The Beauty of Roots (2011) - <AUTHOR> http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/roots/

<comment><USER2> It impresses me to no end that Greg Egan, a talented science fiction writer [1], finds time to contribute to mathematical curiosities like this! I suppose it keeps him sharp, given that his novels often involve a lot of heavy math.

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

<comment><USER3> +1 for the intro to Egan. Going to look into his work.

<comment><USER4> He's an extraordinary accomplished writer. I recommend his short story collection, Axiomatic, as a great introduction to his work.

<comment><USER3> Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I often regret not having made more efforts to study Maths when I was younger.

I see the joy of being drawn into these fun explorations and I regret that these were not used in class to entice kids into wanting to go beyond dry textbooks that focused on theory and never tied the material being taught with anything remotely exciting.

</comment><comment><USER6> Previous discussion at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=980043](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=980043) about an older version of the page with some different info, [http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week285.html](http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week285.html)

</comment><comment><USER7> [http://www.reddit.com/r/mathpics/comments/gk6e2/the_beauty_o...](http://www.reddit.com/r/mathpics/comments/gk6e2/the_beauty_of_roots/?already_submitted=true)

</comment><comment><USER8> I can't help but think that the reason some of those holes have serrated edges is due to the problems representing the actual numbers with floats. I can't say for sure, it's really just a hunch. The patterns are fascinating either way.

<comment><USER9> At least the bulk of the article was discussing data explicitly described as being generated by Mathematica, which is capable of arbitrary precision. It seems just as likely that this mode was used.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Reminds me of www.oftenpaper.net/sierpinski.htm

</comment><comment><USER11> Seeing something spectacular like this really makes me feel that life is too short. Beautiful!

</comment><comment><USER12> For some reason, I read this as "The Beauty of Robots".</comment>


L20n - Localization by Mozilla - <AUTHOR> http://l20n.org/

<comment><USER2> Why L20n? There's only 10 characters between the L and n in localization.

<comment><USER3> Apparently, it is supposed to be a play on 2 in Localization 2.0. Not a great name imo, but it is pretty easy to remember I guess.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Can you work out how this is done? (repost) - <AUTHOR> Choose a polynomial p(x) with non-negative integer coefficients.
Now choose an integer k that's larger than all the coefficients and evaluate p(k). You tell me k and p(k), and I tell you the polynomial.
So ...
Can you work out how to do it?
Do you find this interesting?
Please don't give it away - by all means make it clear that you know how to do it (if you do!) but please don't spoil it for the others.
But mostly I'm interested in knowing (eventually) how you think about it.
This is a repost because the first time I asked the question fell off the front page with very little reaction, and perhaps not many people saw it.  This is a one-shot repost - I'll not post this question again.  I look forward to your answers (assuming there are any ...)
Thanks in advance. <comment><USER2> > _Can you work out how to do it?_

Yes.

> _Do you find this interesting?_

Yes! I found it interesting because at first it seems like the solution space ought to be many-to-one, not one-to-one, and it's not immediately clear why the condition that _k_ is larger than the coefficients is the "right" condition to fix that. I had to work through some examples to see the trick of it.

hints (rot13):

1\. jungunccrafvslbhpubbfrxrdhnyfgjb

2\. jungunccrafvslbhpubbfrxrdhnyfgra

solution: jevgrcxvaonfrx

<comment><USER3> vyvxrgbrknttrengr:jungunccrafvslbhpubbfrxrdhnyfbarzvyyvbanaqgurpbrssvpvragfneryrffgunagra

<comment><AUTHOR> The simplest answer is for you to try it and see what happens. Nothing goes wrong, and it just makes the solution/technique more obvious.

<comment><USER3> Thanks! I was just saying how I arrived at the answer, how my mind works, which I think is what the OP was looking to see - how people solve a problem like this. Hope this comes up in my next whiteboard interview :-)

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh, OK, that wasn't obvious to me, but now is - thanks for the clarification, and for the answer. Interesting.

Your technique, by the way, is a classic puzzle solving technique that I've used successfully many times, sometimes to great effect. Nice one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> If we know what k is, we've got an upper bound on the value of the roots. Since we can express p(k) as (k-x_1)(k-x_2)...(k-x_n) (with x_i as roots), we know that each (k-x_i) must be an integer factor of p(k).

Based on these facts, I'd probably just brute force it. Figure out the prime factorization of p(k), then figure out all of the ways to express the x_i.

Note that this does also prove that the algorithm will not uniquely define an expression for p(k). For example, if p(10) = 12, then (x-4)(x-8), (x-7)(x-6), among others, satisfy.

This is mildly interesting to think about as someone who never was a math major but maybe should have been. There are some interesting side bits (for example, disproving uniqueness) but it does feel like there are more "powerful" statements floating around this type of algebra.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think you are missing that the coefficients must be non-negative. In fact the answer is always unique, so you may want to rethink your approach.

<comment><USER4> Ah yeah, misread that there.

Express p(k) in base k. Those are your coefficients.

Pretty cute. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "Choose a polynomial p(x) with _non-negative_ integer coefficients"

I think you want to say _positive_ there, or mathematicians will exploit the fact that common definitions (examples: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynomial#Definition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynomial#Definition), [http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Polynomial.html](http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Polynomial.html)) of _polynomial_ allow coefficients to be zero, making, for example, _x + 1_ (a polynomial of degree 1) different from _0 x² + x + 1_ (a polynomial of degree 2)

Reason for that choice is that it makes the set of polynomials of degree n closed under addition and subtraction)

<comment><AUTHOR> Nope, I explicitly mean non-negative, because you are allowed polynomials like x^4+x+2. In particular, polynomials are considered equivalent if they differ only in terms that have zero coefficients. That means that 0x^2+x+1 is the same polynomial as x+1. Further, _0x²+x+1_ is not a polynomial of degree 2, because the degree is the highest power with a non-zero coefficient.

So the question is fine as it stands.

<comment><USER6> [redacted because I was completely wrong, missing the obvious ;-)] ... See child comment.

<comment><AUTHOR> > _No it is not. Your statement of the problem does not rule out only the > coefficient of x^0 being positive, and the rest being zero._

You are correct that we permit any and/or all coefficients to be zero, allowing the case that p(x)=665. That is intentional.

> _Just saying the coefficients are all nonnegative, the polynomial p(k) = 665 > also is a solution for the case k = 6 and p(6) = 665._

No it isn't, because you have evaluated at 6, which is not larger than all the coefficients. Specifically, 6 is not larger than 665.

So I still claim that the question is fine as it stands. I do appreciate you trying to poke holes in it, though. Thanks.

 _(Added in edit: Given that you 've retracted that, would you like me to remove this comment?)_

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's amazing how far away I am from being able to figure this out :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Cool!

It's nice that you've found this, and are interested. There are clues elsewhere in the thread, but email me for another clue, or an explanation. Address is in my profile.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Hm, seems pretty straightforward. Can't think of any "interesting" consequences right now, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's a few interesting things about it that I'm not thinking of right now.

<comment><AUTHOR> If you think it's straight-forward then here's an example:

k=7, p(k)=12028

What's p(x)? How did you find it?

<comment><USER8> [https://pastebin.com/A3AxRkDT](https://pastebin.com/A3AxRkDT)

<comment><AUTHOR> Just out of interest, can you find a connection to something more "everyday" ??

<comment><USER8> [redacted]

<comment><AUTHOR> Yup.

I guess that since the post (and the previous) seems to have attracted almost no interest, the fact that you've given it away doesn't really matter - probably very few people are reading it anyway.

In my experience most people find this connection surprising, and you can get a sense of that from some of the other reactions here, although I deduce from your tone that you don't. Which I find interesting.

Thank you for interacting - any further comments would be welcome.

<comment><USER8> Oh, sorry, I thought you asking meant you wanted me to post the details, should have looked at the entire thread again :/ EDIT: could still edit, so edited.

I guess I find it not that interesting because I spent a lot of high school with math and math puzzles, so my threshold for "surprising" is higher - although when I wrote the first comment I hadn't made the connection, only when I typed it out later, in a slightly different form than I had in my head it was clear.

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh - thanks for redacting - appreciated. Mind you, very, very few people seem to be interested, which I find curious.

Nice that you didn't initially make the connection, and it came to you later - that's a nice progression. Thanks for letting me know.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The question is not well defined. If _m_ is the degree of the polynomial, you want _∀ i ∈ {0, ..., m}, c_i ≥ 0_ and _∃ i ∈ {1, ..., m}, c_i > 0_. Otherwise the solution is either trivial or not unique.

> Do you find this interesting?

Depends. For a pedagogical tool in 5th to 8th grades, maybe.

There may be some reason it is a compelling exercise which I am not seeing though. So, you might want to explain why you find this interesting enough to post it twice.

<comment><AUTHOR> I find it odd that you think the question is not well defined. Choose a polynomial with non-negative integer coefficients. Note that under the usual conventions, the polynomials x^2+1 and x^2+0x+1 are the same. Does that cover the situation you're worried about? Seriously, I don't know anyone who would say that x^2+1 and x^2+0x+1 are different, so maybe I'm not seeing what you're worried about.

However, given that, does it answer your objection?

As to why I think it's interesting, I think it's slightly surprising that given k=6 and p(k)=665 then the polynomial is uniquely identified as 3x^3+2x+5.

Do you not find that surprising? If you _don 't_ find it surprising, how would you explain it?

<comment><USER6> > _I find it odd that you think the question is not well defined._

You must assume that at least some of the coefficients of the _x_ terms are non-zero.

> _Do you not find that surprising?_

No.

> _how would you explain it?_

I think it is up to you to explain why this is interesting.

Without the condition that _k_ is greater than all the coefficients, the solution is clearly non-unique.

Given that, the assumption of the coefficients are integers, and that the solution is not a constant polynomial, the statement becomes equivalent to " _division is a function_ ".

<comment><AUTHOR> >> _I find it odd that you think the question is not well defined._

> _You must assume that at least some of the coefficients of the x terms are > non-zero._

That turns out not to be the case.

>> _Do you not find that surprising?_

> _No._

Interesting.

>> _how would you explain it?_

> _I think it is up to you to explain why this is interesting._

So far, many people who are clearly intelligent seem to miss that it works at all, let alone how it works. You appear so far to be among them. As I've said elsewhere, I appreciate that you are trying to poke holes in it, but it really is complete and correct as stated.

> _Without the condition that k is greater than all the coefficients, the > solution is clearly non-unique._

Well, yes. That's why having k greater than all the coefficients is a requirement. That's why your example in another comment elsewhere is not an example of the puzzle failing - it does not satisfy the condition that _k_ must exceed all the coefficients.

> _Given that, the assumption of the coefficients are integers, and that the > solution is not a constant polynomial, the statement becomes equivalent to > "division is a function"._

I don't see why this is true - perhaps you could expand on it? Why is the problem statement equivalent to saying _" Division is a function."_?

So now I don't understand what you're trying to say or do. The question as stated is fine - an example that doesn't satisfy the conditions isn't a counter-example. So at least one of us is confused.

So let me state clearly, rather than having a bitty back'n'forth.

You pick a polynomial _p(x)_ with non-negative integer coefficients. You choose an integer _k_ that's larger than all the coefficients of _p(x)_. You tell me _k_ and _p(k)_. In return, I tell you _p(x)._

So:

Are you claiming this doesn't work?

Are you claiming it's trivial to accomplish?

Are you claiming it's obvious why it works?

I'm no longer sure what you're claiming, so I thought I'd ask clearly and plainly.

<comment><USER6> > Are you claiming this doesn't work?

No, I am not. I misinterpreted the "larger than all coefficients" because I was sure that the condition that at least one of the coefficients other than the constant term had to be positive. You pointed out my mistake, you are correct, thank you.

> Are you claiming it's trivial to accomplish?

It is easy to state what you need to do. Find largest _a_ such that _k^a ≤ p(k)_. Find _p(k) / k^a_ using integer division. Because division is a function, there is unique quotient and unique remainder. The quotient is your first coefficient. Take the remainder, repeat.

<comment><AUTHOR> Right - that's one way of doing it. It's not the way I first thought of, and the other way I have has a connection to something else that I think makes it all kinda nice. That solution is elsewhere in the thread, but here it is in rot13:

jevgrcxvaonfrxnaqgurqvtvgfnergurpbrssvpvragf

I'm pleased we've got it sorted, though. Thanks for your responses, and I'd be happy to hear more thoughts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Or, roughly equivalently, "our notation for writing down integers makes sense".

</comment><comment><USER10> I think of it like a coin counting machine.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't see how that helps - can you elaborate?

<comment><USER10> The face value of each coin is multiplied by the count of the coin type to total to the purse.

Or rather, the sum of the nth powers of k multiplied by each positive coefficient equals the value of the function at k.

Edit: Source in sibling.

<comment><AUTHOR> Wow, what an interesting approach! Thank you ... I've copied that out to a file and I'll study it more later.

Cheers!

<comment><USER10> Cheers to you. Let me know how close it was to what you were looking for.

[https://github.com/techbio/CoinCounting](https://github.com/techbio/CoinCounting)

<comment><AUTHOR> What you've done is not at _all_ close to the solutions I already have, so it's _exactly_ what I was looking for. On the one hand it's very much more complex, but on the other hand it's a more generic and general solution.

The solutions I have are elsewhere in this thread, sometimes in disguise, and I'm gestating a blog post which I'll eventually submit. If you want to know more feel free to email me - address is in my profile.

 _Added in edit: I would add that your code gives no hint as to why the solution should be unique._

<comment><USER10> It is not going to handle a vast range of inputs, including for example, p(k) = 665, for the basic reason that my code is a direct response to your request for an explanation and not proposed as a complete solution for the request of your original submission.

Corrections requested, please. I would like to explore this paradigm to accurately address the problem in an exact way.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'll reply to your email ... thanks.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


This VC-Turned-Coach Makes Tech's Top CEOs Cry - <AUTHOR> https://backchannel.com/jerry-colonna-makes-founders-cry-7e7453d69df5#.8ah6w1g5g <comment><USER2> "Those who can't do, teach"

<comment><USER3> Wow, that's harsh. And I don't take that point of view at all, if you read his history, he's done plenty.

There is a long tradition of this sort of thing, when I was starting up my company Bob Young (redhat) gave me a lot of advice, he was like your Dad is, ahead of you and knows what to do in a lot of situations where only experience helps you. I've seen that a bunch on an ad-hoc basis, this seems like a formalization of the same thing.

My reaction to the article was "huh, I took early retirement, don't really want to work, but if these guys could use me, I'd do that." It's a pay it forward kind of thing, us old folks still have a little value.

And most (all?) founders will tell you how lonely it becomes to be in charge. I had a great boss ~25 years ago who said "30 seconds of indecision will put you backwards 3 months". He was right, but it leaves you with noone to talk to about that indecision. This guy seems like the guy you could talk to and work out the things that you can't discuss with your team.</comment></comment>


Elon Musk: Gigafactory will take battery production 'to another level' - <AUTHOR> http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_25761219/tesla-ceo-elon-musk-gigafactory-will-take-battery

<comment><USER2> I listened to the Tesla conference call and Elon Musk said that he was calling lithium and nickel mines in Canada, and they were surprised to hear from an end user. The guy knows how to "think from first principles."

</comment><comment><USER3> Why not Detroit? The labor force is there, the costs (real estate, labor, taxes) must be considerably in favor of something of this scale, and it's in line with the automotive industry. In that Michigan is hurting from the down slide of traditional auto manufacturers, I would think it would endear Tesla to the industry, or at least the workers.

<comment><USER4> Tesla doesn't need to endear themselves to the workers; they use robots wherever possible. Detroit is home to powerful organisations (the unions) which are famous for their resistance to automation; that, if nothing else, is probably sufficient reason to steer clear of it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Battery & battery replacement cost is a big piece of ammo for people who fight non-combustible automotive energy sources, so fantastic as always.

I'm interested to know what sort of contributions Musk & Co have been able to make with regard to battery efficiency and longevity in their time with the Tesla line. That, to me, is the big missing piece to take things from "sure, it _could_ work" to "ok I'm ready to switch" for many.

<comment><USER6> Some interesting snippets of info about batteries from Musk.

Battery form factor: [http://youtu.be/pQupELupKWM?t=2m15s](http://youtu.be/pQupELupKWM?t=2m15s)

Apple Engineer asking about Tesla battery: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN5HT9mj_4M](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN5HT9mj_4M)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I fear it might prove to be premature. Take for instance Japan Power Plus. If their battery tech proves to be true, then in a few years lithium batteries will be on the decline, and Elon will be caught holding the proverbial bag. Even if Japan Power Plus proves to be a bust, there is so much research going on in the field that it seems all too likely that some major new battery tech is around the corner. If Elon can't convert his Gigafactory to that new tech, he'll be hard pressed to recoup his $5 billion.

<comment><USER5> This seems to imply that the factory would be unable to switch its operations to new battery types, which I find somewhat unlikely.

<comment><USER8> Agreed, battery manufacture is bulk chemistry. A plant typically consists of a number of recyclable elements and a bunch that are specific to the technology employed. If there would be a game-changing advance in battery technology _and_ the economics would work out in favour of deprecating those parts of the plant that are specific to the current process then I'm sure Elon Musk is capable of doing the math.

And given that's he's not exactly stupid to begin with my guess would be that he's ahead of some random comment on the internet by some significant number of brain cycles, 5 billion $ cap-ex projects are usually not planned and executed without a great deal of fore-thought.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> On a side note I hope the folks at a16 will stop using Tesla as a poster child for their belief that full stack startups are strategically better. Tesla and Musk are constantly working with other players in their ecosystem to accelerate growth.

</comment><comment><USER10> I still do not see any advantage to skipping over Texas, even Toyota went there. They are simply more business friendly, let alone by far the largest deployment of wind turbines in the US. While many associate it with oil Texas never really sat still, energy is energy.

<comment><USER11> My guess is because you can't even BUY a Tesla in Texas. Why would they set up a $5B factory in a state where they can't even sell a car? [http://www.teslamotors.com/advocacy_texas](http://www.teslamotors.com/advocacy_texas)

EDIT: Amongst other reasons of course, just a guess on one factor. Hard to say it's business friendly when they've banned the company from doing business there.

<comment> jack-r-abbit My thought exactly. Don't just pick a place business friendly. Pick a place that is friendly to _your_ business.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> No one seems to be paying attention to the amount of toxic waste that will be generated from batteries after they are done with their usage. The toxin waste is much worse than letting CO2 in the air IMHO.

<comment><USER13> Aren't they recyclable?

<comment><USER14> Fully: [http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/teslas-closed-loop- battery-r...](http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/teslas-closed-loop-battery- recycling-program)</comment></comment></comment>


Java Platform Module System Public Review Ballot – Results - <AUTHOR> https://jcp.org/en/jsr/results?id=5959 <comment><USER2> Correct me if I'm wrong on my understanding of how the module system works, but I noticed a glaring flaw at a Java One presentation last year: all modules only have access, at _runtime_ to the modules they explicitly list as dependencies.

This means if you have an abstract module of just interfaces, and others that implement them, client modules can't only list the abstract module as a dependency and get the implentations injected at runtime. That's a core use case to me, it follows Effective Java's advice to program against abstractions, and I've used it in the past, to e.g. inject different file store clients depending on environment.

I can see why they would do it that way, since it prevents dependency creep.</comment>


Famed Antikythera wreck yields more treasures - <AUTHOR> http://www.nature.com/news/famed-antikythera-wreck-yields-more-treasures-1.16124

<comment><USER2> The Antikythera Machine is so remarkably cool -- it is as complex as any machine humans could create up until the 14th Century. There are tendrils that possibly connect it to Archimedes or his School.

Classical Greece was millenia ahead of the rest of the world. Pindar writes of the automata found in Rhodes:

      The animated figures stand
      Adorning every public street
      And seem to breathe in stone, or
      move their marble feet.

There was even a working steam engine in Alexandria before it was burned down: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile)

<comment><USER3> A more sober translation seems to be:

And the gray-eyed goddess herself bestowed on them every art, so that they surpassed all mortal men as the best workers with their hands; and the roads bore works of art like living, moving creatures, and their fame was profound.

Which perhaps doesn't carry the same implications as the rather florid translation you quoted.

<comment><USER4> Let's see how Hacker News handles Unicode! :-)

Pindar's 7th Olympian Ode, lines 50-54:

        αὐτὰ δέ σφισιν ὤπασε τέχναν
        πᾶσαν ἐπιχθονίων Γλαυκῶπις ἀριστοπόνοις χερσὶ κρατεῖν.
        ἔργα δὲ ζωοῖσιν ἑρπόντεσσί θ᾽ ὁμοῖα κέλευθοι φέρον:
        ἦν δὲ κλέος βαθύ.

Your version is pretty exact!

<comment><USER3> Just to be clear, it's not my version. I've always wished I could read Classical Greek.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Old, but a pretty neat way to relight (and then read) the writing on the Antikythera mechanism: [http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/ptm/antikythera_mechanism/](http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/ptm/antikythera_mechanism/)</comment>


How Americans Became So Sensitive to Harm - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/concept-creep/477939/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> I suspect a large part of this is down to

1\. People defaulting to the nuclear option constantly, in their reactions, and

2\. People not wanting to accept that some issues are complex, and that a blanket approach doesn't work.

The latter of these is the real issue. People love being outraged over the lack of women in STEM fields, and how those that are are treated, but few people talk about the lack of men in teaching it nursing roles. The former is seen as "a problem" and the latter isn't. I'd argue that both are issues, but one is something that political groups get behind and the other isn't.

As a different example, you could look at the issue of badger culls it fox hunting in the UK. The most outspoken people against both aren't from the countryside, have never kept cattle or been on hunts, don't understand (or want to think too much) about the issues involved, but know that badgers and foxes are cute.

It's the infantilism of understanding; people wanting things to be black and white and easy to understand, where pretty much everything contentious, when you dig, is complex.

I suspect a lot of the blame for this is a combination of the short article and news industries, giving people the feeling of being informed without any of the substance to back it up, and the increasing politicisation of issues, where people hold views for reasons more tribal than rational.

Once you start believing that issues are simple, it's easy to fit everything into that framework and to wander round being outraged or offended or insulted by things. Because you can read into life whatever you want.

<comment><USER3> > The most outspoken people against both aren't from the countryside, have > never kept cattle or been on hunts, don't understand (or want to think too > much) about the issues involved, but know that badgers and foxes are cute.

You have your point, but is a common and too simplistic interpretation. We need to repeat this more: _To have cattle or being able to shoot a rabbit is irrelevant and not a guarantee at all to understand science or modern biology. Seriously._

Radically new ideas (like for example that wolves will generate money and provide basic services valued in millions of dollars, or that if you kill the alpha wolf in a pack there is an increase, not a decrease to cattle damages, or that to cull badgers will spread faster the cattle diseases that you want to stop and thus is a questionable investment of public money)... all those knowledge is generated normally in _universities_ , placed in _big cities_ , after years of painfully slow research done by _experts_ in zoology, chemistry, genetics...

And I'm talking of real experts. Some of the most fantastic environmental fails were incubated in the local pub by farmers and hunters that lobby to push the local silly politician hunting for votes. Or by people that _do not understand how biology_ works. (Ask the Chinese people about the failure of the big sparrow cull in Mao times, for example).

Farmers are experts in breeding cattle. Point. Not more, not less. Basic concepts in biology are often terribly misunderstood or just ignored stubbornly by them for decades, and there is a big inertia in small villages to accept changes. For some reason, all people are instead ready to follow the local hero, with his myth based ideas, and often lose money by this.

<comment><USER4> > all those knowledge is generated normally in universities, placed in big > cities, after years of painfully slow research done by experts in zoology, > chemistry, genetics...

IIRC, so are the ideas that wolves, an animal capable of eating sheep or even moose would not eat children if they happened to walk unprotected.

Not saying we should get rid of wolves only that some realism need to be applied.

<comment><USER3> Well, if you want realism, wolves are one of the really select club of species of animals known to readily protect, nurture and adopt a lost human children if some circumstances occur. This is a fact, not a feeling.

Do you know what other animals can be dangerous for a small children in a close encounter?: Buffaloes, mooses, deers, bulls, rams, bears, rats, horses, rhinos, donkeys, chimps, coyotes, pigs, snakes, racoons, big cats, snapping turtles, electric eels, lots of arthropods, and most of all other humans or machines created by humans. This is the reason for small children never should walk unprotected by unsafe areas. For children there is a change at least of surviving a close encounter with a wolf, that will not enjoy if is a buffalo instead.

Curiously today the local press tells a story about a man that died after four years fighting lyme disease caused by a deer tick bite. For some arrogant interplanetary alignment, lyme disease cases are increasing in my country at the same time as wolves being culled regularly.

<comment><USER5> _Some of the most fantastic environmental fails were incubated in the local pub_

 _For some arrogant interplanetary alignment, lyme disease cases are increasing in my country at the same time as wolves being culled regularly._

Oh how ironic. In which pub were you when you decided these two must be causally related?

Tick numbers are increasing because the climate is getting warmer. Also, ticks regularly use mice as hosts so the mice population may affect the tick population. But neither explanation has anything to do with wolves. In fact, wolf numbers in The Netherlands have doubled over the past year, and we're still seeing an increase in ticks.

<comment><USER3> > ticks regularly use mice as hosts so the mice population may affect the tick > population

True, (well, shrews are preferred in fact to mice), but only when young. Adult ticks feed mainly on large mammals, specially herbivores, and die if can't find a host in a few days, therefore is easy to understand that the recruitment of new ticks, the number of tick eggs released by surviving adults, is directly linked with the role of wolves as predators.

In the other hand, to put your "population of wolves has doubled between 2014 and 2015 but ticks had not changed" claim in context, we need to note that wolf population in the Netherlands between years 1869 and 2013 was composed of zero wolves.

Then, in 4-Jul-2013 something very strange happened. A she-wolf was found dead in a roadside next Luttelgeest. The first confirmed case of a "dutch" wolf in 140 years. A study in the journal Lutra covered the issue concluding that:

1) The animal was a purebreed wolf genetically related with East Europe populations [discarding a dog-wolf mix or a sarloos dog], was unchipped, and between 1.5 and 2.5 years old.

2) She fed on beaver in either the Carpathian mountains or the Eifel which is too far for the animal to have walked (9Km/h) from by itself within the 24 hours needed to digest its last meal (Genetic analysis from the remains of the beaver and the wolf linked both animals with populations living in this areas).

3) Bullet impacts and shattered fragments where found in the chest and flank indicating that the animal was shot twice before being hit by a car.

4) No car accident involving an animal was reported to local emergency services in the previous hours to the discovery of the corpse.

5) A discrepancy between the timing of the post mortem and rigor mortis intervals indicated that this wolf was shot prior to illegal transport to the Netherlands, from a distance within 2 days.

[To fake a car accident, running over a previously killed animal is a common procedure to cover environmental crimes against protected species].

Source:

The first wolf found in the Netherlands in 150 years was the victim of a wildlife crime. _Lutra_. 2013. 56(2): 93-109. Gravendeel, de Groot, Kik, Beentjes, Bergman, Caniglia, Cremers, Fabbri, Groenenberg, Grone, Bruinderink, Font, Hakhof, Harms, Jansman, Janssen, Lammertsma, Laros, Linnartz, van der Marel, Mulder, van der Mije, Nieman, Nowak, Randi, Rijks, Speksnijder & Vonho

Link to the article: [http://www.kora.ch/fileadmin/file_sharing/5_Bibliothek/51_KO...](http://www.kora.ch/fileadmin/file_sharing/5_Bibliothek/51_KORA_News/KORA_News_2014/20140210wolf- luttelgeest-gravendeel-de-groot-kik-et-al_lowres-2013__1_.pdf)

... So in 2013 there was still zero dutch wolves.

Then in 9-march-2015 a single wolf was photographed in Hunze.

So, unless you can show us new data, yes, wolf population was doubled in Netherlands in the last year... but you forgot to mention that is from zero to one animal. Here have your answer to the lack of changes on tick population.

<comment><USER5> Yup, that was meant as tongue-in-cheek, but I should probably have left it out. I didn't look up the specifics, but I know a second wolf sighting was claimed in Limburg, raising the number of wolves in NL from 1 to 2.

<comment><USER3> ... Or maybe the same wolf was seen in two different places. Is relatively common with this species.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> First writers started to use leaving the toilet seat up as a plot device to generate drama in sitcoms. Then others started to write light hearted articles in women magazines telling women how to deal with man who leaves toilet seat up. Now we have number of people who think it's something that can be reason to have a heated argument.

My theory is that we are living in society where people take cues on how to deal with everyday issues from media, social media and written word instead of their community and social environment. We look at the Rorschach inkblot and there is always some group who knows how it makes you feel and how those feelings are responsibility of others if you are willing to listen.

Our culture is becoming neurotic.

edit:

Google n-gram viewer for "toilet seat up": [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=+toilet+seat+u...](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=+toilet+seat+up&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Ctoilet%20seat%20up%3B%2Cc0)

<comment><USER7> I will never forget having this argument and her reason being, "I might accidentally sit on it with the seat up."

Yeah, that's gross and disconcerting, I'm sure. My response was that it was her responsibility to make sure she didn't sit on anything gross, and she should be looking where she's sitting anyhow.

My solution was to put the lid down with the seat. This is cleaner, looks nicer, stops the flush from spewing grossness into the room, and does not solve her problem at all.

Yeah, I was a little petty about it.

Of course, then I got complaints about the lid being down. I refused to budge on my position, and eventually she stopped trying to argue about it.

My take on the whole situation is that as we solved some really big problems, people needed a reason to complain or feel afraid. We went from worrying about dying constantly to worrying about getting a cold or totally treatable diseases. We're unable to stop worrying about _something_ , and so things get blown out of proportion. We're obsessed with preventing everything that's viewed as negative.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> There seems to be a spectrum between whether you consider your feelings mutable and the world absolute or whether your feelings are absolute and the world needs to change to accommodate them. The ever-expanding harm movement leans heavily towards the latter.

If something makes you feel bad, then it must inherently _be_ bad and must be changed. There doesn't seem to be any consideration that maybe it's your feelings that need to change, or even any acknowledgement that you _can_ change how you feel about something.

It's definitely not always one or other other, but to be constantly at the mercy of whatever circumstances happen to exist at the moment seems like a very difficult way to live one's life.

</comment><comment><USER9> I look at this as a sign of society evolving. Subtle emotional traumas exist, micro-aggressions exist. Way more things are harmful to children than we are really aware of. Mental health issues scale smoothly from 'nonexistent' to 'makes you completely nonfunctional' and can't be easily separated from 'ordinary' personality.

Society was not-so-blissfully unaware of these aspects of life, this is the process of coming to awareness. You overreact out of confusion at first, but eventually you figure it out and move on to the next lesson. It's how society works, you think they didn't have breathless articles in the '50's bemoaning both the fears of the day and the overreactions to those fears?

<comment><USER10> I thought the article laid out nice examples where the "evolving" can be good in some ways, but harmful in others.

I know teenagers who have never been left alone. I know people graduating high school who have never independently taken care of themselves. And even on an independence scale, when I was 18, my friends and I could pretty much survive on our own in wilderness situations just fine, and we did - heading into the woods and mountains to explore almost every day. Nowadays that would get you on reality TV shows.

Sure, things are safer now... As long as we all stick inside the little boxes society provides for us. But that is not always what is actually best for us.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Individualistic, freedom/harm based moral thinking is far from ubiquitous.

This can lead to libertarian leaning people (like me and many members of Hacker News) mischaracterising the world-view of many conservatives/liberals who have different moral beliefs to us and having discussions with them which are not constructive.

Johnathan Haidt has some interesting ideas on the topic. The idea that many people value stability/group loyalty/ideas of sanctity is often missed by many responses to moral issues on this site when people correctly state 'I can't see who is being harmed here' or 'I'm uncomfortable with people's freedom being restricted' in response to the day's moral issue.

Ultimately, many/most people have a bunch of sacred beliefs/narratives that they do not objectively challenge when faced with new evidence (instead they act like defence lawyers trying to reframe/discredit the information).

</comment><comment><USER12> This article is a bit muddled in several issues. Important and not mentioned, though by no means authoritative, is the enduring "negative liberty" principle and its enormous impact on the American ethos from its founding. An big reason a lot of this "concept creep" makes us uncomfortable is that the "right to be free from harm or negligence causing harm" is coming into diametric opposition with other people's right of expression, movement, and property. For an article that goes so far as to evoke Aristotle, I'm surprised no mention of Locke or JS Mill was made.

</comment><comment><USER13> This is hardly a phenomenon that is limited to the arbitrary boundaries of the US. This "sensitivity" in my estimation is due to the new found interconnectedness of consciousness via the internet. As Marshall McLuhan wrote many decades ago:

"The human family now exists under conditions of a global village. We live in a single constricted space resonant with tribal drums."

"The global village is a place of very arduous interfaces and very abrasive situations."

Go look at YouTube comments and you'll see what he meant. Never before has the world, with all its highly variable levels of intelligence, ignorance, and ideologies, been thrust into a "room" together and "forced" to listen to other opinions like it has with the internet.

"In the electric age, when our central nervous system is technologically extended to involve us in the whole of mankind and to incorporate the whole of mankind in us, we necessarily participate, in depth, in the consequences of our every action. It is no longer possible to adopt the aloof and dissociated role of the literate Westerner."

</comment><comment><USER14> We are headed to a dystopian state so quickly it's not even remotely funny anymore. The only thing I will say is resist them - resist the status quo and fight back against authority.

We can fight back with tools like cryptocurrency, or even secure messaging apps like Signal (and though end-to-end encryption is heavily criticized on here, it's a start). We can collectively become hackers that dismantle the corrupt institutions that have become so heavily entrenched in our society by engaging in these small initiatives.

</comment><comment><USER15> They talk about the influence of academics, and yet we (as a people) seem to successfully ignore things like global warming... I don't know if that explains it.

We have, indeed, become a nation of wimps, with little common sense. We fear now, much more than we used to. When I was a kid, we feared the red menace (Communism), but that didn't stop us from moving forward, or adhering to our ideals. Our independent spirit as a people.

I don't understand what is happening to us, but I think what they are talking about in the article is a reaction to the shift in public attitudes, not the cause of it.

<comment><USER16> _> Our independent spirit as a people._

Except for those pesky blacks: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws)

<comment><USER17> Geez, this is exactly what the commenter is talking about. Nobody brought race into this, and everyone knows about the racist history of America. Your comment was off-topic and did not further the conversation in any meaningful way, except set a tone of condescension towards this person's generation. Stop it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> > like saying the word "fútbol" instead of soccer

Hispanic folks: Is this in fact a thing that feels alienating to you? If so, would you be willing to explain why? It is the first time I've heard about it so I'd just like to confirm that Conor Friedersdorf is referring to a real thing.

<comment><USER19> I'm not Hispanic, and don't care at all about soccer, but I imagine it would be aggravating as hell. I'm black, and when white people call me bro, or start speaking in dialect - I honestly start to hate them.

For cultural reasons, when a lot of white Americans are talking about getting fighting and getting angry, or partying and having fun, relaxing and being lazy, flirting or getting laid, or one-upping people or hustling for money, they drop into a black dialect (and an entire stereotypical affect) for a moment. Even upper-middle class black people do it sometimes - Oprah is famous for it.

I spoke like that growing up on the South Side of Chicago, my grandparents speak like that, and many of the people I love speak like that. People are dropping into dialect because, deep down, they think of black people as a bunch of violent, lazy, partying, horny grifters - and find it very amusing and black of themselves when they experience anger, laziness, joy, sexual arousal, or pride at their own craftiness. This is the reason why most pop music is delivered in black dialect. It reminds me of what they think of me, and my family, although they would never acknowledge it to me, and many wouldn't acknowledge it to themselves.

To be clear, I'm not a fan of oversensitivity and preciousness, or "microaggressions" or cultural studies departments, or theory-theory psychology in general, which I think is just secular religion. But someone dropping into dialect when they talk to you is not all that subtle.

I could see Hispanic people feeling stereotyped by soccer stuff. Soccer is English, it's called "football" in English, so what's this urge to drop into Spanish dialect all of a sudden? Do you drop into dialect when you talk to your white friends? If you do, why?

edit: And I don't mean to imply that white people don't get treated like this - I hear people drop into an Italian-American affect a lot when they're talking about being criminals, or being rapey.

<comment><USER20> I'm white and grew up in a near-western suburb of Chicago and have also noticed that white people were quick to adopt a black dialect. I'm not sure it was necessarily only correlated with the things you mentioned (partying, anger, etc...) but it definitely existed. People adopted a lot of slang words from the black community too, which can sound really unnatural coming from a rich white kid's mouth.

However, I don't think it was necessarily a result of people viewing black people negatively, in fact, it often seemed to be admiration. I could be wrong because I can't read minds but these were young kids that had been raised in an anti-racist environment, so suggesting that they were mimicking black culture because they secretly felt negatively about it isn't a convincing explanation for the entirety of it.

<comment><USER19> > However, I don't think it was necessarily a result of people viewing black > people negatively, in fact, it often seemed to be admiration

But see, that's still racist. And the contexts in which it comes out makes it seem like an admiration of looseness, coolness, style, toughness, sexiness, grittiness, authenticity... an escape from just being a plain old person. Really, these are qualities involved in the identities many teenagers hope to construct. I'm just a plain old person too, but the culture makes me a repository for fantasy.

I'll go on a tangent here about something that really bothered me yesterday. There was a really interesting and informative article yesterday in the LA Times about an "Asian" propensity towards diabetes - an article which could help people with their health by informing them of something which they may not have been aware of.

[http://www.latimes.com/health/la-me-asian-americans- diabetes...](http://www.latimes.com/health/la-me-asian-americans- diabetes-20160419-story.html)

Here's the question:

The article had nothing to do with white people, yet this was the graphic: [http://www.trbimg.com/img-571584ce/turbine/la-me-g-asian- ame...](http://www.trbimg.com/img-571584ce/turbine/la-me-g-asian-american- diabetes-20160418/750/750x422)

and later: "Asians tend to have less muscle and more fat than Europeans of the same weight and height, studies show. So an Asian who isn't obese or even overweight could have enough fat to be in danger of getting diabetes, a phenomenon sometimes referred to as 'skinny-fat.'"

So how did white people get to be the baseline? The zeros of the world, the people that other people are a divergence from, the people that you have to know to understand? Why is an article about Asian diabetes instead an article about comparative rates of diabetes between Asians and whites? Some liberal arts major might call it a "microaggression", but as a engineering major, I am just literally looking at Asian health being described mainly in relation to the health of whites and trying to figure out the words to explain how that bothers me to white people who can't see it, without them erupting into rage.

<comment><USER21> It was written by a white person in a country which is still assumed to be predominantly Caucasian. Hence white people were the baseline.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Interesting article .... until the Bush blaming at the end which totally irrelevant to the matter. Both parties are equally to blame for playing identity politics and encouraging the "us vs them" mentality in US.

</comment><comment><USER23> Excellent piece here. Does a great job of demonstrating "concept creep" from both liberal and conservative ideologies, and of describing how we got to this situation in the first place. The bullet points towards the end summarize the article perfectly:

>"by applying concepts of abuse, bullying, and trauma to less severe and clearly defined actions and events, and by increasingly including subjective elements into them, concept creep may release a flood of unjustified accusations and litigation, as well as excessive and disproportionate enforcement regimes."

>"...concept creep can produce a kind of semantic dilution. If a concept expands to encompass less extreme phenomena... then its prototypical meaning is likely to shift... If trauma, for example, ceases to refer exclusively to terrifying events that are outside normal human experience, and is applied to less severe and more prevalent stresses, it will come to be seen in a more benign light."

>"...by increasing the range of people who are defined as moral patients—people worthy of moral concern, based on their perceived capacity to suffer and be harmed—it risks reducing the range of people who see themselves as capable of moral agency." There is a tendency "for more and more people to see themselves as victims who are defined by their suffering, vulnerability, and innocence...The flip-side of this expanding sense of victimhood would be a typecast assortment of moral villains: abusers, bullies, bigots, and traumatizers."

>Expanding mental disorder "can pathologize normal experiences, generate over- diagnosis and over-treatment, and engender a sense of diminished agency."

Of all these, I find the tendency towards victimhood particularly troubling. We're seeing a generation of kids growing up blaming everyone but themselves for their problems, and demanding that someone else change to solve their problems instead of learning the resiliency needed to survive and thrive. Couple that with the tribalism of said victims setting one group against the other, and we're setting ourselves up for civil unrest in the near future.

</comment><comment><USER24> Because we have so many lawyers.

<comment><USER25> Expanding your point further, because I agree with you in that the CYA mentality is everywhere.

Whenever I see news about something bad happening, inevitably it turns into a blame game. What did someone _not_ do?

The case of the mom getting arrested ([http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/07/arrested...](http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/07/arrested- for-letting-a-9-year-old-play-at-the-park-alone/374436/)) infuriates me. The person who called the police (and, really, everyone involved "up the chain") was faced with a decision:

A.) Do nothing

B.) Call the police (escalate upwards in authority)

C.) Do something else, like find a safer place for the child to be, if you truly believe the park to be dangerous.

A is free, but comes with the non-zero cost of being "the person who did nothing" when something bad happens to the girl (unlikely, but possible). B is cheap (you need to hang around for the police and all that entails), but is an easy way to attain the moral high ground. C is expensive and really you'd be no better off than if you did B.

These three options exist for everyone involved, and they escalated upwards until they found someone who had enough power to do C cheaply enough that they didn't need to do B. That involved taking the child away.

Passing the buck upwards is easy to do and seldom will someone come after you for it. I don't have a good answer for how this can be solved, because I can't say with good conscience that it is never the right thing to do - there are obvious cases where it is.

I also find the amusing that my thoughts on "how would I make this right?" lead to "that mother should sue the state for lost wages or something". Clearly we have too many lawyers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> a tyranny of the minority backed up by politicians, government appointees, and judges, all who realize their power by separating people into groups to play off each other. Each new victim class further increases the power of government, the loss of privacy, and worse the loss of community and seeds of distrust and anger are set to drive people into different camps.

when the individual becomes so important that community suffers we have our priorities wrong.

<comment><USER27> This seems to be a commonly expressed concept, the idea that in large this phenomenon is strongly either caused or encouraged by a 'conspiracy' of the government.

<comment><USER14> How about multinational corporations that answer to nobody and are staffed by the top psychologists in the world to subtly manipulate the masses? Is that a "conspiracy" in your eyes or merely reality?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I think this has much to do with the US infatuation with, and fear of, litigation (as well as the relationship between expert witnesses and the court system) as any psychological phenomenon. In other words, I think the explanation is sociological more than psychological.</comment>


Gmail no longer supporting Chrome Browser version 53 and below - <AUTHOR> https://gsuiteupdates.googleblog.com/2017/02/gmail-no-longer-supporting-chrome-v53.html <comment><USER2> Important context from the article:

      Starting February 8, 2017, we will show a banner
      at the top of the Gmail interface for users who
      are still on Google Chrome Browser v53 and below
      to encourage upgrading to the latest version

And

      Gmail will continue to function on Chrome Browser
      v53 and below through the end of the year. Users
      who remain on Chrome v53 and below could be
      redirected to the basic HTML version of Gmail
      as early as Dec 2017.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm kind of frustrated at this, heh. I'm on chrome 49 because I can't install anything newer on my linux mint machine. I can't install a newer one because of a dependency, which requires a newer kernel version.

So I'm stuck with an out dated version of Chrome due to my linux kernel version (which I don't feel like updating and alienating my virtualbox drivers). Chrome 49 isn't even that old, I think it is < 1 year.

<comment><USER4> Use firefox

<comment><USER3> Likely my best course of action.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> For those wondering Chrome v53 was released about 6 months ago. That's quite amazing.

<comment><USER6> It's really not that amazoling; their official, published supported browser policy is that _only_ the current release of Chrome is supported, and they are actually supporting v53 until December.

This is, per the post, only being specially announced because it affects WinXP and Vista users, because _Chrome_ hasn't supported those platforms after v49.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This change will likely impact Electron apps that access the Gmail web interface. It was only recently that Electron 1.5.0 beta ([https://github.com/electron/electron/releases/tag/v1.5.0](https://github.com/electron/electron/releases/tag/v1.5.0)) brought with it Chromium 54.</comment>


Germany's oldest student, 102, gets PhD denied by Nazis - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33048927

<comment><USER2> Ambiguous headline. She earned a Ph.D. that the Nazis had previously prevented her from earning.

<comment><USER3> what ^they said. Also, this is not a new story. REad it last week at least.</comment></comment>


A look at what lies ahead for Final Fantasy - <AUTHOR> http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/next-chapter-never-ending-story-look-lies-ahead-final-fantasy/

<comment><USER2> >Final Fantasy XIV is a re-launch of a failed 2010 MMO.

It is indeed a re-launch. But such a successful re-launch that they had to temporarily shut down digital downloads for nearly a month because they didn't expect such a large influx of players.

A relaunch that was so successful that they had to revise their earnings report from an estimated 20 million dollar operating loss for the financial year to a 48 million dollar profit[1]. The game has 1.5 million registered accounts[2]. But I guess mentioning that would certainly detract from the supposed doom and gloom of the franchise that author is trying to perpetrate.

I'm playing it. It's very fun. Here's a small article on it[0].

[0][http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/09/final-fantasy-xiv-a- re...](http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/09/final-fantasy-xiv-a-realm-reborn- impressions-proud-to-be-an-mmorpg/)

[1][http://www.vg247.com/2013/11/05/square-enix-financials- final...](http://www.vg247.com/2013/11/05/square-enix-financials-final- fantasy-14-relaunch-exceeds-projections-forecast-revised/)

[2][http://www.siliconera.com/2013/10/25/final-fantasy-xiv- realm...](http://www.siliconera.com/2013/10/25/final-fantasy-xiv-realm- reborn-1-5-million-registered-accounts/)

</comment><comment><USER3> > Final Fantasy XIV is a re-launch of a failed 2010 MMO. Final Fantasy XV, due > out on PlayStation 4 and Xbox One in the near future, is actually just Final > Fantasy Versus XIII

And yet the only Final Fantasy I'm looking forward to is the X/X-2 HD re- releases. After the horrible XII and XIII, of which I never would have even finished XII if it wasn't for bubble auto-leveling, XIII sits unfinished and XI was basically just destroyed, I just stopped caring about anything new SE was putting out.

I used to buy consoles based on where Final Fantasy was, now I just ignore them if they show up on a Playstation and don't care if they jump to the XBOX.

<comment><USER4> I think a lot of people are hoping for a "remaster" of FFVII, including me. I'd buy a PS4 solely for FFVII in an instant, assuming they did a good job of course.

FFX would be great, but I'm annoyed it's only on PS3, which I skipped.

<comment><USER5> This was quite a while ago, but Square announced they would not do a FFVII remake until another FF outsells it. FFVII had around 10 million sales. The closest was FFVIII with 8.15 million sales.

Sales data: [http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/Best_selling_Square- Enix_games](http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/Best_selling_Square-Enix_games)

<comment><USER6> Which is a weird statement to make. I'd stop making remakes of those SNES classics for all sorts of devices and start work on a true remake of the best (selling) Final Fantasy which was FF7. I can't help but feel they are scared to try.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "you can fit so much more game into one unit, of course you want to put in more content so you come up with even more ideas" I actually wish they wouldn't keep adding more and keep future games a bit shorter in play time. Focus.</comment>


Google Flight Search means little for Adioso & Hipmunk - <AUTHOR> http://tomhoward.co/why-googles-move-into-flight-search-means-lit

<comment><USER2> Cool post, and I agree. My question is probably not geared toward you, but the audience:

Why can't we just celebrate the fact that Google built something new instead of beat it to death with criticisms of how it isn't perfect or a game changer, etc?

I like new tech and new products to play with, whether they come from YC, Google, or the hacker down the street.

<comment><USER3> I think we are all naturally a bit defensive when the fear of a great competitor leaping out from the shadows is always there - especially for travel startups where something like the Google-ITA deal that has been in the works for so long. The message I got from his article actually somewhat agrees with the question you posed: there can be sufficient room for both of them in the space and as a community we should resist being alarmist about others encroaching on what we do; in fact it can be a really good thing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm rooting for you guys over Google, but I view speed as the #1 feature and I don't see anyway you can compete on that front right now with Google owning ITA.

</comment><comment><USER5> Yes. It's the Italian Restaurant argument all over again.

There's room in town for more than one, and everybody you ask will have their own favourite.

</comment><comment><USER6> What this does mean is that you should always look carefully at where you get your traffic and your hosting. You don't want to be dependent on a big competitor for either of those.

All it takes is one tweak of an algorithm or a prolonged outage to put you out of business.

</comment><comment><USER7> The thing to fear is Google changing the SERPs in their favor. Google maps owns the local space because all local searches lead to Google maps. In this case, unlike local, I don't think there are many searches for Google to hijack (I think they call it "OneBox"). I agree that it means little other than Google is going to monopolize the travel press for a few weeks.

</comment><comment><USER8> It means little to Hipmunk because they don't exactly have huge traction yet... They're more of a threat to Expedia or Orbitz. Hipmunk isn't even mainstream.</comment>


From Disqus to Muut - <AUTHOR> https://muut.com/blog/technology/from-disqus-to-muut/

<comment><USER2> Wow expensive!

<comment><USER3> We find the Free version extremely good value considering it offers unlimited users/traffic/data.</comment></comment>


Confessions of a Recovering Jerk Programmer - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/compassionate-coding/confessions-of-a-recovering-jerk-programmer-b9d531a05ea9 <comment><USER2> A great article.

One interesting link within led to [http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Girls_suck_at_Python](http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Girls_suck_at_Python) which contains the phrase "admittedly rather silly) code snippet"

But the code snippet not only is _not_ silly, it is a known pitfall of Python's rather loose typing with regards to booleans!</comment>


Ask HN: California moonlighting non-compete - <AUTHOR> I'm about to start with a new employer who has the following non-compete clause:
1. Non-competition. During my employment with the Company, I agree to perform for the Company such duties as the Company may designate from time to time, to devote my full time and best efforts to the business of the Company and I will not, without the prior written approval of the Company (a) engage in any other professional employment or consulting, or (b) directly or indirectly participate in or assist any business which is a current or potential supplier, customer or competitor of the Company.
Clause (a) is the one I am concerned about since it seems to be a general ban on moonlighting as a dev which I am interested in doing. From what I looked up California law prohibits restrictions on moonlighting so this might not be enforceable and there is also the "written approval" route as well. What would you guys advise in this situation? <comment><USER2> one word: negotiate.

Contracts are often just boilerplate that the company downloaded from some website. Just tell them that you cannot accept that particular term and offer an alternative wording. Then stick to your guns.</comment>


Ask HN: So, is "search" really that hard? - <AUTHOR>

I've been thinking about this for quite some time but what triggered the thought this time was this Hacker News submission (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2812555): Isn't it a tad disturbing how such an open world as the web is limited to pretty much just one searching tool (Google)?<p>I am not asking from the "Is Google evil?" perspective, I am only asking to find out why. <comment><USER2> Since Google's early days, Google has been my homepage and search engine exclusively. Recently, I challenged myself to use Duck Duck Go for a month.

I have not found a significant reason to go back to Google. Search might be "hard" but my experience with DDG has told me that it is not so hard that it can't be solved by people other than Google.

</comment><comment><USER3> Doing search is fairly easy.

Doing search well is extraordinarily hard, arbitrarily so depending on what approximation of "well" you're willing to accept. There are many factors which scale in computation very rapidly. The entire concept of meaning and relevance is also hard to reduce to a computational algorithm despite many valiant attempts to do so to a useful level.

That aside, if DDG doesn't work, changing search engines is unlikely to help much vs. trying a different query or consulting other humans. The world is not limited to Google. Google is just very large and entrenched to the point that it's hard to take on directly.

</comment><comment><USER4> By Anna Patterson, "Why Writing Your Own Search Engine Is Hard": <http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=988407>

</comment><comment><USER5> Do you remember how useless search engines were before Google?</comment>


A gentle introduction to text classification and sentiment analysis - <AUTHOR> https://miguelgfierro.com/blog/2017/a-gentle-introduction-to-text-classification-and-sentiment-analysis/ <comment><USER2> Great write-up and overview, thanks!</comment>


Exploding stars led to humans walking on two legs, radical study suggests - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/may/28/exploding-stars-led-humans-walking-on-two-legs-study <comment><USER2> Aren't exploding stars technically responsible for everything except hydrogen atoms?

</comment><comment><USER3> I suppose if there is to be scientific mysticism, this is it.

I believe the notion of lightning/plasma strikes promoting life evolution to be resolute, scientific proof or otherwise, however.</comment>


Thatneedle: Semantic Search for retail - <AUTHOR> http://thatneedle.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Posting for a guy I met on reddit (ikr!). I liked their simple interface, tho the lack of documentation makes me think they don't plan on being a biz-to-dev solution. If signing up is not your thing, here's a direct link to something you can try out: [http://www.thatneedle.com/filterd](http://www.thatneedle.com/filterd)

<comment><USER2> Fine to post, but you can't put Show HN on it unless it's your work.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Soliciting feedback on this HNers!</comment>


Show HN: Pip 2.0 – Canned Messaging App - <AUTHOR> http://letspip.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> One of the developers of the app here, wondering if there was anything other apps creators would like to know about our experience releasing a mobile app on android/ios?

For example, based on feedback from the first version of the app, the biggest complaint was not being able to register without a USA phone number, and that people wanted to create their own custom pips, we've added support for both of these with our 2.0 launch. You can read about the other changes in the app store's changelog.</comment>


Generate PDF from URL or HTML with Electron - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/fraserxu/electron-pdf

<comment><USER2> There's also wkhtmltopdf.org as another headless/comand line pdf renderer

<comment><AUTHOR> Actually I have lots of issue with wkhtmltopdf.org, it does not really support well for encoding text like Myanmar language(haven't test it yet). Plus 'the browser' is the best(not even one of) tool to render HTML properly, that's what I've been loving it so far.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> looks very cool - a few things.

It could be improved if there was a way to include a delay for when it starts rendering.

<comment><AUTHOR> What is the use case to delay the rendering? It's surely possible but you can do that in your own code no?</comment></comment>


3D Printing is for more than making brightly colored plastic pieces of crap - <AUTHOR> http://www.hanselman.com/blog/3DPrintingIsForSoMuchMoreThanJustMakingBrightlyColoredPlasticPiecesOfCrap.aspx <comment><USER3> Interesting discussion. Reminds me of the "why would I ever want a computer?" discussion I got from folks back when I was in High School when I showed them a computer I had assembled from a kit.

And realistically they didn't need a computer ever, they needed a smart phone. Although for a while they used a computer and complained bitterly that it required too much maintenance and had a steep learning curve.

So here we are in the 3D printer 'nadir', the period of time between hype and wide spread adoption. The thing is, 3D printers have gotten _much_ better since the first rep raps were trying to print their own parts. And with that has come more applications, and with that more fun. A 3D printer is the ultimate expression of a Lego set these days.

Once I had internalized what I could do, which I could not do before, the number of things I started printing went up dramatically. And so much has been learned and developed in terms of how to best fabricate things in this way that what used to be hit or miss can now be rock solid. For example I doubt I will ever buy a project case for a gizmo ever again. Holders, jigs, struts and braces, all are "need one? print one" these days. But if you aren't a maker, if you didn't write any code on any laptop you owned, if you really just want someone else to do the fabrication, then yes they are not for you at this time, you'll still use a service. But that will change, I hope a bit faster than it has, the first 10 years have not moved along as fast I would have liked.

<comment><USER4> _A 3D printer is the ultimate expression of a Lego set these days._

That's a good analogy, but I believe it's why 3D printing _won 't_ be mainstream. The explosion in the popularity of Lego models recently is in the brilliant professional designs with commercial licensing that Lego come up with. Designing and making your own Lego models is popular among kids as it always has been, but adults don't do it. For an adult a Lego set is a 3D jigsaw puzzle. There's zero interest in making your own ideas.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> In all seriousness, when did schools stop teaching shop class?

I'm not that old, but at school I learned to measure and mark, to drill and tap, to saw and file. If I want a quadcopter frame, I'll cut it from a sheet of aluminum or CFRP. I'll need nothing more than a hacksaw, a file and a hand drill. In less time than it takes for a 3D printer to warm up, I'll have a stiffer, stronger and lighter frame than could be produced by a consumer 3D printer.

If you want to make stuff, I urge you not to waste your time with 3D printing. Learn the basic skills of woodwork or metalwork. It isn't hard and the tools aren't expensive. Despite endless pleas to the contrary, FDM machines will only ever produce tchotchkes.

If cheap DMLS machines ever hit the market then I'll be first in line. Until then, no amount of clever technology will overcome the basic materials science that prevents FDM machines from being useful.

<comment><USER6> I took shop class, I made a chess board that I remain proud of to this day, and I used a metal lathe CNC to make chess pieces- also, a really lovely decorative shelf.

And I just can't _disagree with you strongly enough_.

Just recently, using the MakerBot2 at my university library, I was able to replace this: [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/1nePU5mz8Z4/maxresdefault.jpg](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/1nePU5mz8Z4/maxresdefault.jpg). (The large, central gear that overlaps the metal framework close to the screwdriver). (I got this Jumping Sumo Drone for free in a broken state, and 3D printed the central gear for less than 4 dollars, and that's with a 300% markup on materials to use the school's 3D printer)

Now, I know that it'd be hard to merely repair the damage, or remake that gear from scratch _because I spent several weeks and a lot of spare time trying_. The 3D printed gear has stood up repeatedly to the same behavior the originally broke the central gear (attempting a jump on a soft surface), and is still going strong despite my having let my nieces and nephews run the battery down half a dozen times over Thanksgiving break (I want them to be excited to robotics, programming, etc.- I figured if they broke the free Sumo I had fixed, it would be a worthy sacrifice- incidentally, I didn't actually _mean_ to test the jump on a soft surface again and specifically warned them against it, but- ah- well- they average age 9 right now, I knew shenanigans would ensue when I set out! :) )

Some parts are really hard to make, 3D printers help a lot. Don't you cheapen that, jdietrich, 3D printing is a fantastic stride for makers everywhere, and the materials science is an obstacle made of tissue paper- as in, we're already blowing through it handily. I don't know what you're printing with, but I'm already making more than tchotchkies, and I am dang glad I didn't encounter your sentiment before I tried it myself.

<comment><USER7> Nice, did you put the 3d model of the gear on Thingiverse? To me, the access to a large database of useful 3d objects that you can print easily is another huge advantage of 3d printers.

<comment><USER6> <mumbles something nearly unintelligible about having started modeling it himself, but then having checked Thingiverse, he got it off of Thingiverse because someone had already done a fantastic job of modelling the piece. :D >

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> (All images were of brightly colored plastic pieces of crap)

<comment><USER9> >I've made dishes, vases, pieces of art for shelves, and geometric shapes for gifts this Christmas.

He is gifting his fancier plastic to others and they are now gifts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Brightly colored pieces of crap echoes my sentiments exactly. Eventually they'll end up in the trash; only take up space in a landfill, or end up in an ocean gyre. I don't doubt the utility of some of the "exotic filaments", but these are even less recyclable (or biodegradable compared to PLA). The only useful example he gives is a quadcopter. The majority will just print stainless steel Yoda heads, and fractal vases, that sea life will choke on.

</comment><comment><USER11> From the comments here, it looks like 3D printing has hit the trough of the hype cycle.

Nonetheless, I'm a fan.

I've designed and printed about a dozen objects in the last week. None of them are world changing, all of them could have been made some other way, and none of them are high strength or high precision. Some of them had to be postprocessed with an X-Acto knife. (-: But it's darned convenient to spend a few minutes drawing CAD, then an hour (or two hours) later have a part good enough to solve my immediate problem.

<comment><USER12> We've reached the trough of the hype cycle for FDM 3d-printing. A new hype cycle is for different branches of 3d-printing will happen soon (CLIP, multi- color printing, etc.). Plateau of productivity is like ~8 years away I think, when someone finally comes out with a nice machine that makes it all possible elegantly in one machine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> It's hard for me to see the case for owning your own 3D printer, unless that's the hobby.

There's no point in having the printer until I have something I want to print, if I want to print something, there are commercial services that can do it for me.

If I understand the pricing, I'd have to print a _lot_ of pieces before a printer paid for itself.

<comment><USER14> Sometimes it's a matter of time, not money. If you're prototyping a complicated set of parts you'll quickly find that ordering parts from a service results in a days long development cycle instead of minutes. I print many small pieces each day and my designs change fast enough that ordering from a service just doesn't make sense.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Summary:

"OK, how many brightly colored plastic pieces of crap do I really need in my life?"

I've learned three things.

Lesson 1 - You can print upgrades to your 3D printer

Lesson 2 - You can print brightly colored non-plastic pieces of crap

Lesson 3 - You can print and then assemble brightly colored plastic pieces of crap

<comment><USER16> Exactly what I get from the read, eventhough I'm a hanselman fan, couldn't find anything usefull here.

</comment></comment><comment> loup-vaillant I currently work for a company that makes small drones (quad-copters and flying wings), and they use 3D printing for many parts. This makes small-scale fabrication and prototyping _much_ cheaper. The drones themselves take photos for various purposes. Mostly inspections and measurements.

Prior to this, I didn't know 3D printing had actual industrial applications.

</comment><comment><USER17> I run a small company that specializes in digital fabrication technologies like 3D printing. We've been in business for about 3 years now with moderate success. During that time, the progress I've witnessed in 3D printing technologies has been extremely disappointing. Meanwhile, our studio's laser cutters do 10x the business of our 3D printers.

When desktop 3D printing was hitting the mainstream media in a big way a couple of years ago, the message was about how the technology was revolutionary and you could construct anything you could imagine at the press of the button. The public ate this message up, while industry insiders knew it couldn't be further from the truth - of course that didn't stop them from riding the frothy crest of the hype wave, further fueling the public's misconceptions about the technology.

In the intervening 2 or 3 years, consumer desktop 3D printing technology hasn't improved in any meaningful way. Most desktop FDM printers (the kind you've mostly likely seen that extrude a thin bead of melted plastic), are no better than the early Makerbot Replicator launched in 2012. They're still slow, fairly user hostile (require a great deal of maintenance/calibration to get consistent results) and have many limitations regarding the types of geometries they are able to print due to limitations in support material.

The machines available at the consumer scale just aren't capable of making truly useful parts. This is why there is a glut of green Yoda heads, and machines collecting dust on the back shelves of trendy digital agencies. This isn't to discredit the minority of scrappy makers who are willing to work within the limitations of the equipment for novel projects - but for the larger public there just isn't a 'killer app' for this type of device, beyond plastic trinkets.

The industrial/commercial scale printers are certainly much more capable. But like other types of manufacturing equipment, the development of these technologies is slow, mired by patents and driven by stakeholders who have no interest in cannibalizing sales of their expensive product lines by offering affordable consumer versions at a fraction of the price.

There are amazing things happening at the frontiers of digital fabrication. Laser cutting and CNC machining technologies are becoming much more affordable and easier to use for a wide variety of designers and engineers. For most applications these types of machines are infinitely more useful than 3D printers. They are providing an avenue for prototyping, short run production and the mass-customization of products to segments of designers and entrepreneurs who could never have afforded them previously. It's almost a shame that the crappy desktop 3D printer has become the poster child for a much more varied and robust ecosystem of digital manufacturing technology.

<comment><USER18> > CNC machining technologies are becoming much more affordable and easier to > use

I disagree with this. The first level of decent CNC machines has been in the $7,000-$10,000 range for quite some time now. As they generally require 3-phase power and flood liquid (generally something which requires a non- trivial MSDS) over the part being cut, they require a dedicated space in a relatively dedicated shop. The "rent" to house the machine exceeds the cost of the machine very quickly.

I would rather have an affordable SLS machine which could print nylon.

<comment><USER19> Rotary phase convertors or variable frequency drives can efficiently (enough) create 3-phase power from single-phase power, so that's no barrier to even serious home users. I know several people with CNC-converted mills/lathes in their garage/home shop.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I've been 3d printing for over 5 years now and launching a 3d printing education site [http://start-to-print.com](http://start-to-print.com). Here are some of the pain points we hear a lot.

3d printing is expensive

\- You can have something 3d printed the size of a tennis ball for 5-10 euro's at 3dhubs.com. You save 10 euro on shipment compared to shapeways and you'll have your object in 2 days rather tan 2 weeks.

It's complicated

\- Well the first thing I 3d printed wasn't something I designed myself but was something I found online. Chances are that somebody already created the thing you were looking for. \- Even after 200 models I still curse when I try a new (supposed super easy) modelling tool. But hey they are free now and you can find lots of video tutorials. Like me you're probably a fast learner. It's more taking the first step to spend an evening on it.

Desktop 3d printers suck

\- Until 2 weeks even I had that impression, but since I bought my 3rd: a 2,000 dollar Zortrax M200 I changed my mind. I'm all into open-source but this thing is really plug and play and take away a lot of the hazzle I had before. Even my wife can start a print now. So far it's been printing for 50 hours and 25 model with zero print failures. I't no longer kickstarterish.

There are better alternatives

\- Yes. But 3d printing it's just a good fit for me. I'm a software engineer, I just like to work digital and I'm very lazy. Often I can just download it and print.

The 3d printing hype is over

\- Yes, but 500k-1M free 3d models on thingiverse.com is REAL. My 2000 Zortrax printer really works well and is what I was hoping 3d printing would be like.

</comment><comment><USER21> So instead of brightly colored plastic pieces of crap you can also make dark coloured plastic pieces of crap?

I see very few things in my life where plastic makes sense, except because it's cheap when mass-manufactured. I actually would like to reduce the amount of plastic in my life.

One advantage of 3D printers is that you can repair parts that have broken down and can't be bought again. But with plastics you can usually only repair broken plastic parts - maybe you shouldn't have bought a cheap plastic thing that breaks down fast in the first place.

3D printers are a tool with very limited use cases where they make sense.

<comment><USER22> "But with plastics you can usually only repair broken plastic parts - <USER2> you shouldn't have bought a cheap plastic thing that breaks down fast in the first place."

That's what I believed when I started. But you can "print" a CNC machine and make pieces in aluminum, copper or bronze.

I do it routinely. The CNC uses very similar components to the 3d printer.

In fact, you are not printing lots of metal components, like the steel bars. But those things are commodities and incredibly inexpensive.

The best thing you can do is find a maker community so you don't need to have all the tools yourself, but can share it. My CNC is not in my house, but in a maker space. I only use it for like 5% of the time. Giving it away I can use other's people tools(and expertise) for free.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I thought the same about 3d printing, I lazily didn't look past the trinkets and crap that was on show.

When I finally thought about the possibilities I realised there was probably a whole lot more potential, did some experimenting and ended up printing a robot (scroll down for the best pictures):

[http://blog.willj.net/category/ping-pong- robot/](http://blog.willj.net/category/ping-pong-robot/)

That's not the final design, I really need to update the site with the latest, but it shows what's possible.

</comment><comment><USER24> The real game-changer is yet to happen. The missing bits of technology are printing the circuits (embedding the wiring, ideally with something more conductive than a paste or conductive ink) and combining a robotic, CV-guided pick and place with 3D-printing for adding non-printable components to the designs.

Once we're there, an entire design and production process can be heavily automated.

<comment><USER25> The missing technology is the ability to grind the old plastic junk into re- usable filament and re-use the material for new plastic junk. Give me a 3D printer that has a funnel on top for pouring in the old crap, and you've got a customer ..

<comment><USER26> These exist: [http://www.filabot.com/collections/filabot- core](http://www.filabot.com/collections/filabot-core)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I must say, I don't think the author made his point very well here. That stuff all looks like crap to me. That's ok, it just means it's still early days.

</comment><comment><USER28> There is progress. I see the 3D printers at TechShop making useful stuff now. TechShop has had filament-type 3D printers around for about five years, but few people got beyond the Yoda head. Now the newer units are producing useful parts. They also have access to services with better 3D printers.

</comment><comment><USER29> The USAF currently has planes flying with 3D printed parts that serve an important purpose!

</comment><comment><USER30> lesson 1: 3d printing is about ... upgrading your printer?

The best use case for personal 3d printing I found is RPG board gaming. Custom D&D miniatures, battle maps, even crazy fancy dice (sometimes weighted to annoy friends).

</comment><comment><USER9> >I've made dishes, vases, pieces of art for shelves, and geometric shapes for gifts this Christmas.

So they are not crap, they are now gifts for others.</comment>