacement for me as well :)

<comment><USER16> Now _that_ is an excellent outcome! :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> In Germany another young man with Down syndrome is currently much talked and written about. It is about eleven year old Henri who took part in a model experiment to attended regular school classes.

Now that some of his classmates are about to go to high school, his parents try to get him also into high school. Their reasoning is that it would be cruel and against the idea of the original experiment to separate him from his friends again. They don't argue that does not have the abilities to graduate. The whole argument is if a high schools should accept someone for other reasons than graduating.

The following article is not very good, but the only one I could find in English:

[http://international.sueddeutsche.de/post/82661462300/a-touc...](http://international.sueddeutsche.de/post/82661462300/a-touch- of-elitism-in-german-school-policy-for-the)

Much better one, but in German:

[http://www.spiegel.de/schulspiegel/junge-mit-down-syndrom- he...](http://www.spiegel.de/schulspiegel/junge-mit-down-syndrom-henri-darf- nicht-aufs-gymnasium-wechseln-a-969836.html)

<comment><USER18> I'm currently working as a tutor in a center for gifted (high intelligence) children. Along with this intelligence, in many cases comes some mental difficulties. As an instructor in this environment, it is actually very difficult to deal with some children who are unable to interpret what I am saying to them. Not only does the child get frustrated when I don't understand what they're trying to tell me, but I get frustrated sometimes when I can't handle the situation, and the other students pick up on my frustration. The net result is that everyone loses out.

These students are commonly known as special needs students, and I think this very accurately represents them. Some of the children require just a few minutes extra attention, others require regular confirmation, and others require practically no extra care other than being aware of some issue. I have never personally had to deal with a student with Down's Syndrome, however I know of some family friends with children who have Down's Syndrome. If you have seen and talked to these parents, in very many cases these parents have to dedicate their lives to caring for these children. The same is true for many cases in students; If I as a teacher have two students that require constant attention (for whatever reason) that means the rest of the students don't get the attention they deserve, and the two students I am dealing with don't get the help they deserve either.

I don't know what the best solution is here, but I can't see having a large number of (excuse the wording, I can't think of a better word) difficult students such as those with aspergers/autism, Down's Syndrome etc. being a good one.

The only point I can make on it is that in most cases, the transition to high school involves classes being split, and separation from friends. If students such as Henri can be sent to the same school as their friends, but possibly separated from others (which is what happens currently; students with severe mental difficulties are sent to separate schools) they can receive the individual attention and care that they deserve, but still be in the same environment as their friends and companions.

I tried to be very careful with my wording here, and I apologise if I insulted anyone, it was not my intention.

<comment><USER19> My son (7) is gifted, his school has no program for children with special needs, and he's having enormous problems in school with other children and his teacher. Would you mind sharing some tricks to share with his teacher that might help her handle my son better?

We told her to keep him occupied, send him for photocopies, give him some extra tasks in class etc. but she doesn't want to do such things since my son sometimes improvise things and messes up.

Sorry for thread hijacking.

<comment><USER20> Your son improvising and making mistakes is a good thing. Mistakes are what cause us to learn. To make them in an environment with little downside is a great way to grow as a person as opposed to making them in the real world where you could get fired for them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I took french class with Jamie back in high school. He is a great guy, and works incredibly hard. I loved working in groups with him; his french was much better than mine.

<comment><USER6> Do you know how well he's able to use a computer?

It could potentially be rewarding (both monetarily and intellectually) for him to be able to find things he's interested in on Mechanical Turk or Fiverr.

Perhaps he could also start a blog to talk about the things he's interested in. The more publicity he gets, the more likely it is that he would be "found" by someone who has a niche that he would fit into.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Would something like a google glass app, or another semi-automated assistant work for augmenting his capabilities?

Sounds like he's totally motivated and capable to do e.g. the janitorial work, but his capability needs to be paired with intensive supervision. Could that supervision be implemented as wearable interactive instruction or cheat- sheets?

<comment><USER23> When I first saw Google Glass, my first thoughts weren't of how it could be used to improve my life, but how it could be used to improve the lives of those with behavioural problems and/or disabilities.

While a lot of people think Glass will be largely underwhelming I sincerely hope that it becomes an essential tool for helping people feel more comfortable with integrating into society. If a tool like Glass can accomplish this then I think Google can call the project a success.

<comment><USER24> I'm a bit ashamed that a similar thought never occurred to me (that is, using something like glass for helping people with disabilities, instead of just recording first-person views of roller coaster rides).

I can totally see the usefulness of an always-on helper that can provide helpful cues, to, say, autistic children who have trouble identifying social or emotional context in certain situations.

<comment><USER25> I can see value here. Personally, I find it extremely difficult to pick up on non-verbal cues. Often someone will make a statement or ask a question that's primarily meant as normal social conversation "Got any plans for Memorial Day?" And it will confuse me more than it should. (Why are they asking me this? What good will it do for them to know? Do I have any plans? I'm going to look over some things for work but I don't think I'm supposed to talk about that. Oh shit, I never sent in that report, I better do that when I get home. I wonder if I can do it now, if my laptop is still on I can just connect through Screens. I need to set up wake-on-lan this weekend. Did I let the dogs out? What were they saying? Why are they staring at me. Better make a run for it!)

I don't know if this sort of tech would help me or not, but it'd be worth a shot to be able to dial my social awkwardness down to a 10 and even better if it could help people with real disabilities.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I have a strong sense that online work - on CrowdFlower, Mechanical Turk, or Elance - could be the path forward for someone like Jaime. Please do note: I work for CrowdFlower.

The beauty of online work is its promise of operating as a meritocracy. Access to the labor market is not about who you know, or how you appear, but about your ability to perform. Everything about Jaime, from his diligence to his incredible cataloguing memory, struck me as a perfect fit for the type of work that's readily available online: data collection, cleaning and labeling.

Even better, this type of work is going to become a larger and larger part of labor market as the machine learning field grows and the need for clean training data grows along with it.

<comment><USER27> Online work solves the problem of not having something to do, but in some sense, going on YouTube also solves that problem.

In my opinion, the value of work for someone like Jaime mostly revolves around the perception of independence (I can take the bus by myself) and the social interactions (having co-workers), and online work doesn't fulfill these as well. That Jamie has something to do and that there is useful economic output is a nice-to-have, and likely a subsidized one at that. I would not be surprised if, for example, Jamie's companions cost more ("contribute more to GDP", if you will) than Jamie earns in wages.

<comment><USER28> Why not get him an office? Either at the workplace for mentally disabled, or somewhere else. He might also be able to combine Mechanical Turk with physical work at the same place...

Researching what someone with Down syndrome did 50 or 100 years ago might also be useful. Quite a few manual labour jobs have disappeared through automation. Looking at those jobs disappearing might also inspire.

Looking at places where hand made/artsianal products or services command a premium might also help.

Or why not set up a small business tailor made to him and the things he can do? Balancing between his autonomy as a person and maximising his economic output will always be a challenge, but I could see it being worth the effort. Mostly, it could offer him a long term perspective, while at a third party he would always be in a more vulnerable position.

This scenario of "his own business" is not without a precedent. I don't have any online references, but I remember a colleague telling me about a local business like that, a woodworking shop. It was owned by a very small trust set up by the parents. The person with the mental disability loved anything to do with wood. He was hired, together with a trusted and skilled local worker a generation younger than the parents. This man slowly built a significant partial ownership stake that tied him to the business. The firm was well known and respected in and around the village where it worked.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I enjoyed reading this article, strangely enough by Aljazeera. That did made me want to know how a child like this would grow up in the Middle East. I found this: [http://media-dis-n-dat.blogspot.nl/2009/03/saudi-mother- trie...](http://media-dis-n-dat.blogspot.nl/2009/03/saudi-mother-tries-to- break-silence.html)

<comment><USER30> Why is it strange coming from Al Jazeera? Would you think it strange if it came from the BBC or Der Spiegel? Despite what many in the US believe, Al Jazerra isn't the mouthpiece of terrorists or Qatar's propaganda machine, they're mostly just a very good news source.

<comment><USER29> Yes, good news for sure. They're eager to show another view from inside countries. Often a troublesome view. (A view the mainstream media often neglect). It does make me wonder: Would they be allowed to show the same view of Quatar, their owner?

<comment><USER30> Though Al Jazeera claim's editorial independence, in reality it appears to not exist, or they choose not to exercise it.

Apparently Al Jazeera's Arabic station has not covered the withdrawal of ambassadors from Qatar because of Qatar's support of the Muslim Brotherhood: [http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/03/jazeera- qa...](http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/03/jazeera-qatar-media- coverage-saudi-gcc.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> If anyone is interested in a good film about a young man with Down Syndrome and how he gets on in life (work and love), check out the Spanish film Yo Tambien (Me Too). Here's the trailer, with subs.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3CfN3Rrvi4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3CfN3Rrvi4)

</comment><comment><USER32> It's difficult to imagine how hard it must be the be mentally handicapped yet fully aware of that fact.

</comment><comment><USER33> I really respect the humanity with which this story is told; kudos to the dad, and Jamie, of course. This heartfelt story makes you realize how little we know about people with mental handicaps and the struggles they face, even is the best of circumstances. It only saddens me to think that similar children/young adults/adults out there, do not have the access to some of these programs because of they do not have such resourceful parents.

</comment><comment><USER34> Very interesting and moving article. I was surprised by his incredible self- awareness and self-acceptance. Now it makes me wonder about all the reasons why you can't fit in our busier-than-ever society. Why bother trying joining the workforce when it's already broken for most of us? Maybe he could learn to grow his own food, learn to make things at his own pace and become more 'independent' while doing so?

</comment><comment><USER35> Maybe in Taxonomy? Taxonomists are scientists who can catalogue specimens of animals and plants into species, and argue about what is a species and what is two species.

However, he might be quite good at learning to classify specimens and classifying them. Not in the more academic/scientific role, but it would be valuable work. He might even be able to discover things about taxonomy nobody else has found yet.

<comment><USER36> I bet he'd be super good working in a library.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Reminds me of these videos which I think HN will enjoy. Meet Anthony -> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yv5nzgrYBIQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yv5nzgrYBIQ) and Tim's Place -> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6He0FWoFj0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6He0FWoFj0)

</comment><comment><USER38> very touching young story - I bet this kid is a lot of fun to work with. The fact that he was on time every day for 6 months probably whips all the other employees into shape from an HR perspective. "If this kid can be on time and take the bus, then so can you."

</comment><comment><USER39> I talk to myself, ha what's the problem with that

</comment><comment><USER40> Dolphins aren't pinnipeds. Just sayin'

<comment><USER41> For completeness of this correction, they are Cetaceans.

<comment><USER40> Knowledgeable and cool user name. Approved.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I found this article disturbing.

Why are we forcing developmentally disabled people -- or anyone, for that matter -- to get jobs? Is there a dire shortage of low-skilled labor that I'm not aware of?

"Whenever we talked about his employment prospects after the age of 21, we reminded Jamie that he did not want to live a life of watching YouTube, wrestling videos and Beatles Anthology DVDs in the basement."

Would there have been anything wrong with watching YouTube videos all day if Jamie's father had never _told_ him that it was wrong?

And if the purpose of sheltered workshops is to provide busy work for developmentally disabled people, why should it matter whether they pay below minimum wage?

<comment><USER43> We are not forcing people to get jobs. We are allowing them to get jobs if they wish.

Work has some stron benefits - social activity; economic activity; independance. These spread into health benefits (exercise, mental health resiliance) and also strongly reduce the risk of abuse.

Watching yourube videos all day is not what most people want to do. It would have been a problem for the person doing it, but also a problem for the people looking after him.

I really do not understand what point you're trying to make. This young man wants to be part of society. It's easy to say that his mental capacity is the problem, but perhaps it is our attitudes to his capacity that are the greater problem.

He might not ever be a marine biologist, but he could certainly help at aquariums.

For many years people have left people with learning disabilities to rot. Look at the mortality for people with LD we see unacceptably poor rates for things not connected to their LD, caused by things like doctors making excessive use of DNR for people with LD, or even just people not keeping dental hygiene up to date.

I'm trying to be polite here, and I want to ask a quesion hat I realise might sound very rude. Please, I am not attacking you. I am involved in work on stigma and I am genuinely curious. Do you feel as if your comment is stigmatising at all?

<comment><USER42> I did not intend my comment to be stigmatizing. But I do feel that one of the most degrading aspects of our society is the expectation that people have to _earn_ a living by working at some kind of job. Especially in an economy where we're continually striving to save labor, employment is becoming an unrealistic expectation for lots of people, not just those with learning disabilities.

Personally, I do not have a job and I'm looking forward to a future in which more people have the freedom not to work without being shamed by their loved ones or by society.</comment></comment></comment>


Did you start a blog in 2011? Celebrate it here. - <AUTHOR> http://www.jonathansteiman.com/1/post/2011/12/best-new-business-blogs-2011.html

<comment><USER2> So the winner gets exactly what? Except of cause the tremendous honor of calling the blog _Seinman's Favorite New Started Business Blog in 2011_.</comment>


Beware the church of climate alarm - <AUTHOR> http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/miranda-devine/beware-the-church-of-climate-alarm/2008/11/26/1227491635989.html <comment><USER2> I, for one, love pseudo-science. I dig UFO studies (what better way to learn about the process of learning?), world religions (what drives people to vary their beliefs so widely yet cling to each detail?), reincarnation (are those strange stories true or just crap?) and all sorts of things that involve reason, creativity, and some sort of evidential and symbolic modeling process.

But I know it ain't science. It's fun, it's speculative, and it's entertaining. It ain't science.

What I don't like is when religion joins with theories that can not be reliably tested and scare-mongering under the rubric of science. Then they deny being the pseudo science that they are. Seems like it combines the worst of everything: end-of-days, a call for repentance, smearing the critics, and smarmy self-righteousness.

That's just my opinion, mind you. I really think if you've only got one earth, a hugely complex environment and some kind of computer modeling system that a little degree of humility probably is a good idea. I'm happy with saying "I don't know." Seems like even (or especially) if you take a large grant that should be a fine response.

Global warming may be true and deadly. But that still doesn't make it science.

I'm looking forward to the new Czech pol. Discussion and skepticism is a good thing, especially when it comes to science.

<comment><USER3> > Global warming may be true and deadly. But that still doesn't make it > science.

What is science but the study of physical truth? Isn't the ultimate aim of science to be able understand the way the things work so that it is possible to project the conseqences of different actions into the future? Your position is irrational and stupid.

<comment><USER4> I agree with you, but "Your position is irrational and stupid" is abusive, and likely to cause people to believe that you are in the wrong. Which is unfortunate, because in this instance you are right.

<comment><USER3> I think it is an unfortunate situation where insulting a stupid proposition is seen as worse than proposing it in the first place.

My belief is that thinking people should take a tougher line on ignorance, irrationality and stupidity. By choosing to engage with these type of opinions with a 'neutral stance' you are giving strength and legitimacy to their arguments. You are essentially saying 'Although your argument seems reasonable, I disagree for the following reasons'.

So maybe I went too far. But I do think there should be a cost for making spurious arguments. Also I feel the casual viewer of arguments shyould be left in no doubt as to the validity of the original statement.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Implicit straw man: "Climates have always changed and they always will". Who is refuting this?

"There is no relationship between CO2 and temperature". Please.

The real shame is that although I believe that global warming is man-made I am genuinely open to being persuaded otherwise. But I've yet to hear a counter argument that isn't self contradicting, dishonest or full of cherry-picked data and ad hominems. It suggests the 'climate-skeptic' camp is dominated by people who have (perhaps involuntary) ulterior motives.

<comment><USER6> I see your point, but I'd say there is cherrypicking data on both sides. In terms of motives, certanily Gore and many scientists have been personally enriched by promoting global warming.

Sure humans have affected the climate, but I'm _scared_ by the level of religious language and fanaticism:

"Repent of your carbon emissions!"

"The world will be destroyed in ten years!"

It used to be like 75 years but I guess people didn't really care so now they employ all these fear tactics. New York will be under water in our lifetime? Seriously? Many alarmists employ the same language that Pat Robertson does about the second coming and that Bush does about the terrorists.

As soon as I think I'm being manipulated by fear I get really skeptical. Al Gore _IS_ a politician and his messianic message is demagogy as much as anything.

<comment><USER7> There's a danger in personifying overall concern about global into a single spokesman, Al Gore. It's a fallacy to try to discredit everyone who believes in climate change by simply tearing down Al Gore himself. It's a convenient way of not confronting the facts on either side of the argument.

<comment><USER8> He did get a Nobel Peace Prize for his fear-mongering, so I'd say he does represent the mainstream establishment philosophy on the issue.

<comment><USER9> Al Gore received the Nobel Peace Prize, not one of the scientific prizes. The Peace Prize is entirely political. Yasser Arafat (a famously corrupt and dishonest politician) also got one, so their standards are obviously not very high. <http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> My hypothesis: global warming hype will decline, not because the global financial crisis but because of the new administration. The main reason global warming was such a popular meme in the recent years is by the power of association. So many people had a grudge with president Bush and the republicans were perceived as global warming skeptics, therefore everyone felt that preaching the global warming doom was a way to emphasise their hatred for the president. Now that there's no one to hate in the White House the global warming preaching will lose its cathartic power. (This of course is totally unrelated to any actual reasons to believe whether the climate change is man made or what actions should be undertaken to control it.)

<comment><USER11> This is probably true. Most people in EU countries (excluding the UK) are pretty sure that man-made global warming is a fact. Only in the USA, Australia and the UK do you find this strong contingent of people who think that it's all a conspiracy and lies. You have to conclude that the governments of these countries have a hand in this public feeling.

<comment><USER12> Although I Clearly cant speak for UK, Australia, or other Americans, I know people that believe in man made global warming, they just dont see it as a big deal.

There is a difference between people who irrationally disagree with relatively conclusive evidence and those who are skeptical about outcome.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> What we need is for both sides in these kinds of controversies to nominate their best spokesperson and have them participate in publicized debates. Not just in global warming, but in all areas of public controversy. Hopefully this would lead to much less balkanized discourse. Plus, it would help both sides respond to the other much more civilly and tolerantly since people would no longer feel so much at war with each other.

<comment><USER14> Good luck finding few enough sides. There are easily about eight sides in the global warming argument.

Is global warming even happening?

Is man-made CO2 causing it?

Will reducing man-made CO2 help?

Is the best way to mitigate this to stop emitting CO2, to research green tech, nuclear or to look into measures allowing us to live in a hotter world? And why? How is "best" defined?

Then you'll need impartical referees. When side D claims that no recent study shows that X is true, and side G says there is, who's right? What exhibits are allowed, and how?

But never the less, this form of debate exists and thrives, it's called peer- reviewed journals. Too bad that the climate debate is too much in a hurry to use them.

<comment><USER13> True, but does the public generally have access to these journals? Maybe issues like this would be alleviated some if the journals were opened up.

<comment><USER14> As lutorm said.. also, if this is condensed into a 45-minute townhall format, you get "My friend Joe the Eskimo thinks icebears are cute" and while it's great TV, no-one is more clever for it.

<comment><USER13> I'd say people are better informed if they get to hear the best of both sides instead of only one. Have the global warming skeptics been able to put something out that gets the publicity of "An Inconvenient Truth?"

Even in the case where one side is clearly correct, I think its position can only be strengthened in the public eye if its arguments are compared to the best opposing arguments. Only if people assume the opposite can I see a good case for one sided propaganda, but I don't know of a good reason to assume this.

<comment><USER14> In an ideal world, yes.

But we've just seen a couple of guys debate the next four year of one country in a very public way. It took them a year, not to reach any kind of common ground, much less agreement, but to get to the point where a few pct.pts. likes one guy better than the other. This was even made easy by pre-defining that there will only be two sides to the debate.

The climate debate discusses the future, not of one country, but of the entire earth, and if we end up on the side of the "alarmists", we're not trying again in 4 years - this is a 20-50 year plan.

So, yes, I agree with you, but my pragmatic practical side (the one that will not be allowed in a brainstorm session) argues that it's just not practical.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Some of Professor Plimer's arguments have been countered elsewhere previously. Please see [http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/09/01/spot-the-recycled- deni...](http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/09/01/spot-the-recycled-denial- iii-%E2%80%93-prof-ian-plimer/)

More generally, I would offer <http://www.realclimate.org> as a blog which offers excellent scientific discussion of climate change.

</comment><comment><USER16> From the article:

"Plimer says creationists and climate alarmists are quite similar in that "we're dealing with dogma and people who, when challenged, become quite vicious and irrational"."

Strange thing is, I only ever see this kind of article from the "no-global- warming" camp. I don't recall reading any articles bashing the "no-global- warming" people's personalities. Could be my selective memory, could be something else...

<comment><USER10> From the second paragraph of the article: 'The New York Times opened a profile of Klaus, 67, this week with a quote from a 1980s communist secret agent's report, claiming he behaves like a "rejected genius" [...]' So yeah, I would conclude it is your selective memory.

<comment><USER16> Hm, true...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Btw, has anyone else here read James Hogan's "Kicking the Sacred Cow?"

I read it, and it is very eye opening just how many of the major scientific "facts" and causes rest on pretty shaky, if not outright false, foundations.

<comment><USER13> Upvoter, did you read it? What did you think?

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> One of the most interesting quotes I heard recently on NPR was someone from Obama's transitional team explaining that a green energy industry is win-win. Developing and deploying green energy will boost the U.S economy while reducing carbon emissions. Whichever side of the argument you fall on, fossil fuels won't last forever and greener tech tends to be applicable in a much wider range of circumstances making it convenient for the modern lifestyle.

<comment><USER18> There's an opportunity cost to everything you do. So if you prioritise carbon emissions and the result of that is that poor people can't keep their families warm, you lose. Most of the evils of politics in the first world happens as opportunity-cost theft, because it's easy to hide. For example - force people to pay taxes, enlarge government in the process, and then fund something stupid and thereby prevent the original person from putting it to better use.

> Whichever side of the argument you fall [..]

Be that as it may, if it develops as a result to market impetus you can be generally confident that it will be a response to actual demand. Whereas as soon as the government gets involved we lose our valuing mechanisms and get locked into what the geniuses in the capital think is going to happen. Also, it depends which fuels you pour your energy into and whether this is actually a good choice. If you invest in a bad route there for political reasons (e.g. ethanol) you'll have the effect of increasing world hunger as a side-effect. Nuclear is another option which is difficult to separate from political concerns.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> "Climate change has always happened."

Sure, supernovas too, but if there was one on the way and we had a chance to stop it we'd be damned fools not to pay attention.

"There's nothing we can do about it."

Bullshit.

<comment><USER20> > Bullshit

Facts please.

<comment><USER21> Not defending or refuting this, really, but thought I'd point to a compelling argument I saw on TED by a "climate engineer." The summary is that he claims if things continue and there are problems and we haven't done anything about them, people like him will step up and say stuff like "we can set off a few volcanoes, put some ash in the air and cool things down." And he thinks you're better off working on the problem now so that people like him don't get to try things which could have unintended consequences. Or at the very least, be a band-aid without neosporin.

It was an interesting talk.

[http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/david_keith_s_surprising_...](http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/david_keith_s_surprising_ideas_on_climate_change.html)

<comment><USER22> Climate engineering is a very interesting idea, but since we don't understand the climate very well, I would start with small steps and leave setting off volcanoes or dumping iron into the seas for a future moment.

We have one planet to experiment with and we will have to live in it for the foreseeable future. Until that changes, I will favor lower-energy experiments.

And, BTW, the whole idea of reducing carbon footprint, building more efficient cities, transportation and generally living consuming less resources is a great idea in itself. Remember, by the next 100 years, we will have a whole lot more people hanging around.

<comment><USER14> > ...but since we don't understand the climate very well

But, wait. Apparently we DO understand the climate well enough to know that global warming is happening because of the small percentage of CO2 emissions caused by humans, _and_ that by cutting our emissions, we can stop the warming.

Based on that, we must have an _extremely_ thorough understanding of our climate, and it should be trivial to simulate a vulcano going off and see if it cools the climate.

<comment><USER22> You don't need to understand much of what goes under the hood of your car to draw simple conclusions like "exerting pressure on the brakes slows it down".

You do need considerable understanding of how cars work if what you want is to interfere with the engine functions to, say, increase its mileage.

We do understand enough to point to CO2 emissions as the probable cause of global warming (the less heat we radiate back to space, the warmer we get - it's that simple) but to manipulate the climate to a given objective while avoiding uncontrollable side effects would require a much better understanding of how the climate really works.

As Mark Twain cleverly said, it's not what you don't know that kills you. It's what you are absolutely sure that just isn't that way. Would you take that gamble?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> The green movement is big business making tons rich in the name of a better world!

Im on this train! Are you?

</comment><comment><USER24> Though I agree that bad science and sensationalism do much harm to the case of climate change, there are many reasons to make the drastic changes to how humans operate on the planet.

For any of the people who don't believe in climate change, I say to tell yourself the story of how the rainforests disappeared and thousands (scientists say millions) of species were lots for ever, and why.

Go look at a strip mine, and try not to feel like what we are doing is wrong.

This summer a small plot of trees across from where I have coffee was mowed down for an olympic ceremonies park. Now I have no qualms about actually taking down that small plot of trees (it's maybe 1.5-2 acres), in a prime retail spot, and I live in a rain forest so loosing an acre to us isn't a big deal, we're surrounded by trees. But the sound of those trees coming down, we were all in shock, and really when you see all the dead trees lying there on the ground, you feel ashamed to have supported it.

I also say to tell yourself the story of how your car runs, from the first bit of oil being drilled to the moment that your tires spin, and if you can honestly convince yourself that that is an efficient energy system, then you're an amazing debater.

I honestly believe there are huge errors in the science which is spread publicly, but it is the sensationalism of this science which is grabbing attention and causing people to take notice. The negative effect is the backlash of non-believers have ammunition.

<comment><USER24> surprised to see this down-voted. Insight and rebuttle or reasoning please?

<comment><USER12> You are appealing to emotional arguments instead of rational ones. Just a thought.

<comment><USER24> I appreciate that, and thanks for the feedback. I thought the 'emotional arguments' where easy to make it apparent that maybe we are doing something wrong, climate change or not. The rational/scientific arguments can be argued. Tough to stand in a clearcut and say 'damn happy we got rid of those trees!'. ;)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: A quick help to improve Mobile Application Ecosystem - <AUTHOR>

We are building a product that helps mobile application developers to reduce SaaS costs and increase in revenue ! Please take a part in this quick survey and help us make the product mature and efficient to your needs !
Survey Link : http://espertosys.com/appdevs/
Share it with as many developers as possible ! Let's build something amazing together ! <comment><USER2> Hey, would help if you provide a link to your about page or describe how you're planning to reduce costs

<comment><AUTHOR> I have given the link, but its not converted into hyperlink.

link is - [http://www.espertosys.com/appdevs/](http://www.espertosys.com/appdevs/)

Intention here is to provide solutions like Push Notification, Crash Report etc free of cost to the App Developers. We need to gather some feedback from people who have been using such platforms so that we will be able to provide them better solution in better way.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is Facebook dying? - <AUTHOR> I've noticed many of my friends have become less active on Facebook over the past year, and my newsfeed is becoming less personal (random news articles and ads being more than half of what I see). I've also noticed myself logging into Facebook less often and when I do, it's usually for specific groups. Quite frankly, Facebook is boring and very different than when I first joined. I've checked with some other people and they all share a similar experience.<p>I wonder if this is a universal thing -- who else feels the same? <comment><USER2> I don't use FB, but the overwhelming "temperature check" from friends who do jibs with your assessment. In general people are saying they get far fewer genuine "friend-to-friend" updates, and more "news in my bubble", "come to my event" etc type updates. Almost to the point where they wonder if their (real, actual) friends divorced / got depressed / decide secretly de-friend them (only to eventually find out that "No, I just don't really have time to post all my shit all the time anymore.")

So it may not be "dying" per se -- but does appear to be slowly transitioning from a "stay-in-touch-with-friends" service to a YANA-type ("yet another noisy aggregator") service / thingamajig.

That is, the same transitional state that all of its (smaller-scale) predecessors (Digg, FriendFeed, Myspace) wallowed in for so many years before meeting their inevitable fate.

</comment><comment><USER3> Facebook is working to adopt as many "social network features" as possible. That means that they replicate features at will to maintain their position at the table. Personally, I do see less up to date sharing from my friends. The new real-time constant update stream is from Snap and instagram.

The idea of posting an update (whatever it may be) to a personal thread that is then displayed to your network when an algo decides, removes the "true" sharing sensation. I would argue instagram has made similar updates (Fb company). I prefer the real-time non-adjusted update stream path. It feels more natural, if I miss something from 2 AM, that is fine. I wasn't there to experience it at that time (around that time). It takes away from the spontaneity of sharing and being exposed to shared content.

I imagine teenagers would feel this at an accentuated rate. Their lives revolve around friend groups at school, sports, hanging out. Seeing shared updates at non-related algo determined intervals would impact their FB experience and leave an "uncool" feeling.

<comment><USER4> I really want your comment to receive more attention. A few years ago, Facebook got rid of the feature that displays your news feed by the most recent posts. Even when you insisted to sort by recent, they decided that you should instead view the most "recent" comments/likes, rather than the most recent posts.

They hoped no one noticed.

<comment><USER3> Two reasons Facebook's data points to algo determined newsfeed is better; addictiveness based on time spent and interaction, more display ads.

They can control the FB experience and show "relevant" ads because they create the relevancy by choosing what content to display around the ads. The real time newsfeed can't be controlled, humans uploads can't be predicted. More$$$ from advertisers by owning and crafting the story for every user every time.

<comment><USER4> It's mass social engineering, shaping how we interact on a primal level, with clicks/views as the guiding metric. And there's diddly squat the common man can do about it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I, personally, closed my account in January. I became wary of my personal outrage echo chamber. Every time I logged in my feed was just things or links to things pissed about or people's opinions on what they were pissed about. I felt like the good of feeling connected to folks that were, in reality, now strangers was being far outweighed by the pervasive negativity I was being subjected to.

I don't know how universal my experience is, but I walked away from FB feeling like I was part of a massive experiment gone wrong.

<comment><USER6> After several temporary deactivations over the years, I finally deleted my account as well in February. My reasons were similar. The constant flow of outrage seemed to be decreasing my quality of life, and indeed, I feel happier without it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> No. Instead, this is probably an example of people on this forum not being representative of global Internet users. If you want actual data, look at their quarterly earnings [1] where they report user engagement metrics. Daily active users reached an all time high of 1,227 Billion in Q4. DAU/MAU reached an enviable all-time high 66%, etc.

There are some challenges in how they present the data and it is unclear what you are including in the definition of "Facebook". The report doesn't break out Instagram & WhatsApp separately. So there could be a decline on Facebook.com which is offset with increases elsewhere.

[1] [https://s21.q4cdn.com/399680738/files/doc_presentations/FB-Q...](https://s21.q4cdn.com/399680738/files/doc_presentations/FB-Q4'16-Earnings- Slides.pdf)

<comment><USER8> "We define a mobile DAU as a user who accessed Facebook via a mobile application or via mobile versions of our website such as m.facebook.com, whether on a mobile phone or tablet, or used our Messenger mobile application (and is also a registered Facebook user) on a given day. The numbers for mobile DAUs do not include Instagram, WhatsApp, or Oculus users unless they would otherwise qualify as such users, respectively, based on their other activities on Facebook."

What does that mean?

Why did they use the word "accessed" vs "authenticated"? Did the user leave a tab on their cell phone open after they logged into facebook?

Many users log in once and forget to logout... Does that continue to present itself as someone accessing facebook?

How many users access via the app? via the mobile web page?

If you take out people who used Messenger app what would this number be? Also, can I be a Messenger user and not a registered Facebook user?

Pay attention to the footnotes. It shows up on many pages of the presentation.

I would prefer knowing how many logged in each day. How many did something purposefully like look at a friends timeline, search a friend, look at possible friends. How many posted a comment, did a "like", clicked on an ad...

<comment><USER7> Good call on the footnote. The Facebook 10K [1] clarifies the definition of DAU:

"The numbers for our key metrics, our DAUs, MAUs, and average revenue per user (ARPU), do not include Instagram, WhatsApp, or Oculus users unless they would otherwise qualify as such users, respectively, based on their other activities on Facebook." -> This clarifies that they are measuring users without considering any Instagram, WhatsApp or Oculus uplift.

"We define a daily active user as a registered Facebook user who logged in and visited Facebook through our website or a mobile device, or used our Messenger application (and is also a registered Facebook user), on a given day." -> This clarifies that they only count if the login happened that day or they did a visit during that day. Not passive open tabs.

It does also have this note "For example, while user-provided data indicates a decline in usage among younger users, this age data is unreliable because a disproportionate number of our younger users register with an inaccurate age." -> This might be some of what people are experiencing. A shift in demographics to older people.

[1] [https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000132680117...](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000132680117000007/fb-12312016x10k.htm)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I think it's no longer relevant for young people, it's firmly the social network of your parents and grandparents. But it will take decades for those parents and grandparents to turn over, and the younger people will maintain a token presence there so they're not sought out on their real social network. So it's not like Facebook is going anywhere soon.

</comment><comment><USER10> They've definitely evolved from their original charter as a "social network", where I'd interact with friends over content we ourselves put on the site. Now I feel like my feed is (was) 95% ads plus linked and shared news articles and then maybe 5% posts from friends. People still interacted with each other, but it was definitely less organic like you said and more banter about things external to your personal relationships. I don't like Facebook, I probably never did, and I finally got my Spotify login linked to my email instead of my Facebook account so I'm done with the site. Over the last year and a half I realized it's evolved into a giant surveillance vector and just got too creepy.

All that said, no I don't think it's dying for two reasons: 1) young people today (whatever we're calling the generation that comes after millennials) seem to be unconcerned with "oversharing" and appear to derive some kind of dopamine hit from it. So the things that come across as creepy to me probably don't affect that generation in the same way. 2) I could be wrong, but Facebook does also appear to be attempting to diversify their business. They've done this in the past, and I don't see too much reason to panic right now (if I were an investor that is).

Honestly, I would indeed prefer that it died. I think it makes people unhappy, harms relationships, and ends up being a replacement for reality for a lot of people - and I was only a once-every-few-days kind of guy. Some of my friends compulsively use that thing, even if _they 're actually out with real people not the manufactured online personae on display in your "profile."_

</comment><comment><USER11> I quit facebook like an year ago. Couldnt be much happier. Initially, I started using facebook as my one stop website for everything. Check on my friends and same time I will read and go through news. Later, I was really upset about targeted ads. I'm cant say its dying, all my friends still use it day to day. But I feel is the trend is changing. instead of daily "status updates" people are sharing more content.

</comment><comment><USER12> Facebook are where my cuckoo "friends" hangout and post political and religious views. My observation is the more personal problems you have and the stronger your views, the more likely you will post on Facebook to get attention. It's a big turn-off.

I realize you can unfollow friends without unfriending them but my facebook stream is not worth visiting weekly anymore.

</comment><comment><USER13> Everybody's on Messenger. I don't see people making many posts either.

If you want to see what's going on in your friends' lives Snapchat is where it's at.

I don't think they're dying anytime soon, but their obsession with stuffing Snapchat stories into every FB product shows they're at least worried. They will be in trouble if they can't monetize Messenger.

<comment><USER14> Hmm if I deleted Facebook and still used messenger would I gain any privacy or not really? I'd consider doing that.

<comment><USER15> It's worth noting that the Messenger app requires none of the android app permissions to run. It will happily work with every single one of them turned off.

It also means facebook doesn't get how long you look at each thing in your newsfeed, which is nice. They still get to access all the messages, obviously.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Same for me. I miss the times where I only saw babies, cats and dinner plates on my feed, it was personal, now its just garbage news, garbage ads, garbage IP-theft (videos grabbed from YT etc.)

<comment><USER14> Mine is 90% pictures of people I don't know! Just photos friends have liked. I don't know why I need to see that.

I once tried to go through all of my friends friends and block them but I got tired after twenty minutes

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Just an anecdote about the immense value that can be derived from it amongst all the newsfeed crap:

This week, I moved 16000km away from home. Brand new to the city, after being here for 3 days, I get a notification that friend X has posted a local facebook group I'd joined that week.

I hadn't seen friend X (more of an acquaintance) in 4 years or so, but because of seeing this notification, he also saw a similar notification from a post I made, we both reached out at the same time, sent a few messages and ended up spending the entire day together.

Turns out we're both here for at least the next 6 months with similar intentions and have way more in common than we'd previously thought.

I've got a few other examples of serendipity that have happened due to social networks and as much as I hate the cancer that populates the newsfeed, messenger, groups, instagram and the directory itself provide immense value.

</comment><comment><USER18> Facebook is doing great. People are just using it differently (which may make you enjoy it less, of course).

I can't find the article now, but I recently read that Facebook users post their own stories far less often than they used to. Much of Facebook.com is now the swapping and discussion of news stories.

Some of the more social, personal activity you're missing has probably moved to Instagram.

</comment><comment><USER19> I was really annoyed with many new news sources putting crap on my page.

Personally, I removed the Facebook app from all my devices. But I still have the messenger app. That is a real time killer. It's a quick distraction, but often I regret later for spending time on facebook instead of doing my chores or something useful. I have seen the same with many people in my circle. Maybe it's because I am getting older, but I do not hear people talking about tagging people on facebook photos, these days

Another issue is with Govts & employers looking at your social media presence. I am seriously considering just abandoning my facebook page as I feel it will seem suspicious if I delete it and I did see a couple of people complaining of how facebook activates deleted facebook profile.

</comment><comment><USER20> I think the answer is yes. Their engagement has dropped and continues to drop - maybe something to do with why you find FB boring.

I stopped using facebook because i got gaslighted by the algo again and again. If I "share" my friends see it, but anything else and magically nobody sees it. So FB isn't even a way to stay in touch with my friends because... it won't let me.

But it _is_ changing, and as a company they've taken steps to stay relevant, and are still the big social media company. I don't think they'll go down without a fight, and strategically they may one day pivot away from the FB app towards a suite of ones they've bought up.

</comment><comment><USER21> Facebook News has become more of an RSS reader for all of the pages I've ever liked (or a personalized advertisement reader). They have banned updates from friends to the top right corner on desktop and it has disappeared from mobile. This is unless the content is "engaging" enough. The other screen/time real estate is being used to show as much of their paying customer's content as possible.

The advertising business model works in contradiction to finding the most relevant content for you. I've unliked every page to get the most stripped down version of my feed possible.

</comment><comment><USER22> No. However, Facebook no longer has a monopoly on social media which is why they are deathly afraid of competitors like Snapchat.

</comment><comment><USER23> Facebook's login page says "connect and share with friends".

1\. The connection part is true, partially. Facebook for me keeps my hold of people I knew or met in the past. But I almost never add new connection via facebook. It is always via, whatsapp or linkedin.

2\. The sharing part is done well (for uploaded or created content) but there is a lot of noise from all the pages and ads. So,even when done well, it doesn't encourage me to share much over there given it only reaches to probably only a fraction of my connections.

</comment><comment><USER24> FB User Growth Outlook: Strikingly, close to half of all of the new users will be adults 65 and older. > [http://www.investopedia.com/news/report-facebook- user-growth...](http://www.investopedia.com/news/report-facebook-user-growth- could-decline-2017/#ixzz4cd0kIM1g)

</comment><comment><USER25> It is not dying. People are just using it differently. Mostly using chat and groups. Also, people are putting up more ads.

</comment><comment><USER26> I don't know if Facebook is dying, but what I can assure is that every day I'm getting more and more tired of it. They are connecting everything to everything (Whatsapp is dying for mee too due to this). I prefered the time when it was simply about sharing content with friends.

</comment><comment> gingerbread-man Facebook content used to be two things: photos of your friends, and "status updates" on what they were doing.

Photos have been taken over by Snapchat and Instagram, and discussions/ witty updates seem to be more concentrated on Twitter.

</comment><comment><USER27> I stopped using it in the traditional sense 3 years ago.

Recently I picked it back up, but now I spend most of my time in private or public topic groups. I find there are some decent posts in groups where members have to be invited or approved to join.

</comment><comment><USER28> Facebook (inc) won't die anytime soon because the most active social platform in 2017 (after youtube) is instagram. That's why they don't really do anything about FB dying...

</comment><comment><USER29> As others have mentioned, it is being used differently.

Snapchat adoption is crazy high where I am, but most of those people are still on Facebook too—they just use them differently.

</comment><comment><USER8> For me, it died when they dropped the *.edu email requirement.

I used it differently after that. I don't use it much at all any more. I have everyone's story hidden. I may pop back in to figure out a birthday date or some other fact about someone.

Many people use it like that now. They just block off a bunch of story/timelines and focus on a small subset of people.

<comment><USER30> I don't use FB and don't know much about it.

Googling around, it looks like this lifting of the .edu restriction happened eleven years ago in 2006, around two years after FB launched in 2004. Contrary to your own declining experience, this was actually _before_ FB became relevant to masses of people around the world. Most of the FB history and success has taken place "post-edu" now.

Requiring people to have .edu addresses ranges from being bat shit crazy to crudely elitist, unless it's just intended as a temporary limitation as part of a pilot launch, which is what it looks like this may have been?

I'm actually quite surprised to learn about this bit of Facebook history.

<comment><USER8> Initially, there was also a college/university requirement. You had to be in a Boston area university. Then they added Ivy League schools. Eventually, any school with an email address ending in *.edu.

[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2007/jul/25/media.new...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2007/jul/25/media.newmedia)

At the time, many were under the impression it would continue as such to prevent the proliferation of middle school/high school students from joining and contaminating the site like MySpace.

Back then, MySpace had some horrible user interface experiences. Users would add javascript plugins and themes to their pages that provided too much individuality. At times, the changes were so drastic you could not tell if a user's page was on myspace without looking at the URL.

To this day, Facebook carries a signature look & feel and will never allow any drastic changes to the UI to accommodate a user's distinct style.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Even if it is it will take a few decades for it to die.

</comment><comment><USER32> I don't want to pee on the sacred ground that is Facebook mythology but it seems that, an ad and investor supported CMS for social, that becomes a public company, and applies a similar editorial algorithm to diverse cultures and demographics, needs must optimize for its most significant stakeholders. Investors want advertisers, advertisers want eyeballs, eyeballs can god damned be force-fed whatever content makes them click most. If Facebook news feed has become a rage-filled bubble-chamber that's because powerful forces demand it become that: human psychology, the zeitgeist, demographics and economics.

Bear with me while I lay it all out for you. Notice your natural rising rage to this presentation because the zeitgeist dictates you will prefer outrage to the deterministic positions of others, and I'll explain for you why that's the case in a minute.

Human psychology lets news feed push our buttons to make us come back. Our reptilian brains have enslaved us to be click slaves working for the world's bankers! The new exploited class... What a pitiful result for the first generation online and with the shiny tech. Information superhighway... Of broken dreams. But we are mostly happy in our blissful exploitation, and so the bankers are happy, because the best slaves are the ones that believe themselves free.

The zeitgeist dictates that outrage engages because outrage has become the main currency you can trade in for being right. In a world that has exchanged old authority values for new authority values, there's a transition period of authority looting which is where we are now. The crowd naturally gets a little mad and scared when the values that used to lead the crowd suddenly dematerialize, and in the age of authority looting everybody runs around trying to get as much authority for themselves as they can. And it turns out that the way individuals can loot authority for themselves in these troubled times is by taking it from others. So outrage engages because outrage let's you pretend others are wrong so you can pretend you are right, thereby lootin some sweet authority for yourself. And social CMS systems are obviously an efficient arena for this.

Demographics mean the global billion-user social CMS must optimize its algorithms for people and groups who are the largest and of which you are not necessarily a member. Prepare for moments of jarring discomfort as you encounter the Other, algorithmically abstracted for you for your viewing pleasure.

The economics of its revenue and financing structure, means that the Face is answerable to investors, advertisers then us. Human churn is less costly than advertiser churn. To run a business like this and make it profitable you have to be ruthless about the things which earn you money and about the things which dont.

But we must never fall into the trap of criticising our benevolent billionaire overlords, who graciously provide these systems for our benefit. They are simply trying to connect all of humanity in a harmony of unity and the beauty of oneness....hmmm, I could believe that if by connecting everyone you meant put them in a glass jar with little air and watching them fight for scarce resources of credibility and popularity. But who knows... Maybe this pressure cooker actually improves humanity in some way. I guess the question is are such systems a selective pressure for good ideas or does it simply bring out the worst of our natures?

The Face is clearly a social experiment. And it's an adaptive company. If the Zeitgeist was different I'm sure their algorithms would be optimizing to create different sorts of experiences for us.

And I don't think the Face is dying unless our whole human civilization is. Which I think is unlikely. It might be ugly, but Facebook is a reflection of us. It's the interactive mirror. Some people don't like looking in the mirror. It's not surprising. It can be uncomfortable. To see your true Face.

If you don't like what you see don't blame The Zuck blame yourselves. It's just showing you who you really are. To get where you're going you got to start where you are right? Maybe it's a good thing that we can all see ourselves so clearly now.

</comment><comment><USER33> No, its growing a lot.

</comment><comment><USER34> the stock says no</comment>


Hacker News London meetup, Thursday 21st November - <AUTHOR> http://www.meetup.com/HNLondon/events/150289672/

<comment><USER2> Thanks for organizing these events, they're great talks and it's awesome that you publish the videos afterwards!

However, I think you should try and give at least a _minimal_ response to HNers who volunteer for a short talk, especially if you explicitly solicited ideas before. It's absolutely fine to say you're not interested, but just ignoring community members is not that great.

<comment><AUTHOR> You are right. I am sorry for not replying to you and other people who submitted talk proposals last month. I have been swamped with work and neglected many emails recently. I know how annoying it is to not receive responses to emails and should behave accordingly myself.

<comment><USER2> I know how it is and I've been on both sides (and been unhappy about it in both cases), so no hard feelings. Just wanted to give you some feedback :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> This will be the first HN meetup I'll be attending. I always wanted to attend one but I lived too far away. I'm looking forward to meeting anyone and everyone.

For anyone that has been there before, is there anything i should know?

<comment><USER4> * Get in early if you want pizza.

* Some people seem to believe that taking an entire pizza for themselves is appropriate. It isn't.

* Go introduce yourself to people you don't know.

* Expect the talks to run past their scheduled time.

* A small bunch of us congregate in The Windmill pub afterwards. You're welcome to join us.

* Please don't engage in conversation with fellow attendees during the talks.

* If you see or hear something inappropriate, offensive, aggressive or suspicious, find me and tell me. I'm hard to miss. I'm the massive Irish guy sitting up at the front.

<comment><USER5> This! I've been to 10 or so now (lost count) and they're great! Two things to add/reinforce:

\- Sanderson is hilarious

\- Introduce yourself to people you don't know. The room is chock full of some of the best in startup London.

<comment><USER4> Sanderson's highly unlikely to be hosting this month as he's insanely busy promoting his Sunday Assembly.

Not to worry though, Andrea did a great job in his absence and if she's not free, we'll find someone else equally awesome & hilarious.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Awesome, I'm really happy I moved to London recently.</comment>


Faceplanting: an app launch horror story with a twist - <AUTHOR> http://taptaptap.com/blog/faceplanting-an-app-launch-horror-story-with-a-twist/ <comment><USER2> Great article. Fun to see an app "launch" get salvaged, though of course the main takeaway (as usual) seems to be "get featured by Apple" (but you have absolutely no control over that, sorry). Not to fully discount the obvious effect that redoing the icon and screenshots had on sales in the midst of being featured, of course.

<comment><USER3> > "get featured by Apple" (but you have absolutely no control over that, > sorry)

Actually Angry Birds got featured after they got a publisher who had connections to Apple and called them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> #928F8D text on a #EFEFEF textured background? I'm not being mean or pernickety, I am actually struggling to read this.

<comment><USER5> I used the Readability bookmarklet: <http://www.readability.com/bookmarklets>

Here's how the page looks like after activating it: <http://i53.tinypic.com/2whfjhj.png>

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's a great read, but I'm honestly struggling to read the text unless I highlight it first. Please change the colours to make it a bit easier to read :)

</comment><comment><USER7> Thanks for sharing your experience. While it's great that your app got featured by Apple, it would have been more informative if you could have gauged the effect of your updates to the app before the Featured App effect kicked in.

<comment><USER8> Not only that but they were able to do their update on day three of being featured.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> He mentioned iTunes SEO. Any one knows of any great posts on the subject.</comment>


Show HN: Interactive london tube map for desktop and mobile, hammer.js/es6 - <AUTHOR> https://tubermap.com <comment><AUTHOR> Hi HN,

We've just gotten finished pushing out a new mobile interface update for our tube map and thought this would be a good opportunity to show it off!

We're using hammer.js for pinch zoom, html5 canvas to draw the map and a wodge of js for routing and drawing.

Best on desktop due to hover effect, though works very well on mobile now too (we hope!)</comment>


OpenAFS will not support Linux 4.4+; package removed from Debian soon - <AUTHOR> https://lists.openafs.org/pipermail/openafs-info/2016-March/041654.html <comment><AUTHOR> The effect is that you cannot use the AFS (network file system) on Ubuntu 16.04</comment>