Mistakes about grammar mistakes - <AUTHOR> http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2168

<comment><USER2> I would be interested to know the author's definition of grammar. He seems to be using the common yet vague definition of grammar, something along the lines of "the proper arrangement of words in a phrase or sentence." However, from a critical/academic standpoint I always thought grammar was more general. Wikipedia, m-w, and answers.com all allow for "grammar" encompassing essentially all structural rules of a language, including semantics, syntax, morphology, etc.

Also, I specifically disagree with his number 3. I have never heard or seen "I can do that easy" in formal speech or prose. He seems to be arguing against grammar Nazism, which I can agree with, but that doesn't mean that a perfectly acceptable and understandable sentence may still be ungrammatical. "I can do that easy" is ungrammatical.

<comment><USER3> Bear in mind that descriptive grammarians determine what is and is not grammatical based not on abstract principles of grammar, most of which originate in the prescriptive tradition of the 18th and 19th centuries, but on actual recorded use (i.e. in the same way that dictionaries determine the meanings of words).

In other words, if there is a broad tradition of people saying and writing, "I can do that easy", it is _de facto_ grammatically correct to do so.

<comment><USER4> > if there is a broad tradition of people saying and writing, "I can do that > easy"

But is there? It sounds awful to my ears. Does this not just boil down to the distinction between prescriptive vs descriptive camps?

I believe there is in fact a broad tradition of people saying "I be (going to the store)", but I would say that usage of "be" is incorrect. As well with "I'm gonna ..." or even "Ongonna ...". This type of language can certainly be used "correctly" in prose, to add color and flavor, but I would never expect to see it in a proper non-fiction context.

<comment><USER5> If people say "I can do that easy," they draw out the "easy."

<comment><USER4> Shoot, even I can do that -- easy!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Language isn't _proper_ or _improper_ , it is either precise or it isn't. it is precise when it effectively conveys the information that the originator intended to send. breaking grammatical rules can in certain circumstances assist with this. but the vast majority of the time improper grammar impedes understanding. the fact that this misunderstanding is often minor enough and the type of mistake common enough that the reader can figure out what you mean isn't a valid excuse.

<comment><USER7> [http://www.chaosscenario.com/main/2010/01/when-can-a- comma-c...](http://www.chaosscenario.com/main/2010/01/when-can-a-comma-cost- you-2-million.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> From thefreedictionary.com: "A normative or prescriptive set of rules setting forth the current standard of usage for pedagogical or reference purposes." That sure sounds like what the original article was talking about.

Some quibbles with Pullum's blog: than vs. then is not a spelling mistake. They are different words and the improper usage is a grammatical error as nearly everyone understands the meaning of grammar. "Less brains" vs. "fewer brains" is a stupid example. "Brains" means intelligence in that context. "Fewer intelligence" is silly.

Now, some of the original rules are purely matters of taste. I use lots of commas, But if you use "i.e", when you should use "e.g." then you come come off as sloppy.

The real problem with strict grammarians is that some of the rules were never normal usage (dont end a sentence with a preposition) and others fail to track the evolution of usage ("different from" vs. "different than").

<comment><USER9> _The real problem with strict grammarians is that some of the rules were never normal usage (dont end a sentence with a preposition)_

I would go even a bit further. The specific example you cite is a case where the rule not only doesn't follow normal usage for English, but derives from an entirely different language. The rule, like many others, comes from Latin usage. In English, as a Germanic language, it is not only common, but often correct and natural, to end a sentence with a preposition.

There is a common tendency for adverb-verb groups in English to split and for the verb to move forward in the sentence as the preposition slides down to the end. As an example, think about how natural this sounds: I'll be right along after I finish writing this reply down.

The rule was always complete crap. But it appealed to the sensibility of people who knew Latin and felt that applying its norms to English elevated them. It's a class thing, at some level, I suppose.

<comment><USER10> _I'll be right along after I finish writing this reply down_

It sounds not at all natural to me. Was it supposed to?

<comment><USER9> Yup. It wasn't meant to be elegant, but "I'll be there after I write this down" is both natural and common and (the only thing that matters here) perfectly good English style and grammar.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Maybe I only notice because my parents pounded the difference between less and fewer into my head when I was growing up, but... It seems like speakers of American English have simply forgotten that "fewer" exists.

<comment><USER12> Is that bad?

<comment><USER13> Yes, it is bad. The distinction between less and fewer can aid interpretation of a sentence, especially in spoken language.

Consider: "I have less chocolate" vs "I have fewer chocolates"

In the first case, even if you don't hear the correct ending to the word chocolate, it is clear that you are talking about an amorphous mass of chocolate. In the second case, it is clear that you have distinct chocolates.

Natural language works on multiple redundancy, expecting some wastage as the information is conveyed. Any common mistake that detracts from the precision with which you can express yourself is a bad thing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I always thought that the Strunk and White was about style - it's up to the reader to decide whether it's good advice or not - but to call it clueless is just wrong. My English improved a lot after reading that book.

<comment><USER15> Style, frequently, should be personal and 'learning' it often betrays the original writers intent. However, you're right. Strunkn and White were writing, primarily, about style and in such it is more akin to a recipe book for writing rather than it is a dictionary for spelling. If the book helps you in one specific area that you yourself desired to change, then it's likely been beneficial.

Having said that, Strunk and White's book is an abomination of self- contradiction. I can tell by your writing, albeit only a small snippet, that you don't follow their teachings religiously (as some do; IE the Grammar Nazi's - a little knowledge is a dangerous thing). You use your own style for parenthesise (dashes rather than commas), likely one you picked up and liked, and one the Elements of Style suggests is wrong (at least from as much as I've managed to read of the text).

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> This blog post struck me as venemous link bait. Sad to see such a thing on the Language Log.

</comment><comment><USER17> I wrote about this kind of thing a while back (about some different "rules'): [http://www.wordsinboxes.com/2008/07/splitting-grammatical- ha...](http://www.wordsinboxes.com/2008/07/splitting-grammatical-hairs.html)

<comment><USER18> Good post. I think too many people think that the simplified English they learn in first grade is the same English they should use once they are adults. (I know first grade is where I heard "never begin a sentence with 'and' or 'but'", anyway. The other rules were introduced at a similar time. I ignored them then and my grades suffered as a result. But of course, now I get paid to write, and nobody tells me which words I can start a sentence with. LOL.)

<comment><USER19> Indeed. Though you shouldn't end a paragraph with LOL. (Or start it with, or put it anywhere.)

<comment><USER18> LOL.

(I only say that because I did.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> This was a fun read. Yet:

> A guy who writes _I could of been a contender_ can't spell, sure, he knows > how to say grammatically that he could've been a contender (and who knows, > perhaps in some realm other than writing he could've been).

Is it just me, or is this sentence ungrammatical?

<comment><USER20> I believe it is just a simple typo. He meant to have "but" before "he knows."

<comment><USER15> Agreed, it sounds like he mistakenly let the 'but' go silent because of a comma, however when the comma is part of a parenthesis (the 'sure') this rule doesn't apply. He could have resolved it with any of the following:

can't spell, sure. He knows

can't spell, sure; he knows

can't spell, sure, but he knows

It requires that _extra_ pause that the parenthesis removed. How he wrote it should read more akin to this:

can't spell (sure) he knows

A parenthesis can, usually, be removed without an effect on the readability of the sentence, as the 'usually' in this sentence can. However, his can't because the two ends around the parenthesis aren't contiguous. I'd let this pass to a simple case of writing fast and being unable to catch the error on a proof read (if he did one). I've worked as a writer, and I can say honestly that it's surprisingly easy to miss errors when you know _exactly what you mean_ and hence why all good authors have good editors between their manuscript and the book you buy.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Simple, clean interface to Podcasts on Android, Offline too - <AUTHOR> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.airingpods

<comment><AUTHOR> App has simplicity and clean UX as the primary goal - Discover podcasts (only audio) and listen offline.</comment>


The World Economy Just Can't Escape Its Low-Growth, Low-Inflation Rut - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/27/upshot/world-economy-low-growth-low-interest-deflation.html <comment><USER2> "That helps explain why American workers' wages have been rising relatively slowly despite a low unemployment rate."

Wouldn't surprise me if that's a big part of the problem.

Despite tax cuts, low interest rates, and other corporate handouts, nothing's getting passed onto the people who do most of the spending. Inequality is higher than ever and the people making the most money need it the least.

<comment><USER3> > Inequality is higher than ever and the people making the most money need it > the least.

In 2016, for the first time in a while, the middle class grew (in the USA, anyway): [https://money.cnn.com/2018/04/12/news/economy/middle- class/i...](https://money.cnn.com/2018/04/12/news/economy/middle- class/index.html) .

Also, we're seeing real median incomes that we haven't seen for over 20 years: [https://seekingalpha.com/article/4231615-november-2018-media...](https://seekingalpha.com/article/4231615-november-2018-median- household-income)

<comment><USER4> Those trends began 2011 not 2016. But it's nice the preliminary data shows they may be continuing.

But inequality continues to grow at an alarming rate with almost all economic growth going to asset value not wages. Likewise, the cost for necessary goods such as housing, medicine etc far out pace wages.

<comment><USER3> > Those trends began 2011 not 2016.

I'm not sure I'd call that totally accurate. Real wages have been increasing since the Great Recession turned around. That's true. However, it is continuing to increase past the point of previous highs. The middle class inflex happened in 2016, although there doesn't seem to be data since then.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I still personally believe that the real underlying truth of "peak oil" was that as lower EROEI sources replaced higher ones, even though we would be able to grow the total number of barrels per day, the net-energy provided to drive the economy from those barrels would(is) plateau(ing). Everyone who points to fracking (or even worse tar sands) as a disproof of peak oil never understood the underlying argument about how the "economy" is effectively our word for total/net energy consumption and a fracked barrel of oil provides vastly less energy to the system.

<comment><USER6> If you think about it, a lot of the arabian/russian/corupt oligarchs money from oil were spent in ludicrous ways, like luxury beyond belief. The economy is getting less value from a fracked barrel, but those money are spent more wisely, returning back into the industry. This is not just sticking a pipe in the ground anymore, we are advancing our tech by using fracking. This is a new economic engine, maybe it's not as big as the free oil, but it's something.

<comment><USER7> It's an interesting thought; I think you'd also have to look at the absolute dollar amounts of "luxury spend vs. capital/research reinvestment" to get the full picture. (Since the actual benefits accrued to society are proportional to the absolute spend on R&D).

Also, is R&D in fracking transferable? Or is it just tech that will be irrelevant in 20-30 years? (I don't have a good picture on this one; I could see a reasonable argument that we will be using natural gas for a long time, even when we're a mostly-renewable economy, since it's a convenient-to- transport form of energy as LNG).

<comment><USER8> I can't imagine fracking is too transferable unless there's some other easily flowing substance you want to get out of the ground besides water, oil, or natural gas.

EDIT: It might be useful for enabling greater storage density of CO2 in rock formations if we attempt to sequester CO2 out of the atmosphere at scale: [https://phys.org/news/2018-11-co2-underground-curb-carbon- em...](https://phys.org/news/2018-11-co2-underground-curb-carbon- emissions.html)

<comment><USER9> Fracking is important in geothermal. An experimental form uses drilling to dry hot rocks and injection of water (even waste water or grey water) to produce steam.

Destructive uses of aquifers may mean we need skills in underground water table remediation. I don't think fracking directly helps (I think it hinders) but we're going to need to understand how to use it to fix things as well as extract things.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> As is typical of such articles, this is written from the point of view of a central bank. Low inflation is only a problem to central banks. Central bankers are bothered by low inflation because they can't cut interest rates below zero. The US and Europe inject money into the economy by having the central banks loan it out to commercial banks, who then loan it out at a profit. That's not the only way to do things. Japan uses large government- funded infrastructure projects to pump money into the economy.

The real problem is "secular stagnation". We just don't need that many people to make all the stuff. The US now has a huge population that's irrelevant, and acts as a dead weight dragging down wages. I've been saying this for over a decade, and it's now conventional wisdom, although it took way too long.

<comment><USER11> Capitalism seems to be capable of producing far more than it can consume.

<comment><USER10> Production technology today is capable of producing far more than can be consumed. This is a change from most of history, and it's why classical economics doesn't have the answers.

Capitalism is now market limited. There has to be buying power. People who are only marginal players in the economic system don't generate much discretionary buying power. As the CEO of WalMart has said, "Our customers are out of money".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Low grow is good. You can't sustain growth forever.

<comment><USER13> Can't you?

Growth just means the human race getting smarter at being productive, so we can grow more food with less effort, get around in transportation with less cars and drivers, buy the things we need at lower prices and with less friction.

You could argue that once literally everything is roboticized and automated with strong AI then there's no more growth... except humans will be looking for even better real-life experiences, better art, better teaching, better personal connections... and robots and technology will still evolve to be better designed, use less energy, use less resources...

I'm not sure I can imagine a world in which people didn't want anything else to be improved that could possibly be improved, which is what a world with no growth would have to be.

<comment><USER14> We're upright walking apes. If productivity in every other sector goes to infinity, you're still left with raising your kids, eating meals, socializing with friends, and a few other things that humans just do for the same reason that fish swim and birds fly. At some point you've got to ask the question, what does productivity actually mean, when you're talking about those kinds of activities. What is there to optimize?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Past Chinese growth has set expectations too high. It is ridiculous to point to a 6.6% growth rate and say it is low.

<comment><USER16> Also ridiculous to think those numbers were accurate.

<comment><USER17> In a lecture to senior business executives on Dec. 16, Renmin University economics professor Xiang Songzuo, said that a "very important institute" in China estimated that China's GDP growth for 2018 should be about 1.67 percent or even _negative_ , and not the statistics bureau's official figure of 6.5 percent.

[https://sinoinsider.com/2018/12/politics-watch-xis-reform- an...](https://sinoinsider.com/2018/12/politics-watch-xis-reform-anniversary- speech-signals-political-crisis-in-china/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> You need an increase in worker population or an increase in productivity per worker to increase the output of your economy. If populations are stagnating and innovation is low, that would cause less growth overall. Consider that many countries have a lopsided age distribution, such as Japan, China, and some European countries. Immigration into those countries may in fact be useful if it balances their population pyramids.

</comment><comment><USER19> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit_to_fall)

</comment><comment><USER20> It's inaccurate to say that we "can't" escape it. The federal reserve has been raising interest rates to slow inflation and growth in employment, and for years they have paid interest on bank reserves at the fed and constantly talked up plans to unwind their portfolio (selling off assets). If they had done less of all that we would have higher inflation.

Same is true of some other central banks. I always am frustrated when I hear about japan not being able to raise inflation rates much. If their activities have no impact on inflation at all, why not buy up all the securities and foreign exchange in the world by printing yen? The Japanese could live entirely off the dividends because of this magical property of their central bank.

<comment><USER11> If the central banks sold off all the bonds they bought with QE, that'd cause deflation, not inflation. In fact, the japanese central bank is printing money and buying up ETFs. It's too soon to say if this is a success, but thus far, hardly any inflation!

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> So, I have a question and it may seem like a childish or stupid one because I think I've missed something somewhere.

Our society, and I think capitalism in general, seems to be pinned on the foundation of perpetual growth.

The question for me is: how can we have infinite growth on a planet with limited resources?

<comment><USER22> > how can we have infinite growth on a planet with limited resources?

I find it sad but unsurprising that a reasonable question like this attracts a bunch of downvotes here.

I heartily recommend Higgs' book "Collision Course" \-- it doesn't provide solutions about how to get ourselves out of the mess that we're in, but it does provide a lot of historical evidence explaining how much public thought and speech around economic growth has been warped by propaganda:

Kerryn Higgs -- Collision Course: Endless Growth on a Finite Planet

[https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/collision- course](https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/collision-course)

A few quotes from reviews:

> If modern society ever had a core taboo it is against speaking favorably of > limits, especially with respect to growth.

> Higgs explains brilliantly how our ideas about economics and the environment > have been carefully warped and manipulated over decades, just so a small > minority could get rich.

<comment><USER21> Thanks for the recommendation, from the quotes that seems like the exact thing to fill my knowledge gap.

:)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> In my opinion a deflation is what the world and especially the nature needs. People have to stop wasting our limited resources.

<comment><USER24> I think this is a valid point of view. Has anyone ever stopped and asked if an ever-increasing GDP is sustainable?

<comment><USER25> This physicist has done a number of blogs on physical restraints on economic growth.

[https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets- physicist...](https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/)

For example, if economic growth persists black body ration independent of power source raises the surface temperature of the earth to boiling in a few hundred years.

<comment><USER22> this link is _fantastic_ , thank you for sharing it, i haven't heard this argument before .

First: For a given constant T > 0 there exists C > 0 such that Temp(earth) <= T implies Energy(earth) <= C

      > Right, if you plot the U.S. energy consumption in all forms from 1650 until
      > now, you see a phenomenally faithful exponential at about 3% per year over
      > that whole span. The situation for the whole world is similar. So how long
      > do you think we might be able to continue this trend?

      > Alright, the Earth has only one mechanism for releasing heat to space, and
      > that's via (infrared) radiation. We understand the phenomenon perfectly
      > well, and can predict the surface temperature of the planet as a function of
      > how much energy the human race produces. The upshot is that at a 2.3% growth
      > rate (conveniently chosen to represent a 10× increase every century), we
      > would reach boiling temperature in about 400 years. [Pained expression from
      > economist.] And this statement is independent of technology. Even if we
      > don't have a name for the energy source yet, as long as it obeys
      > thermodynamics, we cook ourselves with perpetual energy increase.

      > At that 2.3% growth rate [of global energy consumption], we would be using
      > energy at a rate corresponding to the total solar input striking Earth in a
      > little over 400 years. We would consume something comparable to the entire
      > sun in 1400 years from now. By 2500 years, we would use energy at the rate
      > of the entire Milky Way galaxy—100 billion stars! I think you can see the
      > absurdity of continued energy growth. 2500 years is not that long, from a
      > historical perspective. We know what we were doing 2500 years ago. I think
      > I know what we're not going to be doing 2500 years hence.

      > If we tried to generate energy at a rate commensurate with that of the Sun
      > in 1400 years, and did this on Earth, physics demands that the surface of
      > the Earth must be hotter than the (much larger) surface of the Sun.

Second: Energy(earth) / GDP(earth) >= K > 0

      > Then in order to have real GDP growth on top of flat energy, the fractional
      > cost of energy goes down relative to the GDP as a whole.
      > How far do you imagine this can go? Will energy get to 1% of GDP? 0.1%? Is
      > there a limit?
      > if energy became arbitrarily cheap, someone could buy all of it, and
      > suddenly the activities that comprise the economy would grind to a halt

That is, assuming we want Temp(earth) <= T for some constant temperature T, then there exist positive constants C > 0, K > 0 such that Energy(earth) <= C and Energy(earth) / GDP(earth) >= K > 0 . Therefore GDP(earth) <= C / K .

<comment> wav-part We do not consume energy. We consume goods and services which require energy to produce. This model completely ignores past and future advancments in energy efficieny.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I can see the appeal of being a Doomsday prepper now. Having your livelihood held hostage to fiscal policies of random nations feels a bit like an ant being played with by a bored child. You might as well gain some agency by stocking cans of beans and vitamin supplements in a concrete bunker.

</comment><comment><USER27> What the world can't escape is politicians and people in power always overspending.

The overspending always must come to an end when for every additional monetary unit in debt you get very low improvement in the economy but you in debt the future. You are living from your children income.

What usually comes after that is destruction of capital, either by war(you loose all what you have) or inflation, deflation or both simultaneusly(terrible deflation in some things,terrible inflation in others).

You can make the general population pay for it(raising inflation higher than incomes), or you can make the owners of capital pay for it(haircut of 30% or so of their worth).

Of course the owners of capital, like the owners of the NewYorkTimes do not want to pay for it. So they will try to influence the population to do what is best for them basically with propaganda.

In the past it was basically States and Church the only capable institutions for using propaganda. Right now there are also private institutions who control what people feel and think through PR, ownership of media, think tanks and Universities.

<comment><USER28> > The overspending always must come to an end when for every additional > monetary unit in debt you get very low improvement in the economy but you in > debt the future. You are living from your children income.

Borrowing from your children's future is perfectly fine if your borrowing lets you bring things like clean running water, electricity, working transportation systems, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Homeostasis will become far more common as the economy further deversifies and education becomes more commodity.

</comment><comment><USER14> Stagnant real wages + increasing real expenses + a captured political system = revolution.

Get ready, it's coming.

</comment><comment><USER30> Im guessing most of this is a measuring error due to incorrectly accounting for technologies impact on industry. In an extreme example: If we all spent 99.9% of our lives in VR then every single industry would basically implode.</comment>


Supercomputer As A Service - <AUTHOR> http://www.networkcomputing.in/Supercomputer-as-a-service-001Apr009.aspx <comment><USER2> It would be really fun to get some Nvidia personal supercomputers together and provide a CUDA supercomputer as a web service. Would it be a viable business? I don't know, but it would be fun.

<http://www.nvidia.com/object/personal_supercomputing.html>

</comment><comment><USER3> If I'm not mistaken, ASU has a supercomputer that costs $0.04 per CPU hour. This makes it cheaper than EC2.</comment>


The enigma behind America's 20-year lobster boom - <AUTHOR> http://qz.com/506376 <comment><USER2> It's a mystery? Have always believed it due to the overfishing of cod. Historically there has been an overabundance of lobsters.

 _When the colonists first arrived on the shores of New England, ...lobsters used to wash up on shore in drifts two-feet tall. One 17th century British historian by the name of William Wood visited Newfoundland and noted, "Their plenty makes them little esteemed and seldom eaten [except by the Indians who] get many of them every day for to baite their hooks withal and to eat when they can get no bass."_

[http://factually.gizmodo.com/lobsters-were-once-only-fed- to-...](http://factually.gizmodo.com/lobsters-were-once-only-fed-to-poor- people-and-prisoner-1612356919)

 _Some contemporary Canadians remember kids from poor towns, as late as the 1940s, trading lobster sandwiches for peanut butter and jelly in the school cafeteria._

[http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2006/03/how-lobster- claw...](http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2006/03/how-lobster-clawed-its- way)

</comment><comment><USER3> Yet you still have to pay $20+ for it in a restaurant. [https://econfix.wordpress.com/2013/08/25/a-glut-of- lobsters-...](https://econfix.wordpress.com/2013/08/25/a-glut-of-lobsters-but- why-are-prices-in-restaurants-still-high/)

<comment><USER4> And it's $3-5 a pound off the boats. Cheaper than burgers for your New England summer barbecue.

<comment><USER5> Same thing with Alaska salmon. Reds (sockeye) were netting the fishermen 50 cents a pound this summer, but try pricing it in a store, much less in a restaurant.

I'm really surprised that someone hasn't disintermediated the seafood industry in a big way. Too many middlemen, plus an ultra-perishable product that would benefit tremendously from fast transactions.

<comment><USER2> The whole foods by me has been selling wild caught sockeye at a great price for weeks now... figured they had a good source and didn't think much more. Makes sense that there's a glut as you say

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Nice article.

They touched on it, but lobster fishing is not really a fishery - it's a farm. To highlight a point from the article: one-third to one-half of most lobsters' diet is herring, stolen from the lobster traps.

</comment><comment><USER6> This is a great article, now if only someone would make an in depth comparison to the situation in Massachusetts where they procrastinated when enacting catch limitations while fishing themselves into oblivion and now want the state to help them out...

</comment><comment><USER7> It was a pleasant surprise to read a balanced article related to climate change.

<comment><USER8> Yeah, climate change gets such a bad rap. It's so unfair. Nobody takes the time to get to know the real climate change - the poor thing is so misunderstood. Deep down it only wants to help. /s

Why is this a pleasantly balanced article relating to climate change? Just because it points out that rising temps was a possible factor (amongst others) for a lobster population boom? Don't worry at least we've got lots of lobster.

Did you keep reading until the bit where that temperature sweet spot for lobsters might have already been exceeded, and it could be one of the factors that might now be adversely affecting lobster breeding?

<comment><USER7> I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with or find offensive.

<comment><USER8> Not offended at all. It just struck me as an absurd thing to bring up.

The article was about lobsters and the multiple hypotheses on why the population exploded and why/if it might soon collapse again.

<comment><USER7> Most articles that mention climate change rarely discuss alternative hypotheses for what we observe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Fascinating tale of complexity and unexpected causes and effects.

<comment><USER10> Yes, marine biologists deal with those devilish complexities all the time. And this is only a small part of the entire picture. There are also crustacean viruses for example.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Seems to me if you are actively marking fertile lobsters and throwing them back in they might be also actively selecting for the propagation of overly fertile lobsters.

<comment><USER12> Surely that's already entirely the point of natural selection.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I recommend reading "The Secret Life of Lobsters" if you find this interesting. It was a best seller a few years back.

</comment><comment><USER14> Now, can someone tell me why the live lobsters at Red Lobster smell so fishy and taste so rotten?

</comment><comment><USER15> If you haven't read David Foster Wallace's "Consider the Lobster" you should. It's fantastic. [http://www.gourmet.com/magazine/2000s/2004/08/consider_the_l...](http://www.gourmet.com/magazine/2000s/2004/08/consider_the_lobster.html)

<comment><USER10> Meh, lots of drama. The author claims that in Europe lobsters are cut in half alive before to kill the animal. Not, this is not the common procedure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> The baby lobster looks remarkably like a cockroach. Maybe we should start bioengineering 20-pound roaches and serving them from food trucks instead...

[https://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/lobster.jpg?quali...](https://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/lobster.jpg?quality=80&strip=all&w=640)

<comment><USER17> Or like spiders: [https://xkcd.com/1268/](https://xkcd.com/1268/)

<comment><USER18> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fried_spider](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fried_spider)

(I just assumed it must be the case that someone somewhere does eat spiders...)</comment></comment></comment>


"Some Puzzles for Libertarians", Treated as Writing Prompts for Short Stories - <AUTHOR> http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/02/21/current-affairs-some-puzzles-for-libertarians-treated-as-writing-prompts-for-short-stories/ <comment><USER2> I can't help but wish we'd seen where the rapping Alexander Hamilton's thoughts were going.

But of course I'd think that, having been a wobbler on the Firewood Test. ;)</comment>


WANdisco launches new Subversion Binaries - <AUTHOR> http://www.wandisco.com/subversion/os/downloads

<comment><USER2> What's wrong with the regular subversion releases?

<comment><USER3> I don't think anything is wrong with the regular SVN releases but I think this allows them to put out patches quickly to their customers.

The version of SVN in the regular repositories for the Linux distributions is also generally quite far behind. They are distributing the latest version.</comment></comment>


The power of Erlang bit syntax (yes, for real) - <AUTHOR> http://ginx.com/-w3g34 <comment><AUTHOR> This is one of those real-worldish kinds of things that make Erlang quite practical for some applications.</comment>


Why i am getting "Bandwidth Limit Exceeded". - <AUTHOR>

In last two days i have visited several website. From which i am getting "Bandwidth Limit Exceeded" from 3 Out of them. Two of them i don't remember but the last one is http://basalgangster.macgui.com/.<p>Is this because SpamHaus/CloudFlare DDoS Incident?? <comment><USER2> > Why i am getting "Bandwidth Limit Exceeded"

This is normally a notice, not to you, but to the ISP's client, that they have used more than their allotted bandwidth quota -- too many visitors downloading too many resources. It's meant to encourage the client to upgrade their service.

But there are specific reasons for this outcome. If a website operator posts a submission to HN (for example), and if it becomes popular, this might produce a spike in activity that could easily exceed the daily/weekly/whatever bandwidth limit.

> Is this because SpamHaus/CloudFlare DDoS Incident??

Possibly, but in most cases unlikely. It's more likely the result of too many visitors / too much traffic for the subscriber's service class.

<comment><USER3> I'd guess end-of-month combined with Easter. People not noticing they're bumping into their hosting quotas because they're taking time off, combined with extra traffic (for some sites) while their audience has time off.</comment></comment>


Apps Made with React native - <AUTHOR> http://facebook.github.io/react-native/releases/next/showcase.html <comment><USER2> I tried react playground on my phone. I think only a single example worked correctly... why would they put it on their showcase?</comment>


Will hackers from Singapore please stand up? - <AUTHOR>

Hello ... I would like to network with fellow Hackers from Singapore.
What startups are you guys in?
I am in the midst of launching my startup by the end of the year and am trying to save some money for web servers and stuff...
If anyone of you have any 'lobangs' (If you're a Singaporean, you'll know what that means) for a job vacancy that does not restrict employees from moonlighting (on my own personal projects), do let me know..
Thanks! <comment><USER2> I'm here, and easy to reach. <http://sivers.org/about>

But you'd be better off reaching people through Hackerspace <http://hackerspace.sg/>

More specifically, the Google Groups discussion board for Hackerspace: <http://groups.google.com/group/hackerspacesg/>

Also get involved with Startup Roots : <http://sg.startuproots.org/>

And of course e27 : <http://e27.sg/>

You probably know all this already, but there it is, just in case.

</comment><comment><USER3> Second David's links and suggestions, ping me if you are in Singapore. I'm from a startup too - <http://www.MedF1.com>.

We can do Teh Tarik, Teh Peng, Milo Peng, Yin Yong.. and kaya toast with 2 runny eggs =)

If you know mobile app development for iPhone/Android, Python, RoR, Haskell, Scala, web development, I'm pretty sure I can ask around.

We're based in Garag3 - <http://www.garag3.com>. Both NUS and SMU have pretty active communities.

Ryan

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm here :)

I used to have my own startup, but I'm now working as a cubicle rat, although hoping to return back to paradise soon.

<http://flavors.me/davidchua>

I usually hang around the hackerspacesg discussion board although I haven't been dropping by hackerspacesg lately.

<http://groups.google.com/group/hackerspacesg/>

I'm available for kopi/teh anytime. Just hola.</comment>


Graphene: 'Super' material will be in your home sooner than you think - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/02/tech/innovation/graphene-quest-for-first-ever-2d-material/index.html <comment><USER2> One reason biological materials are so amazing (much stronger, etc, like spider silk) is they are essentially made one atom at a time.

If we can do the same thing, but using inorganics we can create some amazing materials. Steel for example is made of a myriad of various crystals and alloys arranged as grains. Tons of work goes into the exact processing needed to encourage one type or another of grain. If we could exactly control where each atom of the iron, carbon, and other elements go we would create a material much much stronger than anything we can do today.

</comment><comment><USER3> All I can think is –

[Mr. Burns is reminiscing about his grandfather's old Atom Smashing Plant]

Burns' Grandfather: Come on, men! Smash those atoms! You there, turn out your pockets.

[Two goons seize a waifish worker and turn out his pockets]

Burns' Grandfather: Aha - atoms! One, two, three, four... SIX of them! Take him away!

</comment><comment><USER4> There is absolutely nothing in the story that has conclusions of how it will actually be in your home in any practical use?

I mean it is raving about the material but not any tested application?

Article vaguely says "want to" and "considering".

On slide 3, I see the words "could" and "promises" which is meaningless.

You might find this reference table handy: [https://xkcd.com/678/](https://xkcd.com/678/)

Graphene clearly falls under the "10 years" section.

<comment><USER5> The video says Samsung is using it in its YOUM flexible display, that was demoed at CES this year. Rumors are both Samsung and LG will release phones with such displays within the next 6 months or so.

EDIT: This one just appeared:

[http://crave.cnet.co.uk/mobiles/samsung-galaxy-round- tipped-...](http://crave.cnet.co.uk/mobiles/samsung-galaxy-round-tipped-to-be- first-flexible-phone-50012425/)

<comment><USER4> Ah okay, using that lead, I found this [http://www.intellalegal.com/2013/03/samsung-graphene- patent-...](http://www.intellalegal.com/2013/03/samsung-graphene-patent-for- touch-screens-is-an-example-of-nanotechnology-innovation/)

Touch screen displays are made of indium-tin-oxide and samsung wants to replace it with far cheaper graphene.

But that is only a cost saving measure and I am not sure if it brings anything new to the table other than increased profit?

This paragraph alone says more than the entire CNN story:

 _Many companies have invested in the research and development of graphene and other nanoamterials. In all, the USPTO has issued approximately 7,000 patents related to graphene. Samsung has received the most patents related to graphene, with over 400 patents for the use of the material in displays and electronics._

<comment><USER6> Getting indium out of our electronics is HUGE.

That is a revolution in its own right.

<comment><USER7> Can you say more about why? I assume it's a cost or environmental thing or both.

<comment><USER8> Apparently it's expensive and rare. From the Wikipedia page:

"In 2002, the price was US$94 per kilogram. The recent changes in demand and supply have resulted in high and fluctuating prices of indium, which from 2006 to 2009 ranged from US$382/kg to US$918/kg.

It has been estimated that there are fewer than 20 years left of indium supplies, based on current rates of extraction, demonstrating the need for additional recycling.[37]"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I want to hold a sheet of it and turn it on its side... to see if I can see a one atom thick edge (I'm betting I cant!).

<comment><USER10> Careful, it would probably cause a rather nasty cut as there's nothing to stop it once it starts slicing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> well actually you dont have to wait the 'sooner' time you could just make it at home right now just following the youtube video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQANDuFYvsc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQANDuFYvsc)

which only require cheap materials and tools, yes, even cheap for me in china

and i was thinking if people could use this to burn a cpu on that disk

</comment><comment><USER12> My tennis racket is supposedly made with graphene. So I guess I have some in my house.

<comment><USER13> Graphite... not graphene. Graphite is to a sponge what graphene is to paper.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Flagged. This is an advertisement, I'm guessing part of some kind of financial manipulation, like that facebook movie goldman set up</tinfoil>

</comment><comment><USER15> Tell me when I can buy large sheets of it at a reasonable price.

The article says absolutely nothing about "sooner than you think".

</comment><comment><USER16> In your home, and therefore up some kid's nose.

<comment><USER16> "Typically HN frowns on: one liner humor, ..." Ok, so _now_ I know that.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do you share assets with co-founders? - <AUTHOR> Passwords/logins are relatively straightforward to share but how do you share an account that requires a phone number? Both of us can't have the same phone number and even mapping it to an "office/2FA dongle" phone is a bit inconvenient.<p>The issue isn't so much trust as it is about transparency and survivability (i.e. if something happens to one person, the other founders can still have access). <comment><USER2> Twilio account with N logins; use it to receive the verification SMS messages. (You can do something mildly clever and split them in real time to both phones but easier just to send them to a vacuous script and get them from the logs in the Twilio dashboard.)

This doesn't work everywhere but my experience is Twilio numbers pass verification ~80% of the time for the set of services I use them on.</comment>


Ask HN: Which message broker do you use, and why? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> We use RabbitMQ and among others we are using following features:

\- persistency

\- high availability

\- easy clustering

\- ability to turn on MQTT plugin

</comment><comment><USER3> We use a janky vpn system where every device connects to a mother server on the vpn and sends messages to a port on a GO server. Looking to transition this to a real MQTT broker soon (hopefully before scaling forces us to). We'll probably use AWS IOT rather than brew up our own. I have used Xively in the past as well. For testing I use HBMQTT (python based open source).

<comment><USER4> Lol, we have all been there. Nothing wrong with running a message broker on a private network, unless you're sending all traffic through a single gateway. The easiest thing to do is probably swap out that Go server for a message broker and keep the VPN.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: If you had a choice, which startup would you join today? - <AUTHOR>

If you could ignore factors like location, etc and base on all the factors that matter like interesting projects, technologies, growth, benefits,etc. which startup would you join today? <comment><AUTHOR> I would add Slack and Zenefits as well

</comment><comment><USER2> Cloudflare. I used to work at F5 and everyone pretended they didn't exist. Than all of the sudden they have like half of the market in their pocket. Taking an old product, making it seemless and offering it for freemium.

<comment><AUTHOR> Definitely a good one... Cloudflare and Docker caught up very quickly...</comment></comment>


Inspirational and interesting Tech Documentaries? - <AUTHOR>

Here are some of my favorites, feel free to share yours!
The Machine that Changed the World (5 parts) http://youtu.be/rcR74y61xZk
Tetris - From Russia With Love http://youtu.be/etJgBgSkBuA
Triumph of the Nerds (3 parts) http://youtu.be/CFL9IyJ_qHk
The True Story of the Internet (4 parts) http://youtu.be/LYOfYS7rPpU <comment><USER2> Startup.com <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZ27rbJH6hI></comment>


Ask HN: First time in San Francisco. Please Help? - <AUTHOR>

I'm coming to SF in couple of weeks from now.
I will stay in SF for about 1 month, and work for onsite for one IT company there.
So I have few questions for all of you dear HNers.
My company is based near "Beale St".
I have found large number of restoraunts, and fast-food places to eat.
Do you have some recommendations for places to eat on lunch break? (It would be ideal if there is park where one can eat lunch in nature). Also it seems to me that food is bit pricey in SF.
Do you have recommendations for some normal bar, where I can go out to relax for one or two beers?
Is there any monthly subscribtion to public transporation, buses cable cars?
Also I need unlimited 3G data plan for smartphone. Should I go with www.boingo.com or just buy some of prepaid plans offered by ATT / T-Mobile.
Is there Lanundry cleaning and ironing service that is reliable and not to expensive (on weekly basis)?
Cheers <comment><USER2> Beale st runs from the financial district (Market end) to SOMA (Embarcadero end). Expect all dining around there to be pricy, but no more than other major world cities. The real cost in SF is housing. I like Mefil on Folsom for Indian food. Local Kitchen is also great. Go to the Truck Stop at 1st and Mission for three food trucks (vary daily) where you can get lunch for around $10. If you're looking to save money, don't plan on eating out every day. There are all kinds of bars and lounges around the area. There are monthly rates for bart and Muni; your lodging will determine which you need.

I don't know anything about laundry or cell plans. Good luck with your adventure. Make sure you go to some meetups! Don't let jaded locals color your experience :). Take the F up to fishermans wharf. Take a stroll on the embarcadero. Go to Chinatown, etc. These are touristy things but can be quite fun.

<comment><AUTHOR> pfarrell thank you for your answer.

This truck stop looks interesting, especially "curry up now" and "Tikka Masala Burritos" looks promising. I just hope this food is fresh.

I have just found that monthly bus is $74usd for Adult "A" Fast Pass®.

Hope I will have time to go to some meetups, and I will definitely try to visit airbnb techtalks.

<comment><USER2> Curry up Now is excellent! Koja Kitchen is also great.</comment></comment></comment>


New Clues to Ceres' Bright Spots and Origins - <AUTHOR> http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4785 <comment><AUTHOR> tl;dr In short, they're thinking magnesium salt or ammonia-rich clay, but... "As of this week, Dawn has reached its final orbital altitude at Ceres, about 240 miles (385 kilometers) from the surface of the dwarf planet. In mid- December, Dawn will begin taking observations from this orbit, including images at a resolution of 120 feet (35 meters) per pixel, infrared, gamma ray and neutron spectra, and high-resolution gravity data."</comment>


Plutus – Bitcoin Brute Forcer - <AUTHOR> https://howucan.gr/scripts-tools/2865-plutus-bitcoin-brute-forcer <comment><USER2> Looks like there is coin miner on the page because of 100% CPU usage.

Go right to GitHub instead: [https://github.com/Isaacdelly/Plutus](https://github.com/Isaacdelly/Plutus)</comment>


Samsung Flexible Display at CES 2013 - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=N3E7fUynrZU <comment><USER2> We are officially in the future, but we still have a long way to go as humans.

Can we just pretend that we didn't see the male chauvinistic side of the ad, because we'd love to have the technology that is showcased?

It really irks me to the level that the annoyance overwhelms the amazement from the new technology that was demoed just a minute before.</comment>