The Risk of Discovery - <AUTHOR> http://www.paulgraham.com/disc.html <comment><USER2> I'm not sure that those lines of study were actually considered separate at the time. A century earlier than Newton's time, math and geometry were considered subfields of astronomy; and astronomy was considered the observation of the realm of the divine. Not only was there not a divide between physics and theology, people actually thought that math was a tool for studying theology (one of Copernicus' sources of income was computing astrology charts for royalty).

I say this to reinforce Paul's statement, "But that's because we know how things turned out." "How things turned out" includes reclassification of what he was working out as belonging to different fields. I suspect that at the time, he didn't consider himself to be moving from one field to another but rather to trying to build upon his previous work.

<comment><USER3> Yeah alchemy seem like a completely different field than astronomy today, but at the time it was considered deeply connected - the metals was corresponding to the planets and so on. Because the heavenly order was considered reflected in the earthly materials and vice versa, studying one would lead you to greater understanding of the other.

For a modern viewpoint it might seem like Newton was "hedging his bets" by contributing to several totally different fields, but I don't think it was seen like that at the time. It was all "philosophy".

Other "philosophers" in the early modern period had similar interests. For example Tycho Brahe is remembered as an astronomer with a strong focus on empirical observation, but actually was just as focused on astrology, alchemy and medicine (which was connected to alchemy and astronomy because of the same philosophy).

Newton was a "renaissance man".

<comment><USER4> Ptolemy is likewise revered by astronomers as one of their founding fathers but they conveniently ignore the fact that in astrological circles he occupies a similar position due to his seminal work, the Tetrabiblos. Scientists can become very selective when dealing with alternatives to their world view.

<comment><USER5> _Scientists can become very selective when dealing with alternatives to their world view._

No, they just remember people for their contributions rather than their mistakes.

<comment><USER4> What scientists cannot accept is that there are aspects of human life which are not observable or measurable. Science is good at measuring what is observable but many scientists then make that a foundation for denying, ridiculing or reducing what is not observable. Science then becomes, paradoxically, a religion.

<comment><USER5> Do you not also see a paradox in claiming to be able to observe the unobservable?

As others have mentioned in the thread, scientists didn't just wake up one day and decide to ignore everything supposedly "unobservable". Science was once intertwined with theology. Over the centuries, the methods we now call science produced results, while other supposed "ways of knowing" did not. Scientific knowledge _con_ verges over time, but religion _di_ verges.

<comment><USER4> The unobservable category includes a lot more than religion. It may be that scientific knowledge converges more easily simply because it limits itself to what is observable or maybe, more accurately, what is mechanistic and observable. Take ghosts, for example. Do they exist? Let's conduct an experiment and take cameras to a supposedly haunted house. The ghosts in question decide to hide from the cameras. See, no ghosts. Told you so. The ghosts meanwhile laugh in background, taking a short break from scaring the inhabitants until the scientists leave.

<comment><USER5> I think a lot of people mistake ghost hunting TV shows for actual science. The SciFi/SyFy channel is a shadow of its former self.

It seems also that you have a very caricatured understanding of scientists.

First of all, a claim of the existence of ghosts requires some evidence that cannot be explained by other, simpler means. The principle of parsimony (AKA Occam's Razor) is important because it works. So for our ghosts, we would need residents' observations of sounds, movement, or other unexpected events. They could keep a log of the time and place of every ghostly occurrence, and demonstrate that no other explanation (thermal expansion causing creaking floorboards, drafts moving the curtains, slightly asymmetrical mounting causing pictures to tilt, blood flow through the retina causing spurious visual patterns in the dark, etc.) explains the observations.

Then you bring in the scientists, and all of the observations cease as if by magic. There are still physical explanations. The scientists' movement may be masking subtler sounds. Their presence may have made the house warmer, so the joints are tighter and creak less. The lights may be on more of the time, so visual patterns caused by misfiring neurons aren't seen.

But even if you rule out all possible simpler explanations, you still have a way of fixing the ghost problem -- just sell the house to a family of scientists, or install cameras and microphones to scare the ghosts away.

\--

Responding to the comment by clock_tower, that is the sort of platonic notion of "existence" that science avoids because it doesn't yield results. I'd say science doesn't really deal with "existence" in that sense, but "occurrence". So if you ask, "Does decadence occur?" The answer would quite obviously be yes. Using a more pragmatic definition of existence, you could say that any phenomenon you can define "exists", but you are likely to run into the problem of knowing which definition of a word someone is using.

Thus, I think you also may have a caricatured understanding of scientists, caused in part by the "fun-house mirror" effect from mechanically transliterating scientific jargon into a philosophical context.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I love this insight. I have often experienced in my life seeing someone come up with something really useful in the midst of spouting complete rubbish. Oddly it is about 50/50 internal and external, where half the time they stop in the middle of what they are saying and realize they have a really good idea, and half the time someone else stops them and says "hey, that could really work." or something like that. The common theme can best be described as "fearless thinking" or perhaps unconstrained thinking.

I suspect that the personality trait most closely associated with creativity like this is a lack of fear of embarrassment. When someone tells me something I have suggested is wrong I respond by asking questions to understand how they understand the topic so that I can learn from them. When you tell someone who has vested their self image in being right that they are wrong they take it personally and respond dismissively. They fight to have their point of view validated rather than understand a counter point of view. But this makes them unwilling to share partially understood topics because it could expose them to being 'wrong' in public.

Other times people self censor their own thinking. I get so frustrated when someone says "Well I thought that might be a solution to the problem _but assumed it would be too expensive._ " That is an example of someone who had a creative idea, self censored it, and it had to come out through someone else in order to reach the collective consciousness of the group. I try really hard to have people not self censor but it is so ingrained sometimes.

And all of that then feeds back into the genius/hero narrative where the narrative of a person includes only their noteworthy accomplishments and so the perception is that people like that _only_ do noteworthy things, and then they are impossible to live up to.

Dare to ask stupid questions, it could make you the smartest person in the room.

<comment><USER7> A stronger version of this, which is how I interpreted PG's post, is dare to spend years of your life grinding away (in relative isolation) on something that seems crazy, with no guarantee of any success, but full of promise.

I think there are actually very few people who would take such a risk, even though I think it's a necessary risk if you want to be part of "huge, if true."

<comment><USER8> > I think there are actually very few people who would take such a risk, even > though I think it's a necessary risk if you want to be part of "huge, if > true."

I beg to differ - we will never know the number of people who take such risks due to survivorship bias. I have a hunch that a _lot_ of people through the ages took risks that never paid off and they never got famous, instead, they bankrupted themselves, got committed into asylums or lived their days in anonymity. No one writes biographies about them, if they did, no one would want to read them.

> dare to spend years of your life grinding away (in relative isolation) on > something that seems crazy, with no guarantee of any success, but full of > promise.

If I were to come up with a VC creed, it would probably be very close to this. Distill it down to concise Latin and you got yourself a _bona fide_ VC Firm motto.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> "Physics seems to us a promising thing to work on, and alchemy and theology obvious wastes of time."

I'm not sure which "us" pg is referring to, but the essay gives me the impression that he meant something like "most people" (I could be reading him wrong, but that was my impression). Alchemy is obviously a waste of time -- I won't dispute that, and I suspect that "most people" would agree with that assertion.

Being that pg is an atheist, I would expect him to personally believe that the study of theology is a waste of time. However, even just taking Christian theology into account, given that over 100 million Bibles are sold or given away in the world every year ([https://www.reference.com/world-view/many- copies-bible-sold-...](https://www.reference.com/world-view/many-copies-bible- sold-year-3a42fbe0f6956bb2)), and the Bible continues to be "the most widely distributed and best-selling book in the world.", the "us" for which it is true that the study of theology is "crazy" or a "waste of time" seems to me to be much smaller group of people than the essay seems to imply.

Again, this is just the impression _I_ got from reading the essay. I would be happy to have pg respond and let me know if my impression was incorrect.

(edited to remove unintentional indenting)

<comment><USER3> I'm just guessing here, but I suspect PG doesn't care what "most people" think about theology. He is probably writing from the perspective from an educated person who see the enormous influence of Newtonian physics, and see absolutely no benefit from his theological thinking. Seriously, who today even knows what Newtons theological theories were?

<comment><USER10> I don't think it matters what his particular theology was. What matters is that theology matters. It affects how people experience and interpret religion, which has a vast impact on the world. So the article's utter dismissal of theology as a waste of time seems misguided to me.

Alchemy as well was not so ridiculous as people seem to think. Modern hatred for alchemy seems more like a way of patting ourselves on the back and saying "We're so smart! Good thing we don't believe in that nonsense like those benighted fools hundreds of years ago." But in reality alchemy was a pre- scientific attempt at understanding the world which, if I understand correctly, merged more or less directly into what we no consider science.

It seems to me that the two things PG dismissed completely in his article are in fact the foundations upon which our modern world is largely built. There's more to the world than physics...even if physics is, in a sense, all there is.

<comment><USER11> As you say dismissing alchemy is probably a bad thing too.

Alchemy was the search for the ability to transform matter (particularly Pb->Au). I rather think that nuclear fusion/fission are still consider worthy fields and that creation/discovery of an alchemist's stone - a way to convert readily between different forms of matter - would still be considered a worthy development.

I agree too with your synopsis. Physics is like the part of reality we've tamed, everything that is yet to be discovered, that's of interest to physicists, likely lies outside our laws, corollaries, and axioms as they now stand.

To me such ideas as the naive assumption that we know the limits of knowledge go hand in hand with the faith of atheism. But I digress.

<comment><USER12> > faith of atheism

I used to entertain this idea, that you need faith to believe there is no god just as much as you need it to believe there are 1000. Perhaps you do. What does not require faith, however, is observation - at least to the limits to which we can test and trust our observations.

Atheism isn't a belief that there is no god, it's an observation that we don't experience any supernatural forces interacting with this universe.

> naive assumption that we know the limits of knowledge

I think very few people claim to know the limits of knowledge, but that is not the same thing as saying we know nothing. Asimov's essay on the Relativity of Wrong [0] is some of the best reasoning along this line of thought.

 _[He] went on to lecture me severely on the fact that in every century people have thought they understood the universe at last, and in every century they were proved to be wrong. It follows that the one thing we can say about our modern "knowledge" is that it is wrong.

My answer to him was, "John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."_

[0] [http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm](http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm)

<comment><USER9> "> faith of atheism

I used to entertain this idea, that you need faith to believe there is no god just as much as you need it to believe there are 1000. ..."

"Atheism isn't a belief that there is no god"

^ actually it is: [http://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheism?s=t](http://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheism?s=t)

noun

1\. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2\. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

I think perhaps part of the problem is that many people think of "faith" as meaning to "believe in something without any evidence of its viability", or to "believe in something despite evidence to the contrary". Both of those are unnecessarily narrow definitions of faith. Faith simply means believing that some thing or some set of things is true. The belief (regardless of what facts are believed) may be based on evidence, or it may not.

Insisting that "faith" is always believing facts without evidence, or contrary to evidence, is inaccurate. That would be "blind faith", and not all instances of "faith" are "blind faith".

[edit -- missed a comma]

<comment><USER13> Linking to a dictionary definition has little relevance to such a discussion.

The meaning of words depends on their context. "faith" has specific connotations when used in the context of religion, and the phrase "faith of atheism" attempts to apply these same connotations to atheism, implicitly placing it in the same category as religions and neatly sidestepping the question of whether such a categorization is appropriate.

Whether atheism should be categorized along with religions is a question which should be addressed on its own merits by looking at the characteristics of atheism and religions themselves, rather than looking up a dictionary definition and seeing if the words match.

In that context, I think it is quite appropriate to claim:

> Atheism isn't a belief that there is no god, it's an observation that we > don't experience any supernatural forces interacting with this universe.

Regardless of whether or not that is what is written down in the dictionary.

For further reference, see 'Arguing "By Definition" (LessWrong)': [http://lesswrong.com/lw/nz/arguing_by_definition/](http://lesswrong.com/lw/nz/arguing_by_definition/)

<comment><USER14> Arguing "by definition" has value to it when it helps advance a conversation by uncovering the subtle ways in which the different definitions of each party diverge from each other. It's only unproductive if one party doesn't realize that all definitions are man-made, and stubbornly insists that the other party's definition is wrong.

Insofar, I think that introducing the definition has brought a net positive value to this discussion here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> An addendum to this: Many of the greatest unconventional thinkers of our time are similar to Newton in that they are right about one non-consensus thing and wrong about lots of others.

Some of those people become fantastically rich as a result of the one right thing.

Just because someone is wildly successful and right about one non-consensus bet, doesn't mean they aren't wrong about most of their other beliefs.

The occasional out-of-the-mainstream idea is a revolution, but the vast majority are just nutty and wrong.

</comment><comment><USER16> When people say that Newton studied alchemy, what they actually mean was that he studied chemistry. He was studying what happens when you do different things to different elements. Sure he used the language of the time, but he was fundamentally doing chemistry. And the dream of the alchemists -- to turn base materials into gold -- was ultimately more or less realized when Henri Moissan created the first artificial diamond. Alchemy has a bad rep, mostly because it was shrouded in mystery and obfuscation, but at its core it was science, the pursuit of knowledge through experimentation.

<comment><USER17> The difference between alchemy and modern chemistry is alchemy is based on a mystic, supernatural view of reality, whereas chemistry assumes reality is basically natural. That makes a huge difference, and chemistry would never have gotten very far if it had stuck with the old metaphysics.

<comment><USER3> Well it wasn't really "supernatural" at the time. It was literally a theory about the natural world. It just wasn't correct, and have since been replaced with different theories and models.

<comment><USER17> No, it was supernatural because it was about allegedly existing non-material entities and forces that cannot be observed through the senses, and that have will and the ability to influence the material world. Think spirits or gods. In Christianity from the beginning this was described in terms of reason versus faith.

Human beings have two basic ways of thinking about reality, the natural and the supernatural, and until modern science came along they habitually mixed the two together. So for instance if I asked someone why a tree was black, they would answer "it was hit by lightening" which is a natural explanation, and then "and the lightening was thrown by the God Thor" which is a supernatural explanation.

The great innovation of modern science (inspired by the Greeks) was to decide to stick entirely with natural ideas. It took centuries to make this change, and many battles, and it made possible modern technology.

Let me add that the way I am using the term "natural" and "supernatural" is not my invention, it is the standard way philosophers and scientists have spoken about these matters for many centuries.

<comment><USER3> I'm not sure I get this distinction. What definition of "supernatural" do you refer to?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> For people who wonder why YC and pg are okay with some of Peter Thiel's more extreme behavior, this is why.

It's pretty interesting that pg describes the possible outcomes of contrarian ideas as either positive for society or merely a waste of time. Even though the pursuit of risky and contrarian ideas can also be hugely harmful for society.

<comment><USER19> Or maybe its because Thiel is a useful person to associate with and enough money is on the line that pg's claim that he'd be the "first to bring about the resistance" doesn't apply because Thiel, like Andreessen, is too important to be stood up to.

I've lot so much respect for YC wrt Thiel. Trump is such an obvious villain that if you're not against him you're an enabler. I don't care that he's become normalized in the American and Russian press the rest of the world is laughing at the USA and crying inside. We're slowly finding out which people are actually committed to their ideals and which are just interested in being more powerful, even if it comes at the cost of allowing a total maniac to the nuclear throne.

<comment><USER20> Roughly half the country voted Trump so it's a bit excessive to shun all of them.

<comment><USER19> I respect the 28% of voting age America that voted for HRC. I also have respect for the people that voted Stein or Johnson in non-battleground states. Call it 30%. But as a Canadian who's been to America dozens of times over the years I've slowly lost respect for the GOP and Trump was the final nail in the coffin. 90% of the GOP is evil or brainwashed. The other 10% that I still have a small modicum of respect for includes people like Kasich.

So I respect about a third of American electorate. The third that didn't vote I don't respect. The third that voted for Trump I don't respect.

As for America the country, I respect most of the intelligent people working at the State Department and the CIA that I truly believe are working towards a peaceful more prosperous world, though I admit that their history is much more checkered (waterboarding, etc) than their counterparts in Germany, but they've done good work basically everywhere outside of the Middle East. Tough area to play right though, lobbyists, Israel, Turkey, multiple religious factions, critical market for the economy / national security.

But all their work is jeopardized by this horrible demagogue and enough of America either stayed home or voted for him. A man that bragged about sexual assault and swindled the poor for their student loan money and chanted "lock her up" to crowds of tens of thousands. We're laughing at America in the morning, but we're crying at night.

<comment><USER21> He's a villain to you because you have different ideals. To many, he is a figurative Bruce Wayne in the Gotham City of corruption that is D.C. Any man who "is with her" either has a confused sense of allegiance to the USA or needs a shot of testosterone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> It's either ignorant or insulting to name theology in the same breath as alchemy. Theology is still an academic discipline and it doesn't even require a believe in the supernatural. Unless this is pg's attempt to insert himself into fight about "theology" vs. "religious studies".

<comment><USER23> to use etymology: theology -> theism. It's the study of divine, god, etc. that sort of thing. It's not a normal scientific pursuit. Sure, it's still an academic discipline but not one with any scientific rigor or merit. To assert that its continued existence is what makes it more legitimate than alchemy is some mix of appeal to authority and appeal to popularity.

<comment><USER24> I'm going to disagree with the "or merit" part. For two reasons - the first being related to theology itself, and the other related to another field which is sometimes classified as being without scientific rigor - philosophy.

One merit of theology is the study of religious traditions and whether or not they should continue or be discouraged for various reasons, as an example.

Not only scientific pursuits have merit. I'm not sure if that's what you were trying to imply with your combination of statements, but it's possible to infer that from your choice of words.

<comment><USER23> Indeed, and thanks for the feedback, esp. in the form of pointing out the interpretation rather than assuming things or putting words in my mouth. I agree with everything you said. I think it would be good to make a distinction between the anthropology of religion and theology (the latter as the study of the "divine" itself, as though there's such a thing to study. Anthropology has merit for sure and even the _practice_ of religion and even belief in things that aren't scientifically supported may have utility or purpose even if their premise is factually baseless (which isn't to say that everything lacking scientific evidence is _necessarily_ false, just well, lacking scientific evidence).

<comment><USER24> I agree (and others do, too) that there should be a greater distinction between anthropological study of religion vs. theology - and it is argued by some that "religious studies" is more appropriate a classification of that than theology itself. I don't have too strong an opinion on the matter, personally, but still appreciate your clarification on what you meant. It's a muddy topic (as tends to be the case with anything surrounding religion).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25>
      "I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost
       almost 300 games. 26 times, I've been trusted to take the
       game winning shot and missed."

\- Michael Jordan

<comment><USER26> Which basketball player has not missed a shot, has not lost a game, hasn't missed game winning shots?

Did they all become like Michael Jordan?

Failure may be on the path to success, but failure does not guarantee success.

<comment><USER27> Yeah, but you could also easily ask how many would-be Jordans stopped short because of all their failures. Point is Michael wouldn't be Michael without it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Cory Doctorow made a similar connection between science and alchemy a while ago:

"FLOSS .. is better for the same reason that science is better than alchemy. Back before we had science we had alchemy, a lot like science except alchemists never told anyone else what they thought they'd learned and so they were prey to the most common human frailty which is self deception, which is how how alchemists discovered in the hardest way possible that you shouldn't drink mercury, and when alchemists started telling each other what they thought they'd learned, and subjecting themselves to adversarial peer review, and they started publishing their source they turned something base into something noble, they turned superstition into science and created the enlightenment, and FLOSS is everywhere because it continues the enlightenment tradition."

Source: [1:40 to 2:20] [http://conferences.oreilly.com/oscon/oscon- tx/public/content...](http://conferences.oreilly.com/oscon/oscon- tx/public/content/how-you-got-here)

</comment><comment><USER29> I find it funny that capitalism requires what is essentially an irrational behavior. It seems to me that big public corporations, which avoid risk, and only buy startups once they have been established, are the rational actors. On the other hands, three guys in the garage doing a startup often do it not because they calculate expected profits, but because they want to do it for other than monetary reasons - typically to show that things can be improved and done differently. And so they are willing to take huge, irrational risks.

<comment><USER30> Startups are not much risk, though. You start out without, you try to make something, if it doesn't work out just having the experience as long as it wasn't a total catastrophe makes you hirable anywhere you want or you try again.

The most you might lose is the support of friends and family if your dreams aren't fully realized. Which can be a lot, but that is why the people who have the most to lose don't try startups.

<comment><USER31> Founding a failed startup does not "make you hireable anywhere you want."

<comment><USER32> Of course not, it's hyperbole. Your criticism can be applied to anything [1], because nothing will make someone hireable everywhere.

The point is that if you go through a decent period [2] of running a start-up you will acquire experience and skills that will make you much more attractive for hire compared to yourself without that experience. What's more, the quality of this real world experience will most likely far surpass anything you would gain in a classic university in the same amount of time [3].

\--

[1] Depending on how literal we want to be with these word games, there are some tricks that can be done with the "you want" part of the phrase to adjust how much it applies.

[2] Let's say 6 months full-time minimum.

[3] There's no way to give a universal estimate here for everyone. However for people who are capable of self-teaching, the startup experience can be orders of magnitude more useful than university time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> There are plenty of discoverers who incurred some level of risk and lost in a way that isn't covered up by history. Marie Curie's discovery killed her. Tesla's genius manifested not only in groundbreaking discovery, but also mental illness and isolation. And just ask Elisha Gray about the risks of discovery.

But, yes, history has a survivorship bias. But that's literally one of the oldest observations made. It's often said, "History is written by the victors." What PG is saying is just another version of that age-old observation.

</comment><comment><USER34> I wish pg would start writing longer form essays again. His startup essays had a huge impact on my approach to building startups. They were hugely insightful and inspirational for me.

This essay has a great core insight, and I get you don't need more words to say it, but I still miss the longer ones

<comment><USER35> If you'd like a longer read along the lines of this note, then you might enjoy Bruno Latour's Science in Action: [https://www.amazon.co.uk/Science-Action- Scientists-Engineers...](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Science-Action-Scientists- Engineers-Through/dp/0674792912)

I found the book super interesting in terms of explaining how innovations happen and how we talk about them in retrospect. Although it is about science, I think a lot of the thinking would apply to programming innovations too. And unlike most blog posts, there is actually some serious sociological research behind it :-).

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> I don't think that studing chemistry (I like to think about alchemy as a precursor of chemistry) or theology should be stigmatized. I understand that it was just an example to support the core idea of the article, but it still leaves a bad taste.

<comment><USER37> I got that too. The essay definitely had an anti-religious undertone to me.

<comment><USER38> You cannot study what -by definition- it's impossible to observe or measure directly or indirectly. Believing in God it's an act of faith, you cannot KNOW nothing.

So yes, in modern times, theology and alchemy has the same scientific value: none

<comment><USER39> "You cannot study what -by definition- it's impossible to observe or measure directly or indirectly"

You're limiting knowledge to the hard sciences.

That kind of thinking is not scientific, but merely Scientism.

You're also ruling out many scientific domains, e.g. history which operates according to the historical method.

Theology (in the original Christian sense of the word) stands on the historical method. It's interested primarily in those historical events from which we can learn about God. If Jesus is not historical, if God has not acted in history, then there's nothing to know about God, and there's no such thing as Theology.

<comment><USER40> History is studied through indirect measurements - written accounts, archaeology, oral history. All reasonable scientific routes. As allowed by the OP?

<comment><USER39> Yes, that would be the historical method.

But that is different to the "observe", "measure", rinse-and-repeat methodology which is commonly understood as the scientific method.

The methods by which one studies physics and history are different, but history is no less scientific, and it falls within the sciences, as does theology since it depends on the historical method.

Theology cannot argue or learn anything about God for which there is no historical basis.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Wait, I thought alchemy and theology were pretty mainstream back then? How was it risky? Just because they turned out to be wrong, I don't think it was crazy for someone to be studying these things back then. Seems like a modern example would be someone studying something like string theory or dark matter and later we discover these things are wrong... but there is no reason to think that today.

<comment><USER42> The penalty for unsanctioned alchemy was hanging.

His theological conclusions would have been considered heresy. The penalty for heresy was the loss of all property and status and, sometimes, death.

He was indeed taking a serious risk in studying these things.

<comment><USER41> While I appreciate what you are saying, I think the type of risk pg was talking about was the risk of wasting his time/career, not the risk to his life. The more I think about it, I think a good modern example may turn out to be someone studying AI (specifically AGI). If it turns out to be possible, and you succeed, it would be huge. If it turns out to be not possible, you would have wasted your career. So maybe the lesson is to do more than one thing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> > Newton made three bets. One of them worked. But they were all risky.

Except it was three:

\- Optics

\- Gravitation and mechanics

\- Mathematics

There are many scientists out there who spend a lifetime on theories that turn out to be bogus, but calling it a bet is entirely missing the point.

<comment><USER44> How is calling it a bet missing the point? As a scientist investigating a phenomenon in the natural world, assuming you wish to make a new contribution to your field, you are betting your time that you will both arrive at a new understanding of your subject matter and also be the first to do so.

<comment><USER43> If you just bet that for example string theory is a good enough field for research then you'll be deeply disappointed if it turns out to be nothing but a mirage.

These people live for research. They can work on anything (because interests them) and no matter if it has earth shattering consequences or small breaks they can still be happy during the process, so calling it risky or dangerous is laughable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I urge anyone to play a bit of 'why' with a young child, mixed with the Socrates method. If you can get them to try and answer beyond "I don't know"... you'll be taken to some crazy mental places no adult can take you.

<comment><USER46> I would love to hear more about this

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> The most valuable thing we have is time. Unless you are born rich or wealthy time is sustenance and living money. The tradeoffs and risks involved for those born rich and those who have to work for a living are world's apart.

In the era Newton came from you would have to be wealthy to be able to afford other interests beyond surviving. So a lot of the big leaps were made by those from rich families or those lucky enough to have some sort of wealthy backer.

Plus certain things like education, family, kids are attached to specific timelines in a typical life. Health and the ability to do things are also attached to timelines. When you take a risk you could be putting all of those on line.

The ability to expend time with no certainty of returns is a luxury only those from a wealthy background have. And naturally they will be more successfuly as there are more efforts from people of those backgrounds.

</comment><comment><USER48> also, i have the impression that alchemy's bad reputation is a bit undeserved. IIRC some alchemists believed matter was made of fundamental components and followed the scientific method well. so, that bet may be less risky than we perceive it now. this only makes pg's point stronger: it'd be the most interesting for a biography of Newton to talk about alchemy.

<comment><USER49> Indeed. Alchemy was the precursor to chemistry. The whole turning lead into gold trope was an obvious failure in hindsight, but that was not the sole point of alchemy. An awful lot was learned about chemistry and the nature of matter.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> But... isn't it true that at Newton's theology was at the foundation of his physics? The idea of a single deity whose intelligence crafted a rational world, the laws of which it is man's duty to uncover, is certainly not incidental to his discoveries.

</comment><comment><USER51> I agree with the core insight that we sometimes ignore the risk taking of high achievers while looking at their life in hindsight. However, I would not say with certainty that Newton was pursuing these fields with the mindset of betting on them. He could have been certain about the validity, value and fruitfulness of intellectual pursuits in those fields.

Interestingly, this is the second time in the past 24 hours I've encountered the idea of comparing a VC (Marc's reference) with another class of high achievers. (previous one, a comparison with entrepreneurs: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13371813](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13371813))

</comment><comment><USER52> The other anecdote concerning Sir Isaac Newton that seems most apt, and it was particularly well dramatized in Neil DeGrasse Tyson's updated __Cosmos __series, arose when the Royal Society delayed publishing his Principia due to the spectacular failure of their Encyclopedia of Fish the year before! I am not sure which amazes me more: that "natural philosophy" encompasses everything in the cosmos from optics to marine life. Or contemporaneous short- sightedness can imbue one subject with the most paramount economic and social import, whilst viewing the other as nothing more than a mere parlor trick. Only to have the perspective of history upend such dogma centuries later!

<comment><USER53> Short-sightedness or a matter of economics, considering printing was probably not as easy and cheap in those times as it is now?

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> What PG calls "bets" I would call interesting topics for Newton. Maybe he just liked the subjects. Calling bets is saying he was trying to actually accomplish something out of their studies and work. I don't think a curious mind would work like that. Even in physics, he studied a broad range of topics, not only Mechanics.

Furthermore, you don't need to make a breakthrough in everything to satisfy your desire for knowledge. Even more so for Newton, which was known by his seclusion and introversion.

</comment><comment><USER39> pg's "theology" is a strawman.

Theology is nothing but a study of the implications of the historical events concerning Jesus of Nazareth, those events themselves being subject to the historical method.

Either I am missing something, or pg is essentially implying some or all of the following:

1\. The person of Jesus Christ did not exist in history.

2\. There is insufficient information concerning him.

3\. Studying the historical person of Jesus Christ according to the historical method is akin to, or of similar value to, the study of alchemy, i.e. a waste of time.

I seriously doubt whether any historian interested in ancient history would make such claims.

It's pretty ignorant and reckless coming from pg.

<comment><USER55> Yes, to dismiss theology along with alchemy -- in the same sentence -- as altogether useless is childish oversimplification. Rejecting Biblical faiths is one thing, but to ignore the impact the Christian worldview has had on Western science, including the life of Isaac Newton (who would never have invested time in studying the physical world if he didn't believe it had a Creator, and therefore order), either shows a gross lack of historical knowledge or poor taste. It's a pity because I agree with him otherwise about the risk taking, which was the main point of his article.

<comment><USER3> If want to use words like childish, ignorant, poor taste, you really need to make your case better. Many scientists does not believe in a creator but still believe the physical world to have order.

In any case, whether a creator exist or not, it is still a waste of time to search in the Bible for information about his plans for the future, like Newton did.

If you are going to argue it wasn't a waste of time, you have to point out what useful information Newton discovered in his studies of the Bible.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> The core idea of this article is that high reward is usually accompanied by high risk. To exemplify this, pg gave a great example of Newton pursuing physics, alchemy and theology.

However, this was just one example. I think the article could be greatly improved by giving, like, 50 examples (in an abbreviated form, like "Newton: physics, alchemy, theology"). With one example it's sorta easy to think, "eh that might just be an exception". With 50 example, it's easy to think, "wow, look at all of that; the core idea definitely does seem to be true".

<comment><USER57> It's a good example but I think the core of the article is that there is inherent success bias in the history of science and engineering. The scientists of the past that were working on dead end problems were not necessarily worse scientists, it could have been pure bad luck. But in hindsight it's difficult to tell those people from the incompetent.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> "The distance between insanity and genius is measured only by success." \- Bruce Feirstein

</comment><comment><USER59> This is similar to what Ben Thompson just wrote about [1]. It's easy to forget the bets, such as Apple TV, that weren't so successful.

[1] [https://stratechery.com/2017/the-ten-year-anniversary-of- the...](https://stratechery.com/2017/the-ten-year-anniversary-of-the-apple- tv/)

<comment><USER60> Most people have not forgotten the Apple TV.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> > Newton made three bets. One of them worked. But they were all risky.

Risky? What is the definition of risk? What was the downside to Newton making these 'bets'? What was the risk of Andressen deciding in college to think that what he did was the right way to go? And importantly (and my point) wouldn't the exact same action by a tenured professor be more of a risk?

Let's take the risk that Donald Trump took vs. Hillary Clinton. Trump is hated by many now and would be regardless of whether he won or lost the election (in many ways decimated his brand). The same is not true for Hillary even though she did take a reputation hit it's nowhere near what Trump (with his rhetoric) took. So same thing "run for President" different people different levels of risk.

</comment><comment><USER62> I find this essay pretty confusing. It seems to contradict itself at some basic level.

"Maybe the smartness and the craziness were not as separate as we think."

This seems kind of obvious to me. Yes, creative and driven people are interested in lots of strange things. Yes, genius often means the ability to take ideas or discoveries from apparently widely different areas and tie them together to form new understandings.

"Newton made three bets. One of them worked."

This makes no sense. Of course his physics was a success. But how could anyone judge the theological pursuits of an individual to be a success or a failure?

And if the pursuit was a failure, then doesn't that negate the earlier implication that his studying theology ("crazy") was in some ways associated with his success in physics ("genius")?

</comment><comment><USER63> I've been saying this for years: science is far too conservative, dogmatic, and risk-averse.

The reality is that genius minds are intellectually fearless. Newton was into alchemy and fringe theology. Edison tried to build a machine to contact the dead. Many of the great minds of the 60s who at least envisioned everything you're using now were into all kinds of "crazy" stuff: parapsychology, psychedelic consciousness expansion, shamanism, etc.

Was some of that stuff silly? Sure. Was some or even most of it a dead end? Sure. But that's not the point. The point is that great minds fear no idea.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSolPNn0G7M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSolPNn0G7M)

</comment><comment><USER64> Loved the insight, but I don't agree with the conclusions. Maybe Newton was just genius all along, and we have yet to discover the "hugeness" of alchemy and theology.

<comment><USER65> I think what you're saying compliments the conclusions made by PG.

If you think alchemy might have promise, go and study it! You'll be taking a risk, but it might just change the world (and put you in the history books).

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> Newtons dabbling in Alchemy made him very sick, so there was definitely a risk there. He also invested and lost his life savings in a speculative stock bubble. The bet that really paid off financially was his occult connections that got him a job as warden of the royal mint where his currency manipulation lead to an increase in demand for coins and made him a huge personal fortune. At least that's what I heard. Happy to be corrected.

</comment><comment><USER67> Graham's casual dismissal of 'useless' theology demonstrates a complete lack of awareness of the demise of the secularization hypothesis.

</comment><comment><USER68> I honestly think that Newton was well aware of the unlikelihood of making breakthroughs in theology and alchemy[1].

In physics he had a lower[2] benefit but much higher probability of progress.

      1. Plus he went a little mad from chemical fumes.
      2. Really.  Imagine[3] making a real breakthrough in alchemy or theology!
      3. I can't imagine it and you almost certainly can't either.

<comment><USER69> Nuclear science can be considered a breakthrough in alchemy. We can even create new elements!

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> So what's the take-away? Make many high risk bets in hoping one will pay off?

Newton is an exception as well. While his biographers down-play his failures, he is also credited (at least in High School Physics) with things that were the work of dozens or even hundreds of scientists - or giants you might say.

</comment><comment><USER71> For those interested in Newton's theology and alchemy work: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_occult_studies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_occult_studies)

<comment><USER72> Plus there is the Newton Project, [http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/prism.php?id=1](http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/prism.php?id=1). One time I looked his alchemy writings were in a code that he had concocted. I recall he had astronomical (astrological) terms for chemicals. Maybe, that ties in with what someone else wrote above about there being a belief at the time that things on earth reflected what was in the heavens.

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> Newton had an epic insight into combinatorics. The calculus work he did during the university quarantine shutdown is great to page through. I wonder how much farther Newton, Gauss, Euler, and Erdos would have gotten if they knew how to code.

</comment><comment><USER74> Neal Stephenson's "Baroque Cycle" goes into great detail about Isaac Newton's life, and his focus on alchemy and theology. It is of course fiction, but well researched and utterly fascinating. I recommend it!

</comment><comment><USER75> Maybe alchemy and theology was just how he blew off steam. It seems like me did them a lot, but you know, we all like to have our hobbies.

Trying to describe the mindset of newton 100s of years after his death seems a bit reaching.

</comment><comment><USER76> On his essay tab, PG's "Risk of Discovery" is loading at the bottom, instead of the top near the more recent ones - is this happening for anyone else?

</comment><comment><USER77> I bet Newton pursued what he was interested in, rather than thinking "well, I better hedge my bets!"

</comment><comment><USER78> We do not in fact know how Theology turned out. But we will know or rather we won't when we do.

</comment><comment><USER79> What exactly was Newton risking? An entrepreneur who quits her job and takes out a mortgage to start a business is risking her livelihood. If she fails, she and her family could end up on the street. Newton came from a wealthy family. If he failed in his intellectual endeavors the "risk" for him was to live out his life as an ordinary rich person and only ending up in the more obscure history books.

I think Fredrick Smith (founder of Fedex) is a much better example of someone taking an entrepreneurial and intellectual risk.

[http://about.van.fedex.com/our-story/history- timeline/histor...](http://about.van.fedex.com/our-story/history- timeline/history/)

<comment><USER80> Newton's family was _not_ well off. His father, a yeoman, died before he was born, his mother remarried a reverend, who also died before Newton came of age. His mother wanted him to be a farmer, which is not lucrative unless you have huge tracts of land(which he did not).

When he was first admitted to Trinity, he was a subsizar - that is, he had to perform valet duties in order to pay for his education. He only stopped doing those duties when he was awarded a scholarship.

<comment><USER79> Well, my source was:

[http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/9-things-you- may-n...](http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/9-things-you-may-not-know- about-isaac-newton)

"When Newton was three, his mother wed a wealthy clergyman, Barnabas Smith..."

"In 1705, Newton was knighted by Queen Anne. By that time, he'd become wealthy after inheriting his mother's property..."

Newton's mother died in 1679, when Newton was 37. Principia was published in 1687.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER81> I'm curious, was the risk material for Newton, or just virtual, like "risk of failure" which would just be an embarrassment.

</comment><comment><USER82> if they failed they still had their lands and titles.

</comment><comment><USER83> Sorry, Newton didn't "make bets", he was not a Silicon Valley VC. He worked on problems that he found interesting and that he believed would reveal eternal truths established and maintained by God.

<comment><USER84> Please don't get stuck on semantics. When you decide to take a longer route because you think there will be less traffic, you "make a bet". You "make a bet" by deciding to go to college instead of straight into the working world. Anywhere there is a decision to be made with uncertain outcomes, you "make a bet". It doesn't have to be about money, although it often is.

<comment><USER83> I didn't 'make a bet' by going to college, it was the assumed thing in my family, it was culturally ingrained that I would go to college. This way of looking at life as a series of 'bets' that one makes is it's own particular kind of culture, one that Newton did not belong to.

Newton didn't investigate alchemy and theology because he was trying to diversify his fame investment portfolio. To see him this way is to do a disservice to him and to history.

<comment><USER85> Replace 'bet' with 'choice.' It's the same message.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER86> This is mostly confirmation bias. It's quite common to be 'kind of crazy', and it happens at all levels of intellect, from your working-class 'nutter' to your high-born 'eccentric'. There's nothing special about being smart when it comes to being 'kind of crazy'.

</comment><comment><USER87> Calling his study of theology and alchemy "crazy" seems a bit short sighted. Newtons intense devotion to understanding the scriptures was likely what allowed him to make so much progress in science. Since God saw what a devoted student he was, chose to reward him in that manner of scientific enlightenment. The study of scripture was primary, his science, secondary.

<comment><USER88> Except that that fails to account for the many devout believers who tried and failed for such enlightenment, or the fact that others have reached great scientific and mathematical heights without being devout students.

Also, having read a fair bit about his life, his scientific and mathematical endeavours were most definitely not secondary to anything.

</comment></comment><comment><USER89> PG's articles sure have gone down hill :(

<comment><USER90> Or maybe you're just remembering his successful articles and forgetting his lower quality ones?

</comment></comment><comment><USER91> It's amusing that he uses a modern chauvinism ("making a bet") in this way, while noting that some of Newton's "bets" were only "wasteful" (risky, bad, whatever) when viewed through the lense of modern knowledge.

He has a good point, put poorly, and without good support in his chosen example.

<comment><USER92> What do you mean by calling the phrase "making a bet" a chauvinism? It just seems like a figure of speech. Gambling has existed for a very long time.

(I don't mean to disagree or agree with you, just genuinely don't know what you mean, might end up going either way after you explain your cryptic (to me) remark)

<comment><USER91> In this context it imposes a modern view of "opportunity cost" that would simply not have occurred to Newton or any of his contemporaries. It's just too far back in history to really be useful as a support for his argument, especially given the convoluted and mixed approach used.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> aaron-lebo I'm not seeing what the risk was. He was taking a chance that he was wrong, yes, but that was just science. Risk suggests a danger. But what was it?

<comment><USER93> Here "risk" is opportunity cost. You can spend all you life in theology and die unknown. Newton is famous only because of physics, the other fields were waste of his time. There are countless people who spend their life perusing projects that do not produce anything valuable. And then there are few that win Nobel.

<comment><USER94> > _There are countless people who spend their life perusing projects that do > not produce anything valuable._

It can't be understated how painful that has to be from their perspective.

I suppose a similar story is where they do produce something of value, but it's incremental in nature. Incremental advancements usually don't receive much recognition.

<comment><USER29> > It can't be understated how painful that has to be from their perspective.

Why? Somebody can play videogames all day, because it's fun, and then die all of sudden. They didn't produce anything valuable, and yet, they didn't feel bad about it.

It's only painful if you rethink it, and basically say, I should have spent my time doing something else. Which is a paradox of choice.

<comment><USER94> The comment I was replying to was explicitly in context of projects. Not merely wasting life, but wasting life in pursuit of something.

The motivation for most people when they pursue something is to succeed, and their efforts to have mattered.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Diaspora's paypal account has been frozen - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/socialmedia/2011/10/19/diaspora-paypal-blocked-our-account-and-is-preventing-donations/

<comment><USER2> Any reason given for why this happened?</comment>


Upload files to your repositories - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/blog/2105-upload-files-to-your-repositories <comment><USER2> I think this is a great step, for several reasons -- both corporate and user- facing.

(1) It is true that this is more likely to turn GitHub into a generic file- dump place similar to DropBox. GitHub's infrastructure is sufficiently good to handle this, and this new addition is unlikely to disrupt the workflow of veteran users. However, since it is likely that some companies will use GitHub for file dumping, GitHub will be justified in charging companies a fee for particularly large repositories -- capitalizing on the file-dumping. I sense an alternate revenue stream coming in for GitHub.

(2) I've often run into situations in which I had written a small script and wanted to quickly turn that into a GitHub repo. To do so, I'd have to go through the online interface to initialize a new repo, and then make a folder on the command line, type a few commands, etc. Though it's a very short process, I couldn't understand why I couldn't just use the online interface to type up a readme and then drag-and-drop my script into the repo. The update smooths this work experience.

(3) Obviously, it'll make GitHub far more accessible to less technical users -- some users are intimidated by the Git learning curve, and this update makes them much more likely to use GitHub (and then slowly learn the ropes of using it via the command line).

(4) By inviting more non-technical users as in (3), it becomes more likely that (1) succeeds.

<comment><USER3> > (3) Obviously, it'll make GitHub far more accessible to less technical users

I'd have to imagine this is probably the main driving factor. As GitHub tries to make further inroad into Enterprise, I can see them focusing more and more on making things more accessible to non programmers (project managers, secretaries, etc.)

I really won't be surprised if 5 or 6 iterations down the road, you'll have the option to change the repo landing page. For example, instead of showing the files in a repo, you'll just see the README markdown file. And before you know it, they (GitHub) will start marketing GitHub Enterprise as a competitor to Confluence and other wiki/document management system.

<comment><USER4> The "repo landing page" is already handled, somewhat, by GitHub Pages—the idiomatic repo setup is to have a GitHub Pages site "about" your software, linked from the description field of the repo; to link Release downloads directly from the GitHub Pages site, bypassing the repo; and to link to the repo from the GitHub Pages site under a "view source" or "contribute" Call-to- Action. The repo itself, with its README.md, then serves just to document the _implementation_ —setup, usage, release notes, etc.—rather than to describe, explain, or teach you how to use the software.

Speaking of GitHub Pages, this feature complements it perfectly. Now you can create a GitHub-powered website—including images et al—without touching git, in much the same way you'd use one of those "FTP web interface" panels on a VPS. Except that each upload becomes a commit, rather than just mutating some ephemeral folder somewhere.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This feature has interesting synergy with GitHub Pages, where .md files can simply be dragged-and-dropped into a folder to get published as a blog post on the web.

It may be enough to remove the must-be-programmer-who-understands-git barrier to entry, anyways.

EDIT: GitHub Pages still requires specific file naming for posts and YAML front matter, so it's not perfectly non-programmer friendly. It might be a good idea to write a tutorial as a blog post/screencast, though.

<comment><USER6> You mean .org files, right? :-)

I keep notes on Github that never touch a filesystem. I do my edits from a phone or tablet. If I have a lot to write, I'll use an app then copy directly into Github. Most of my notes are personal but I started breaking them out a couple weeks ago so I could keep them in public repos.

[https://github.com/melling/ErgonomicNotes](https://github.com/melling/ErgonomicNotes)

[https://github.com/melling/EditorNotes](https://github.com/melling/EditorNotes)

Why not work directly in the version controlled cloud? Books, blogs, etc could be managed this way. No proprietary formats, no backups to worry about, and you aren't going to lose it if someone steals your device:

[http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv- movies/francis-f...](http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv- movies/francis-ford-coppola-laptop-stolen-article-1.247700)

<comment><USER7> > Why not work directly in the version controlled cloud?

What do you do if you need to work offline? You are on a plane and forget to sync something, or for whatever reason you can't access to repository (maybe China is DDOSing GitHub again?). This is also one of my main gripes about cloud based editors, it's great if you have internet access but if you don't or you have a poor connection (e.g. public wifi) you are SOL.

I use Write (iOS) and NVAlt (OS X) which sync via Dropbox, so I always have a local copy of my notes.

> no backups to worry about

Please don't solely rely on companies to store your data. They can and do lose peoples files [0].

[0] - [http://www.zdnet.com/article/dropbox-sync-glitch-results- in-...](http://www.zdnet.com/article/dropbox-sync-glitch-results-in-lost-data- for-some-subscribers/)

<comment><USER6> People lose data too at a much greater frequency. if you're paranoid about Github, create crown jobs to automatically pull your repos.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is actually a pretty good step. Most programmers are already using some kind of UI/command line to push to Github, but having a simple drag and drop for uploads will get those who are less technically inclined on our teams to actually use version control more. At least I really hope I can stop dealing with the "asset_1", "asset_1-2", "asset_1_USETHISONE" that some people do.

<comment><USER9> The problem is that this kind of workflow -- where someone iterates through multiple versions of a file or folder, renaming them each time -- results from the work they are doing offline and the lack of offline version control usage. Adding a step where you drag and drop your iterations into a website might only add to the confusion, rather than actually alleviating that pain.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> All I want is a Wiki search.... pretty please. Wiki file uploads (images) at very minimum that aren't commited to git. The process now is to create an empty issue, drag the file over, copy the URL and paste it into the Wiki page.

<comment><USER11> I'd love to be able to search in branches. Especially on projects that commit to master and have release branches when they are between releases.

<comment><USER12> Well, as long as we're discussing search wish lists, I'd love case-sensitive search.

<comment><USER3> Just an FYI, my product solves yours and your parent post wish:

[http://gitsense.github.io/](http://gitsense.github.io/)

Search/code management metrics are done at the branch level and there will be case-sensitive searches. The indexers are already building case sensitive indexes, it's just that it hasn't been enabled.

Unfortunately I can't say when the indexer will be available for private use at the moment.

Edit:

Forgot to mention that because the indexing is done at the branch level, searching across branches to verify what is/isn't present is pretty trivial like the following example:

[http://gitsense.github.io/images/gitsense- on-4.png](http://gitsense.github.io/images/gitsense-on-4.png)

<comment><USER12> Looks interesting.

I'll return the FYI and let you know it wasn't immediately obvious that there were arrows I could click on to see what else it was your product can do.

<comment><USER3> Thanks for the feedback. I've had a sneaky suspicion that people weren't really getting a full idea of what the product does. I've been meaning to add more visual cues like dots on top of the image to indicate that there are multiple pictures/feature highlights.

<comment><USER12> I'm not sure the dots would provide more of a visual cue either.

What's wrong with separating the descriptive text from the images, and making people scroll down to read more?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Has anyone seen a way to disable this feature at a repo or org level? I'm not crazy about master getting treated like Dropbox.

<comment><USER14> > Has anyone seen a way to disable this feature at a repo or org level?

Don't hand out commit rights to people?

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> To clarify, by "upload files" they mean adding and committing new files to a git repository. At first I thought there was some other way to add files to a project.

</comment><comment><USER16> Hmm, it almost seems like the recent brouhaha lit a fire under GitHub...

<comment><USER17> I've always been impressed with how often they release new features, it actually seems like a weekly thing for GitHub. I don't think that the events of the past two weeks accelerated that process at all.

<comment><USER18> Looking through their blog, they had a dry spell from November 16 (release of the new Repository look) to January 27 when they released the new Markdown comment editor. This is, of course, because of the holidays. Then they released the improved GitHub Importer on February 11 and now PR/Issue Templates and File Uploading yesterday and today.

Prior to the repository redesign, they released Git LFS and the Integrations Directory on October 1. So they had a full month and a half between feature releases not attributable to the holidays.

I definitely appreciate the work they've done in the past few months, but I also think it's disingenuous to say that the last month didn't cause them to double down on developing new features.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I like how Github is taking note about the lack of innovation, and doing the right thing; but I'd like to see the blog post announcements AFTER the feature is implemented. It's like saying "Oh, you're thirsty? I'm going to give you a glass of water, but not yet, next week"

<comment><USER20> I see a file upload banner when I look at my repos. Probably A/B testing

<comment><USER21> Probably just rolling out the features slowly is all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This new feature makes it quite easy to use a GitHub repo as a generic file dump / share place.

<comment><USER23> Which may cause the ruin of the platform.

<comment><USER24> How so? Do you mean that source code hosted on GitHub will be diluted with useless code?

<comment><USER23> Yes, and useless pictures of cats.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Finally you can have all kinds of creatives using github without telling them how to use the command line or even the github desktop apps. Thank you github.

</comment><comment><USER26> Github has needed this for awhile. I was using Cloud9 for awhile to push changes to github when all I really wanted was this feature.

</comment><comment><USER27> Can anyone explain what's going on here [https://github.com/wardowsmcc/badass](https://github.com/wardowsmcc/badass) ?

</comment><comment><USER28> Awesome... I can think of 4 or 5 times I have been away from my laptop but still need to update a photo for a client. Glad to see this, otherwise I would have never known it had been added!

Slightly brings up an interesting point. With native apps, I usually review release notes upon updating. Webapps get to release whenever they please to little notice of the end user (for better or worse). With releasing new webapp functionality, bug fixes, etc "continuously" I think some cool bits get overlooked...

<comment><USER29> GitHub has a pretty extensive changelog in the form of blog posts. They also put them on the github.com homepage, top right (the broadcasts).

It's true that every webapps don't do that though, and that's a real shame for the "power users".

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Github pages is now the right way to set up a reasonably-smart-n00b-editable website, IMO.

<comment><USER31> Maybe for a Hacker News n00b, but a garden variety n00b has not heard of Markdown, YAML, or, for that matter, GitHub. They're going to keep using WordPress, Tumblr and Squarespace.

<comment><USER30> Well, the reason I said that is that a year or so ago I set up a gh-pages website for a person who I doubt could tell you what any of those things are. She's done fine so far, except that any time an image needs uploading I have to do it on the command line.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Why doesn't github have a proper discussion forum per project? I don't consider the "issues" a proper discussion forum.

That seems to me like it would be much more valuable, specially for community projects.

<comment><USER4> Presumably because discussion forums aren't anyone at Github's expertise. They're a whole product of their own.

<comment><USER32> This argument could be made against wikis and issues and static websites (and file uploads).

I think a discussion forum is integral to any open source project. People traditionally use mailing lists, which have an awful UX in my opinion. A moderately better alternative is google groups, which is basically just a nicer UI for a mailing list.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I'd really like to know the inside details: what changes have they made to release new features quickly like this? Have they been bogged down in process? Or just lack of pressure to release improvements?

</comment><comment><USER34> Already tried it, and I absolutely love it!

It was something we were waiting for for a long time. Now GitHub is light years ahead of its competitors because of this -seemingly small, but actually important- UX change.

</comment><comment><USER35> I'm a bit confused, this is a simple git add or some sort of integration with git lfs they released last year?

[https://git-lfs.github.com](https://git-lfs.github.com)

<comment><USER36> It's just a web interface to git add.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> [https://twitter.com/vvoyer/status/700575291433836544](https://twitter.com/vvoyer/status/700575291433836544) this

</comment><comment><USER38> Just to be clear, this appears as if it's some kind of web wrapper to `git add file.ext && git commit -m "<my message>" && git push`?

<comment><USER32> It's more like the "edit file" feature where you can edit in-place on the github web interface directly.

It makes github a more complete "gui" for git.

To be honest I don't feel that this is the right approach. But I'm a technical user so who knows. But it feels like github is forking off to a different direction.

Probably trying to look more "inviting" to corporate users; companies where sales are determined by non-technical managerial users. I can easily imagine such types asking questions like: "I want to upload a file to my team's repo, how can I do that?".

It would make it way easier for non-technical users to mess up the repo with tons of binary files, like images, movies, word documents, and excel sheets.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Fun fact: you can hack this right now by dragging and dropping a file (ie. image) into the issues submission box and then using that URL in your code to display images.

<comment><USER40> I'm confused, haven't you always been able to do that? The issue submission box has always allowed image uploads.

<comment><USER41> Yeah, this has been the workaround for a while. But when you see users doing stuff like this, it's a pretty strong signal that you need to think about supporting their intention with a dedicated feature.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Wait, so you couldn't add a file via the web before? I haven't used github except for pulling the source to projects but I would expect this was feature #1.

<comment><USER43> Well as it's based on git, before you just had to push it via the command line.

<comment><USER40> No, there's always (read: for a long time) been a "New file" button that takes you here: [https://github.com/user/repo/new/branch](https://github.com/user/repo/new/branch)

<comment><USER44> The "New file" button cannot create a new binary file. This features lets you do that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Upload from the browser? O tempora o mores!

</comment><comment><USER46> As someone who makes a lot of casual edits via the web interface, I was really sad that to fix an image file once, I had to install the desktop client and clone the entire repo. This is a great change.

</comment><comment><USER47> This is awesome! I was just barely wanting to upload a file to one of my repositories, but I didn't feel like cloning it to this computer.</comment>


Playing Startup - <AUTHOR> http://www.agilevc.com/blog/2015/06/17/playing-startup.html

<comment><USER2> _Entire startups exude a rah-rah environment during the all hands, and then at 5:15pm the office is a ghost town (even though everybody rolled in after 10am)._

Once difference these days, is that working from home is much easier. It would not be unusual for me to leave at 6PM, hit the gym or play a soccer game, and then do some more coding from 9PM to midnight. That said, there were also stretches when I left early and then completely shut down. And if an employee gets away with that, then that will become the culture.</comment>


Scrap the mystery: High-tech vision for Google barge crumbles in a heap - <AUTHOR> http://www.pressherald.com/2014/07/31/mystery-ends-portlands-google-barge-going-nowhere/ <comment><USER2> That's disappointing, I guess this is partially why they decided to keep them a secret, because there was a high chance of failure.

I wonder what the reason for scrapping it was? Safety? Cost to air-condition, maintain, and insure? Looks?

Apparently there were 4 barges built, I wonder if all of them are being scrapped or just one. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_barges](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_barges)

Closeup: [http://www.vosizneias.com/wp- content/uploads/2014/03/Google-...](http://www.vosizneias.com/wp- content/uploads/2014/03/Google-Barge_sham.jpg)</comment>


BlackBerry Blog hacked over plans to turn over information to london police - <AUTHOR> http://i.imgur.com/I5h9d.png

<comment><AUTHOR> <http://blogs.blackberry.com/>

Unlikely to remain up for long, that's why i submitted a screenshot.</comment>


Too Smart to Become the Chess World Champion? - <AUTHOR> http://volokh.com/2010/03/17/too-smart-to-become-the-chess-world-champion/ <comment><USER2> Playing chess is not so much about reasoning. It's more about pattern recognition and assessment. To play chess really well you need to have embedded awesome heuristics in your brain that shows you what the good move is.

I played with two people. One about same IQ as me, maybe slightly lower but having extensive experience (at least in comparison to mine) in chess (he played a lot as a kid, I played maybe 100 games total, never with significantly better opponent).

Second guy I played was more intelligent then me but had almost no experience in chess (he was incredible mathematician, transition between two lines of his proof that he saw obvious, required whole page of my reasoning for me to be understood, he represented my country in International Mathematical Olympics, he got master degree one year ahead of time).

With the first guy I won exactly once. Before that I lost about 20-30 games with him. When I played the other guy I was astonished how dumb moves he made. I won with him effortlessly first time.

<comment><USER3> I think that if you argue so, you must also admit that mathematical prowess isn't related to intelligence (and such, that your mathematician adversary being faster than you at symbolic logic didn't prove him or her smarter) or you would be on contradiction.

Another discussion is IQ correlation with chess prowess or mathematics ability. I would argue that chess and mathematics are two separated skills which are applications of intelligence; so there's definitely a correlation between both, but entirely determined by experience.

<comment><USER2> I didn't say that I thought that this mathematician was intelligent because he was incredible with math. I just stated that he was he was more intelligent than me (which I base on all experiences I shared with him, same as with my "chess-master" friend). Then I just gave some additional trivia about him to show what things he was capable of.

My personal feeling is that having high IQ can help you raise your skill in something up to a certain point fast. After that if you are not genuinely obsessive about this subject you flatten out. People who are more interested than you (but are less intelligent) can catch up and surpass your skill. IQ doesn't determine how good you can be but only how fast can you reach your max.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm starting to be more and more convinced that "overspecialization" is a non- existent beast. I've never met a specialist that was unable to pick up necessary knowledge and skills because they were too specialized. In fact being a specialist would allow them to use analogies and metaphors from their own discipline to get a much better understanding of new topics.

<comment><USER5> when you study topics deeply enough they start to converge with other topics. at their heart a lot of subjects use similar abstractions and methodologies.

but I think chess is actually an exception. chess requires chess knowledge.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Yep, that's why I'm not world-class at any one thing ... I'm just too intelligent.

</comment><comment><USER7> I think the tendency to "underspecialize" is universal and not limited to the extremely intelligent. Most people, left to their own devices, would prefer to be a dabbler for a while, until choosing later on an area in which to specialize. (Then, the question is: in that field, will they specialize? There are general mathematicians who tend not to publish cutting-edge results but know the field very well, and then there are those who identify solely as algebraic topologists.)

However, my suspicion is that people who hyperspecialize are (and always were) most successful in their time, while the more general-minded will be the ones who are remembered in 100 years. Eratosthenes had the derisive nickname "beta" because he was second-best in a lot of fields, but he's the first (as far as we know) to have proved the round earth.</comment>


Why are pedestrian deaths increasing in the US? - <AUTHOR> http://cityobservatory.org/why-are-us-drivers-killing-so-many-pedestrians/ <comment><USER2> The article links to another article by freep.com that really boils the problem down to high-profile, "blunt-nosed" SUVs and trucks (picture: [https://www.gannett-cdn.com/labs/death-on- foot/graphics/NU_0...](https://www.gannett-cdn.com/labs/death-on- foot/graphics/NU_062018-Jeep-Honda-size-FULL.png?width=1800)). This is something I've taken note of in my city. When I park my short sedan next to some of these pickups, the pickups' hoods are taller than my entire vehicle. So imagine your entire body being slammed by that. If you were instead struck by a sedan, your body would more likely roll over the hood and dissipate some of the impact.

At the end of the day, the failure is with how our vehicles in America are tested and rated. Safety ratings for vehicles are only in "their class", meaning for instance that they don't smash a sedan into an SUV; they only smash sedans into other sedans, and SUVs into other SUVs. This presents a major asymmetry, leading buyers to think SUVs are safer, when that safety comes at the _expense_ of other users of the road, including people on foot and bike.

A major step toward reducing fatality rates in a vehicle-person collision is to factor in pedestrian safety when evaluating vehicle safety rates.

<comment><USER3> As a cyclist in Austin, one of the first things I noticed when I moved to Texas was how many vehicles have grille guards. The vast majority don't buy these because they need them. They buy them because they like the look or because they think it'll make their vehicle survive a collision better. I've often thought about what the grille guard would do to me or a pedestrian.

<comment><USER4> So if a truck hits you at eighty miles per hour, what will kill you: the force of the truck, or the grille guard?

Also, as a fellow Texan, you're dead wrong. The majority of the people who have those have them because they have ranches and _do_ need them.

<comment><USER3> The answer to your question is obvious and not relevant. I don't ride on roads where anyone goes near 80 mph, so I do think that the grille guards will contribute to lethality in my case.

Given that I live in central Austin, I find it hard to believe that most drivers I encounter with grille guards need them because they have a ranch. That would imply that many more people have ranches than I believe is true. Plus, I grew up in a rural area outside of Texas and rarely saw grille guards, even on farms.

<comment><USER5> I too never drive into the local city from my suburban or rural home. The mere thought of it is insane.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> _It's worth noting that even though walking is far more common in Europe, and streets are generally narrower, and in older cities, there aren't sidewalks, but pedestrians share the roadway with cars. Despite these factors, Europe now has a lower pedestrian death toll per capita than the US.

We walk less, but we die more._

I think it's _because of these factors,_ not _despite_ them. We die more because pedestrian traffic has dropped so low that drivers no longer look for foot traffic.

I have lived without a car more than a decade. Driver's frequently are shocked to notice me. I do all I can to catch their eye and make sure they see me. Otherwise, they just make their turn/ go through the crosswalk like I don't exist.

<comment><USER7> On my trip to work today, I observed a chap stopping traffic to jaywalk across a street to get in his car.

A minute, and half a block down, I saw him honking at a pedestrian, who was crossing an intersection on the walk sign.

There's an amazing bit of cognitive dissonance that happens when your run-of- the-mill moron climbs behind the wheel of a vehicle.

<comment><USER8> Shitty pedestrians make shitty drivers and vise versa. Sounds pretty reasonable and obvious to me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> What about distracted pedestrians? I've had to swerve into car lanes from the bike lane almost every day this last week because some pedestrian with his face buried in a phone absent-mindedly steps off the curb against the light. What fraction of the increase is attributable to that?

When I drove a car I used to sympathize with both cyclists and pedestrians. Now that I've been commuting and frequently running errands by bicycle for a couple of years my sympathy has waned significantly due the behavior I observe in my fellow cyclists and pedestrians.

<comment><USER10> I walk and drive as part of my commute. When I'm walking I swear I'm the only person who doesn't wear headphones, and this is a very busy urban area with lots of cars, people, and narrow streets. I would imagine it's the same in Europe though, what do I know?

<comment><USER11> I was in Europe recently. Didn't observe too many with headphones in while crossing streets or on the metro.

Another uniquely American thing I've witnessed is people not even bothering to _look_ when crossing the street because of whatever video they're watching on their phone.

<comment><USER12> Unfortunately not unique. I've seen plenty of morons doing that here in Australia as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> There's a near-exact correlation with the rise of smartphone use in the US. Anecdotally, I've almost been hit more often in recent years here in NYC and it's almost always due to absolute morons staring at their cell phone while behind the wheel.

<comment><USER14> Anecdotally, and I'm sure other people can share similar experiences: I've also had a couple of instances of people jay walking, popping out from behind a parked car right into the road - staring at their cell phone and not at the street around them - and have had to slam on my brakes to keep from hitting the person. I'm glad to have been paying attention but things could have easily gone badly.

<comment><USER15> popping out behind a huge SUV or truck nearly as tall as an adult...

<comment><USER16> Not sure if you're trying to justify the jaywalking here, but if you want to live through 2020, I suggest looking before you leap.

<comment><USER15> who said anything about jaywalking? big cars block visibility at intersections too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> martin-adams I'd be curious to know if there's any link the use of automatic vs manual transmission cars. In Europe 80% of cars sold are manual, and in the US 3.9% are manual.[1]

That alone probably doesn't mean much because that was still the trend 10 years ago. But the use of smartphones may have increased. Long story short, does a manual transmission reduce distracted driving because it's harder to use your free hand for other activities?

[1] [https://www.thezebra.com/insurance-news/2805/manual-vs- autom...](https://www.thezebra.com/insurance-news/2805/manual-vs-automatic/)

<comment><USER17> Those stats on automatic vs manual are out of date. Automatics are approaching half of new vehicle sales in Western European countries now. Of course, that's a leading indicator for all cars on the road, so manuals still dominate .. for now.

I don't think this is particularly relevant to pedestrian deaths though. You can still find ways to distract yourself in a manual.

<comment><USER18> > You can still find ways to distract yourself in a manual.

True, but it's harder to text and drive when you really do need both hands (and both feet) to drive successfully.

Anecdotally, I find driving a manual transmission keeps me much more in tune with all of the variables involved in driving (inside and outside the car) than driving an automatic does.

<comment><USER8> One of my daily drivers has a manual. If I wanted to be distracted in it would not be appreciably harder. In fact it would probably be easier because the cup holder location in that vehicle is more convenient for my cell phone. If I drove something with modern performance characteristics (enough torque to start in 2nd, hill assist, etc, etc) the fact that it has a manual would be even more of a non-issue.

<comment><USER17> That was my experience with it as well. Once I got "fluent" in driving manual, I wasn't even consciously thinking about it, so it wasn't any harder to get distracted than when driving an automatic. And your hand isn't even on the shifter most of the time anyway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Pedestrians were in cities hundreds of years before, vehicles should never have been promoted to first place. How to fix this in the cities? Remove almost all instances of cars getting near pedestrians by:

1: Removing one way streets. Having to drive all the way around to go somewhere nearby keeps the car on the road that much longer and doubles the number of crosswalks to pass through. 2: Removing left turns. Cars invading the pedestrians' right of way from the other side of the street is dangerous. 3: Reducing city speed limits from 30mph to 15. 30mph is ridiculous. 4\. Enforcing carpooling. One person driving a huge SUV is such a waste of gas, space, and contributes to highways doubling as parking lots at rush hour. 5\. Promoting city housing as much as possible for all new growth. For every honest baby-boomer suburb created with proper planning, there were two white- flight suburbs hastily created without. 6\. Demanding companies in the city limits revise the need for employees to commute. Employees who can do their job at home deserve that privilege.

</comment><comment><USER20> I'm somewhat of an expert on this, since I've been walking to work since 1995 (except for 1 year) and I've logged more than 20,000 miles on sidewalks through 2 cities.

What really, really concerns me, in the last few years, are tints on driver side windows. My rule is, I never walk in front of a car unless I made eye contact with the driver. I will even, if I approach from the passenger side, knock on the hood if they are looking left. With the new tints, there are many cars in my city where I cannot see the driver. At all. This confuses me, since I thought opaque tints were illegal.

<comment> 1-6 Anecdotal... Who put you in charge of experts in walking? Lol. Flames aside, your point about tinted windows is interesting but I'm pretty sure it's not uncommon in other countries outside of the US.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I hate to say the "R" word, but, I think we need more regulation. It's clear that manufacturers and consumers aren't trending in the right direction here in protecting all members of society on the streets (not just those in vehicles), so the government needs to step in and mandate it. The increasing prevalence of large pedestrian-unfriendly vehicles is a terrifying trend.

Another change in concert that might help is much higher gasoline taxes. Gasoline can cost upwards of $8 per gallon in many parts of Europe. When fuel is that expensive, you _really_ don't want to get a vehicle any larger than necessary. By contrast, fuel here in the US is way too cheap, and way too many people get large vehicles who have no real need for them, and aren't charged nearly enough extra for the privilege.

<comment><USER21> Gas taxes disproportionately affect the poor though. I agree with your premise that we have too many large vehicles and there's no good incentive to pick a vehicle that's "just" large enough for your uses (so of course everyone picks these enormous trucks and SUVs), but I just think there has to be a better way of regulating than a gas tax.

<comment><USER22> Is a gas tax really regressive? (asking not because I don't believe it, but because I've never seen this idea stated before). I can see how it's more likely to be regressive among car-owning lower income people (who devote a larger portion of their income to gas, and would therefore be disproportionately affected).

But lower-income people are also less likely to own a car. Even among those who do, they're more likely to moderate their gas usage, more likely to find ways to carpool, and more likely to find the fuel savings of a smaller car to be compelling.

<comment><USER23> Outside of large cities with functional mass transit, most low income people do own (or finance) cars. Otherwise they would be no-income. You can find a lot of low end job listings that say "reliable transportation" and they don't mean a bus ride sandwiched between two several-mile hikes. Their cars will be perhaps 10-15 years old, depending on whether their state has winters or emissions laws. They can't afford the latest fuel efficient vehicles and might be getting 18-25 miles per gallon. Fuel will be a significant fraction of their transportation expense compared to anyone with a higher income, so a fuel tax will necessarily be regressive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> "Stop Murdering Our Children"

This political campaign in the Netherlands transformed society in the 1970s. It is a model for political reform in the US

[https://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/02/20/the-origins-of- hollan...](https://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/02/20/the-origins-of-hollands- stop-murdering-children-street-safety-movement/)

</comment><comment><USER10> There's also a trend in the US where people are moving out of suburbs and into big cities. And there are far more people walking and biking to work than ever. So there's definitely more pedestrians than 10 years ago. I can't speak for Europe's trends.

</comment><comment><USER25> Pedestrian deaths are at a record low in NYC due to Vision Zero. Talk about bucking the trend.

</comment><comment><USER26> I hit a pedestrian a few years ago. I was heading to an intersection to make a right hand turn while at the same time a guy on his phone was walking to cross.

Unfortunately he happened to somehow be walking at a constant bearing with decreasing range to my line of sight, hiding right behind my A pillar. Luckily, because I was decelerating to turn at the last minute I didn't strike him hard enough to do much harm, but he was visibly shaken.

<comment><USER27> This happened to me too. I hit a woman on a bike, because she unfortunately kept behind a pillar. Now when turning I always rock my torso sideways to and fro to increase the view angle. I feel stupid doing this but I think I avoided one or two more accidents this way.

<comment><USER28> > because she unfortunately kept behind a pillar

Your wording seems to blame a slower vehicle being passed for not being passed before the passing vehicle crossed the slower vehicle's lane.

<comment><USER27> Sorry, I didn't mean to. It's my fault.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I live in a walkable neighborhood but there are a lot of people that commute through my neighborhood to downtown DC. There are crosswalks where cars are supposed to stop for pedestrians, but many don't. I feel like the rise of these laws that require cars to stop at these crosswalks has to be part of the problem. Cars are supposed to stop but they are either driving too fast or they just don't stop. Or if you have a few lanes to cross the first car stops and the next car doesn't see you. I feel like these crosswalks give people a false sense of security that they can cross without vigilance at any time. Without these laws you simply need to wait until the coast is clear. That seems much safer to me. Is there a study to support my instincts on this?

<comment><USER12> It sounds like you are blaming pedestrians for not being "vigilant" enough, when in reality it is the cars that are not stopping and giving way to pedestrians on a crosswalk like they're supposed to.

>these crosswalks give people a false sense of security that they can cross without vigilance at any time

I'm Australian so I'm not sure if a crosswalk is exactly the same, but the whole point of what we call a "pedestrian crossing" is that a pedestrian can cross at any time with as much or as little vigilance as they want.

It is illegal to not give way and it is illegal to drive across the pedestrian crossing if there is a pedestrian already on it.

I very much doubt you'll be able to locate a study showing that jaywalking is safer than crossing at a pedestrian crossing.

<comment><USER29> Not jaywalking. It used to be that you had to cross at a crosswalk AND wait for traffic to be clear. The crosswalk was the place to cross to make sure people weren't crossing at any place they choose. But now that there are laws that require you to stop at any crosswalk with a pedestrian in it, people are crossing and they expect the cars to stop, but not every driver is in tune with this, especially those from outside the city, and it creates a dangerous situation.

<comment><USER12> Basically you are saying that because the drivers are not obeying the laws, we should throw our hands up and admit it's impossible and change the laws so they have right of way.

That's a fair position to take, but I would be questioning why it is that the drivers are unaware or unwilling to obey those laws?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Wonder what Europe is doing differently than us. Are we seeing an increase of pedestrians on our streets and roads?

Hopefully assistive technologies help curb some of these trends as they filter down to base models and older vehicles get replaced with newer one which have these features.

As for the current cause, although they contrast with Europe and play it down, I have to think it's primarily caused by driver distraction (and pedestrian as well but on the defensive side) rather than either rise of SUVs and or "entitlement" as well as perhaps a rise in "pedestrians" (people walking of running of jogging, etc.)

<comment><USER31> "Wonder what Europe is doing differently than us. Are we having more pedestrians on our streets and roads?"

It's definitely about being used to it. In Munich there were pedestrians and bikers everywhere so you quickly learn to always watch. In California now I see a bike maybe once a week so I often don't look anymore.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Cars in America got even more big and heavy, that's why.

One of reason why they got so heavy in the first place... was the higher requirement for crashworthiness.

People who come with those crashworthiness requirements need to put at least some effort thinking them through.

</comment><comment><USER33> More distracted drivers than ever?

</comment><comment><USER34> Pretty disappointing article since it does not answer the question at all.

<comment><USER35> I don't think the author claimed to have the answer, the title is literally a question.

If there was a reason why surely it wouldn't be an issue because we would already know how to fix it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Discouraging that even in Europe the curve has all but flattened.

</comment><comment><USER37> "Especially if the death rat had grown by 50 percent in less than a decade."

Holy crap. There's a 'death rat'? And it is growing that fast?</comment>