Microsoft Has Broken Millions of Webcams with Windows 10 Anniversary Update - <AUTHOR> https://www.thurrott.com/windows/windows-10/76719/microsoft-broken-millions-webcams-windows-10-anniversary-update <comment><USER2> It also switched my default web browser from Firefox to Edge and replaced the Firefox icon I'd pinned to my taskbar with an Edge one in the same position. Switching back required clicking a small link on an extra scare prompt buried in the control panel where the large, default button was to stick with Edge. No wonder its market share seems to be ticking up.

In addition the update cleared a bunch of my settings, including silently switching on some of the privacy-questionable features I'd opted out of previously. The update process itself wasn't pleasant, either: while I was away from my desk my laptop woke up from sleep, threw away everything I had open (including a running VM instance, risking data corruption), and launched into a patching process that cost me nearly an hour of work time.

I understand the importance of automatic updates security-wise, but Microsoft seems to be actively user-hostile here.

</rant>

<comment><USER3> I just installed the Anniversary update. It did not replace my default browser. It _did_ however suggest making Edge my default with an option to do so. I cancelled this.

It also added Edge to my taskbar but did not replace either Firefox or Chrome. Are you sure it replaced it?

Seems like some misinformation here.

<comment><USER2> Yeah, I'm positive. There was no user interaction involved: when I came back to my laptop, it was updating, and when the updated completed all the changes I described had been made. Privacy settings had been reset, Edge had become my default browser, and the Edge icon had taken Firefox's place on the taskbar.

<comment><USER4> MSFT thanks you both for your participation in an ongoing AB test.

<comment><USER5> It could be a Europe vs. other region thing, or similar, too?!

<comment><USER6> Or maybe they are putting all that telemetry to "good" use.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "It was important for us to enable concurrent camera access" -> tinfoil hat mode: cortana is secretly spying on you through the web cam.

[https://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/windowsdesktop/en-U...](https://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/windowsdesktop/en- US/9d6a8704-764f-46df-a41c-8e9d84f7f0f3/mjpg-encoded-media-type-is-not- available-for-usbuvc-webcameras-after- windows-10-version-1607-os?forum=mediafoundationdevelopment#fc5c100a-c661-43cd-9540-bb4591e3d1fe)

<comment><USER8> See, I'm okay with them adding concurrent camera access, because I still recall the days I was using Skype on XP and would get blue screens if anything else forgot to close the webcam.

That's true though: why is it important _for them_?

<comment><USER7> And why not make it a new opt-in API for new applications? What it should have been: Run an old API app -> exclusive webcam access. Run new/updated API apps -> concurrent webcam access.

To think, Microsoft used to be all about preserving backwards compatibility to the extreme.

<comment><USER9> Because history shows that developers don't update their apps and drivers if they're not forced to. As such this change would be pointless if a crappy team, like Skype :P, would refuse to update their API and would block concurrent access for all other apps.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I didn't have an issue with the 10-day rollback after that period. My Win 10 install was working fine for 6 months, until the Start button disappeared.

No problem: I found lots of solutions online. Problem: none worked, and the ultimate suggestion was to refresh or reset. Refresh didn't work, so I had to reset losing all of my installed apps and settings.

When given the choice, I just went back to Win 8.1. I am astounded that a 'version 10' of any software would have such a keystone issue, at least losing the ability to navigate my GUI without crazy right clicks and searches.

I run Mac and Linux too, so I am not a fanboy of any one particular OS. I call problems out on all of them equally. I just want them not to bother me while I am working ;) Or waste a day reinstalling apps and re-registering them, and setting them.

In 38 years of owning and running computers, two systems stand out as particularly robust - my 1978 Commodore PET with built-in cassette tape drive storage, and a FreeBSD box I was running for a long time until the hard drive failed due to operator error!

<comment><USER11> Sounds like my experience with USB keyboard and mouse not working after a restart. They work in the BIOS, but as soon as the Windows loading screen appears, they stop working. I restored my PC to a restore point, they worked again. After another restart, they stopped working. I reset my PC, losing apps and settings. They worked again until another restart. I had set up remote access, so I was able to use my trusty MacBook to remote in and remove every "USB Root Hub" in Device Manager, then let Windows self-heal. That caused my mouse and keyboard to work again.

So basically I have to keep a secondary PC around in case my Windows 10 PC ever reboots, so I can have a mouse and keyboard. I saw lots of posts online about keyboard and mouse not working on boot in Windows 10, but unplugging/replugging seemed to work for those people. It did nothing for me. I saw advice to disable fast boot, but even after doing that, on restart they stopped working. It also seems pretty suspect that the keyboard and mouse work fine in my BIOS and only stop responding after the Windows 10 spinner appears.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> When Microsoft laid off much of their test dev teams 1 or 2 years ago, was the plan to roll out beta code to everyone and outsource QA? Genuine question.

I mean, if they're serious about this, making Windows open source would make sense, so that external testers can also contribute patches for consideration.

<comment><USER13> Disclaimer: MSFtie, who came in prior to that switch as an SDET, and was converted to a SWE during the layoffs.

In case your genuine was genuine, I'll give a somewhat serious answer: The intention was that the SDET work would be picked up by SWEs who would be responsible with dev and test. Ops also is slowly being absorbed in this manner (this current wonderful permutation of the word "devops")

As to my thoughts on the transition... let the assertion that my home machines are still (happily) running 7 speak for itself; and I say that with unfortunate tone in that I'm a big fan of hyper-v integration/DX12.

<comment><USER14> I used to work at Microsoft and have never heard or seen the TLA SWE before. Did mean to type SDE?

<comment><USER13> Sorry for the confusion, I was at G prior and the "SWE" nomenclature never really dropped for me. SDE/SWE is pretty much interchangeable in my book

<comment><USER14> Ah that makes sense. I'm interviewing with G soon and so I hope to to be an SWE soon.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I just checked, and Windows 10 had turned on the "Send Microsoft info about how I write" option, which I had definitely disabled. This was with a forced, automatic update and I definitely did not approve the change, nor was I notified of it.

Internet sources didn't give a clear answer about what's being sent, but some sources seem to think it's full keylogging. If that's true, Microsoft is in for litigation and I'll be first in line to sue.

</comment><comment><USER16> > The problem is that after installing the update, Windows no longer allows > USB webcams to use MJPEG or H264 encoded streams and is only allowing YUY2 > encoding.

Thurrott's explanations is incorrect. What is happening is that Windows is decoding the MJPEG or H.264 encoded streams coming from certain high end webcams and delivering the decoded frames to the video chat application[0].

[0] - [https://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/windowsdesktop/en-U...](https://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/windowsdesktop/en- US/9d6a8704-764f-46df-a41c-8e9d84f7f0f3/mjpg-encoded-media-type-is-not- available-for-usbuvc-webcameras-after- windows-10-version-1607-os?forum=mediafoundationdevelopment#e2fdb4a3-211b-45d4-a525-90ffa7367bd1)

<comment><USER17> If I've understood it, the consumer app now gets decoded video whether it wants it or not?

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I had nothing but problems with windows 10 and its privacy violations. So I disabled all of them I could learn about and figured I would live with it. Then patch Tuesday came around and it undid a bunch of it. Eventually Cortania couldn't be disabled, and my bluetooth mouse stopped working. So I booted into Fedora to see if my bluetooth hardware had failed - nope - everything worked fine; so I just installed it and never looked back. Linux isn't perfect, but it also isn't spyware.

</comment><comment><USER19> Also, every one of those small and inexpensive yet powerful enough for every day use and with great battery life notebook sold with windows 10 (or 8.1 and later upgraded to 10) and 32 GB of eeprom as main storage will not get any update anymore, because the anniversary update because it refuses to start without 16 GB free on the main storage.

Even if you have a secondary storage (not external), it refuses to use it. Tried looking on the net, and microsoft official answer is "nope".

It's like they really, really don't want to be on that segment, despite trying really hard at the same time.

<comment><USER17> Meanwhile I have one of those that I'm keeping on Win8 .. and an update has broken auto-rotation. Very annoying.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Odd, I literally have the same Logitech C920 webcam shown in the article and got the Win10 update the day it was released and have had no issues whatsoever.

<comment> mark-r It might also have to do with the software you use with it. Could be that the problem is much smaller than the article would lead you to believe.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Other things that AU broke for me: \- BSODs when I plug in my kindle PW2 \- My Nexus5 is not detected again (I have the N edition and before AU installing the Feature Media Pack fixed this) \- It overrode the Prolific driver I had manually installed with a newer one that breaks the fake serial adapter (easy enough to fix, but annoying)

<comment><USER22> So, in regards to the Kindle, this just cropped up on the frontpage: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12326201](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12326201)

Apparently, you're not the only one with that problem...

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> More curious why Skype team didn't run their product on the anniversary update before they release it. Does Microsoft not do QA?

<comment><USER24> QA is disappearing in MS, replaced by a couple of buzzwords: "cross functional" and "DevOps". i.e. noone has a clue about what they are accountable for, and individual teams come up with their definitions of done.

<comment><USER25> They are following Apples lead I'm afraid.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> > Microsoft loves Linux.

Source: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12313179](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12313179)

So it seems that it not only Linux, but also Mac. So much that it's making every desperate move to make users switch over to these alternates.

Well done!

</comment><comment><USER27> I continue to be satisfied in my decision to use Windows 7 on my new computer.

</comment><comment><USER28> "Move fast and break things" doesn't work that well for operating systems.

<comment> mark-r You can't call it "move fast" when the earliest they'll have a fix is sometime in September...

<comment><USER26> "Fast" can be _relative_.

<comment><USER29> You mean like, "glacier fast"?

<comment><USER30> Sometimes, any movement at all is a pleasant suprise.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I would like to have a machine working AS-IT-IS - without any automatic updated and changes. I would like to decide WHEN to update and what to update (only security issues or everything). I hope I am not the only user with this needs...

</comment><comment><USER32> Thereby accidentally improving the privacy of their users in the middle of their current drive to destroy it.

</comment><comment><USER33> I have noticed that, since installing the Anniversary Update, the light on my webcam that indicates that it is recording me is constantly lit. Very worrying.

It is a shame that Windows has no way for me to find out which program is actually using the webcam so that I can terminate it. Unlike Linux of course!

<comment><USER34> The eye of Sauron is all-seeing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Isnt something like a Windows Insider program for hardware and software companies to early test their products prior to general release? This seems like the result of lack of basic QA, both on Microsoft and third parties.

</comment><comment><USER36> I had assumed that I had done a bit too much tinkering and broke something. I'm glad to know that for once something didn't break due to my incompetence :D

</comment><comment><USER37> I'm not a lawyer but it sounds like a class action lawsuit would be a good idea in this case (and a nice payday for lawyers involved).

</comment><comment><USER38> The update broke my install. Update finished and the computer restarted to a blue screen. Next restart didn't work and all I had was a black screen. Windows installation media couldnt help out since the partition was locked for some reason.

In 6 months, I had to restore windows 10 3 times after botched updates.

</comment><comment><USER39> I'm still not taking off the tape.

</comment><comment><USER40> I have 2 AU updated PC's - both have a freezing mouse issue. I have to plug in a second mouse to get the bluetooth mouse moving again on one. On the other (wired) I just have to pull the plug and reinsert.

</comment><comment><USER41> OMG - Those poor cam girl customers...

<comment><USER41> Wow. Tough room (like I'm the only one who thought that...).

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> So it's not just Linux that breaks things with updates...

<comment><USER8> Linux breaks things with updates? Would you like to share an example with the class?

<comment><USER43> Please don't stoop to the same level as the original comment. You can say or believe all you want but no operating system or *nix distribution is free of bugs and updates are known to have caused regressions on either side.

There's plenty examples out there of Linux kernel regressions that have been introduced along the route, there's even a full paper on tracking them. Then there's plenty of examples of things breaking on upgrades in Debian/Ubuntu/Fedora/CentOS/Arch, systemd caused some trouble too and so on and so forth, and not just on major boundaries.

<comment><USER8> It was a joke. I'm not "stooping" to anyone's level; that's not a very nice thing to say.

I was simply curious why the parent commenter had an axe to grind with Linux. Everything has its bugs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Hoo boy. If I were a professional Youtube / Twitch streamer, I'd be evaluating my legal options right about now.

<comment><USER45> Except you probably wouldn't be using a Logitech webcam if that were the case

<comment><USER46> Honestly, what would you be using? I have been deploying the higher end logitechs for online meetings and training, no issues so far.

<comment><USER47> [http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/the-best- webcams](http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/the-best-webcams)

Unless you're making an independent film or something, I would think that a high end webcam does a great job for professional streamers and online meetings. Even the cameras in modern laptops and smartphones do a good enough job.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> To those wondering if MS does QA anymore because you've seen one or two minor issues:

how much QA should they do to verify the millions of different hardware and software combinations out there won't have some edge case behavior?

You want them to track your privacy settings so they can be applied. Oh but then they are tracking us!

Cause everyone here works at a company that gets their code right every time, I'm sure

<comment><USER49> "You want them to track your privacy settings so they can be applied. Oh but then they are tracking us!"

This argument doesn't hold up. Privacy settings can be stored locally, which requires no tracking. The problem arises when those privacy settings aren't correctly applied or remembered between updates.</comment></comment>


Is Colorado Primed to Become the Silicon Valley of Agriculture? - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2015/03/26/395531583/is-colorado-primed-to-become-the-silicon-valley-of-agriculture

<comment><USER2> Since moving from NYC to Boulder I've become much more aware of the sources of my food.

I've begun purchasing beef in bulk from a farm down the street from my house, trading crock-pot meals with co-workers who have chickens, asking where meat comes from in a restaurant, etc...

I've noticed this pattern with other transplants as well. Perhaps we're genuinely interested in creating a better future?

Nah....it's the pot :).

</comment><comment><USER3> Colorado's always been pretty great. Scenic, with outdoorsy, mellow people. However, the conclusion of the Graff report sounds like parroting of common theory.

Only in the past few years has it started to be thought of as a money and startup hub. What's different about Colorado then everywhere else? Particularly in agriculture? What's changed in the last couple years? What has become so high value that there would be a strong desire for constant drone overwatch?

Oh yeah... Pot.

What makes it a startup hub? Duh. A strong cultural / legal difference that doesn't exist elsewhere and creates a powerful money gradient across its borders. Investors see more potential for profit or new ideas for profit or new environments for profit, and swarm with green in their eyes.

<comment><USER4> CO is unique in that it isn't (yet) the fundamentalist-borne legal cesspool that CA is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> People have been saying this about UC Davis and North Carlolina as well. Agriculture has no center of gravity in part because agriculture has such a wide value chain and because operations are geographically distributed around the world. This also makes it difficult to bring capital to the sector because you don't have a concentrated community.

</comment><comment><USER6> In my experience, Coloradans are always looking for some justification as to why they live there - whether that's a "new center of tech", or "freedom to toke", or "Colorado NATIVE". I guess it's not enough that they simply enjoy it.</comment>


California Court Asserts Jurisdiction Over Non-Resident Internet Publisher - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/press/releases/california-court-asserts-jurisdiction-over-non-resident-internet-publisher <comment><USER2> This was from 2001... 15 years ago. Are there new developments causing it to be brought up now?</comment>


Why Doctors Reject Tools That Make Their Jobs Easier - <AUTHOR> https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/why-doctors-reject-tools-that-make-their-jobs-easier/ <comment><USER2> An alternative headline is "Tool Makers Make Tools That Don't Help Doctors". I know a ton of colleagues who flinch every time someone mentions that this'll just hook into the EMR system, because they know everything will be broken and tedious for years before another vendor comes along.

At a conference I was at recently, I'm nigh positive "Decision Support Tool" was a dirty word.

<comment><USER3> One of the problems I see here, and would love to find a way to solve it, is that software is best developed interatively. I see a lot of software that has some cool ideas, it just needs some tweaks to get rid of ridiculously annoying flaws, or needs to put some more control in the user's hands.

Unfortunately, and inevitably, a little tweak in medical software may as well be a tweak on a satellite in space.

Like I said, changes need to be prevented from making the software bad, but the difficulty of making changes also makes the software bad. I don't know what the solution is, but I would like to see this aspect addressed more explicitly.

<comment><USER4> Safety first, full stop, no exceptions.

Until correctness can be done easily in accessible programming languages with a decent developer pool, iteration in this space, along with other life- critical spaces such as trains, planes (and wouldn't automobiles be nice too?) is sadly a long, manual process compared to web development.

Edit: to expand a bit on correctness, think Coq but with the ease of Java or Typescript. Even Rust's safety isn't yet formally proven; that's not a knock on rust, but a demonstration of just how hard it is to do.

<comment><USER5> > Safety first, full stop, no exceptions.

And here you are, cutting-edg hospitals running 2012 versions of modern software, and paying millions of dollars for the privilege.

The direction has to be exactly the opposite, by giving the patient increasingly more control over his own health.

<comment><USER2> Having seen several talks from some patient advocates recently, I'm skeptical that's a good idea.

<comment><USER5> I think health services are some of the most misunderstood by the population above everything else.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The article talks about thermometers being rejected by some doctors who thought fevers were more qualitative... they're not wrong. Different people have different average body temperatures, so a fever for one person might not be a fever for another person [1].

Obviously it's not smart for a doctor to reject the idea of knowing internal body temperatures at least to have as a data point, but those doctors weren't COMPLETELY off base.

[https://www.webmd.com/first-aid/normal-body- temperature](https://www.webmd.com/first-aid/normal-body-temperature)

<comment><USER7> Wouldn't it be useful to have a tool like a thermometer to establish a baseline value?

<comment><USER8> if they've already got the fever then it's a bit late for that

<comment><USER9> Seems like it'd make sense to go into your doctor at some point when you're perfectly healthy and let them measure a bunch of baseline values to put in your medical file.

<comment><USER10> It's like my bird's vet said once: If you start measuring, you're gonna find stuff. The more you dig, the more you find. Does it mean your bird is sick? Eh look at him, does he look like a sick bird?

My girlfriend can be very ... concerned. We spent $1000 in vet bills before a real avian expert was like "Guys, he's fine. Look how happy he is. He just loves the attention."

Apparently one of his tests for vet interns is to tell them "This bird is sick. Figure it out". Then he gives them a perfectly healthy bird. Their bias always makes them find something. Caused by their tests half the time because they're stressing the bird.

<comment><USER11> > Apparently one of his tests for vet interns is to tell them "This bird is > sick. Figure it out". Then he gives them a perfectly healthy bird. Their > bias always makes them find something.

Seems like the "bias" in that case is likely due to an authority figure intentionally misleading them in the context of a "test", where one naturally assumes they're not being deceived by the very premise of said test? If an actual bird owner came in as a client and said the same (or if the test explicitly told them to assume this is the situation), the interns might very well still realize the client is wrong.

<comment><USER12> I'm not a vet, but if I were and someone said "This bird is sick." I hope the first question I'd ask is "Why do you think so?" Not to doubt the person but to figure out what the presenting symptoms were.

<comment><USER13> It is not abstract general someone. It is very concretely more experience professional and teacher whose judgement you trust more then your own. And no, if you dont go much out of way to be approachable or have reason to be afraid of him, no matter how small, they will not ask more. Because most interns know they are beginners and don't know yet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The industry is annoyingly conservative but whizzkids pretending to have a better opinion about how to cure _insert desease_ from isolated, mechanistic, non-standard observations of few markers are dangerous.

<comment><USER2> Yeah - I work a lot in healthcare associated infections, and a good 80% of the stuff I read about "We're from Silicon Valley and we're here to help..." just ends with me going "They're going to kill people."

<comment><USER15> I think this is something that isnt that present in our profession as it should be. If you are an electrical engineer, it is clear and present, that your products might kill someone if you screw up. The same goes for a mechanical engineer. And it will be your responsibility. If you screw up and should have known better, you might even go to jail for negligence.

We on the other hand have the Therac-25.

We claim to be on a level of engineering fields. We should also act that way.

<comment><USER16> Therac-25 was thirty years ago, and still is the go to example. That made me wonder. If you compare, for example, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bridge_failures#2000–p...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bridge_failures#2000–present) or [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_structural_failures_an...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_structural_failures_and_collapses#2010–present) with [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_software_bugs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_software_bugs), software doesn't look that deadly.

<comment><USER17> People generally don't attribute failures to software bugs if there is anything else that contributes to failure. The list in particular is missing the loads of accidents caused by bad UI; incidents of "I was just following the GPS's/autopilot's directions" that result in death are missing (such as the KAL 007 airliner incident).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> > From the thermometer's invention onward, physicians have > feared—incorrectly—that new technology would make their jobs obsolete

Is that true, or are doctors incredibly risk averse since they have seen what can happen when something goes wrong, and that is death.

<comment><USER19> I've also read that physicians can be overconfident in their own abilities:

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18440350](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18440350)

> … argue that physicians in general underappreciate the likelihood that their > diagnoses are wrong and that this tendency to overconfidence…

More on the combination of algorithms and humans:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_E._Meehl#Clinical_versus_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_E._Meehl#Clinical_versus_statistical_prediction)

> Meta-analyses comparing clinical and mechanical prediction efficiency have > supported Meehl's (1954) conclusion that mechanical data combination and > prediction outperforms clinical combination and prediction.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> As someone who has had several CT scans (and paid for CT scans), the idea that a CT scan is better than a physician feeling your abdomen is absolutely ridiculous. Pumping contrast agents into everyone who has pain is a very bad idea. Moreover, enforcing decisions by algorithmic rules is problematic, especially considering who might be making those decisions.

<comment><USER21> Plus radiation. Every CT scan increases your odds of cancer.

Also, mammography or even colonoscopies have been proved for most of the population to do more harm than good. cochrane is full of meta-studies about it.

The medical industry is very shady.

<comment> 08-15 > Every CT scan increases your odds of cancer.

There is no evidence for that statement. More specifically, there is no evidence that a single radiation dose below 100mSv is harmful at all, but plenty of evidence (Taiwanese radioactive apartment buildings, nuclear navy worker study) that it isn't. Muller made it up for political reasons.

<comment><USER22> There is evidence:

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3660619/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3660619/)

> _Title: Cancer risk in 680 000 people exposed to computed tomography scans > in childhood or adolescence: data linkage study of 11 million Australians_

> _Conclusions: The increased incidence of cancer after CT scan exposure in > this cohort was mostly due to irradiation. Because the cancer excess was > still continuing at the end of follow-up, the eventual lifetime risk from CT > scans cannot yet be determined. Radiation doses from contemporary CT scans > are likely to be lower than those in 1985-2005, but some increase in cancer > risk is still likely from current scans. Future CT scans should be limited > to situations where there is a definite clinical indication, with every scan > optimised to provide a diagnostic CT image at the lowest possible radiation > dose._

And about _" a single radiation dose"_: As soon as you get a CT the chances that you will have only a single one in your life are greatly reduced, because you just had that one. So it still is better if the count remains at zero, or your precondition can easily be invalidated.

<comment> 08-15 The problem with that study is that "people who take a CT scan" is not exactly an unbiased sample of the general population.

Now compare this to

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477708/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477708/)

> only a single one in your life

"A single dose" as in "a discrete event". Another single dose the next month is (probably) harmless again. Cells react to radiation with repair mechanisms, and once that activity subsides, the event is over.

Radiation exposure isn't linearly cumulative. The argument that it is was made before we even knew the structure of DNA! Today, we know better.

<comment><USER22> I also recommend at least the "Conclusion" section of this document, selected as an example, not as the one definite document: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3611719/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3611719/) It is a good read overall too. You make it sound as if it does not matter. Apparently that is not the general medical opinion.

I also don't see what the problem with the selection of people is supposed to be. Those selected are more likely to not be able to repair DNA damage? I think this particular selection makes no difference for the purpose.

Overall, OP said "there is no evidence" and it seems that yes, there is. What you think of that evidence is not the question, OP had said there isn't any. When I look at the actual recommendations it seems that most medical people don't think so, after all, the recommendation still is to limit the radiation exposure, not just for the frequently exposed (radiation workers) but also for those one-time patients.

Even on a per-event basis reducing the amounts of radiation was and is a major design goal for the devices. Does not look like those who are involved in all of this think there is no problem.

<comment> 08-15 > Overall, OP said "there is no evidence" and it seems that yes, there is.

This is evidence for a correlation between the number of CT scans and cancer incidence. To jump to the conclusion that the cancer is caused by the radiation from the CT requires a leap of faith.

The funny thing is, if an epidemiological study shows that low dose ionizing radiation is beneficial (radioactive apartment buildings, nuclear navy workers), it's dismissed by a completely ad-hoc "healthy worker effect" or "healthy student effect". But in a study of people who received a CT scan, where you should expect a "sick people effect" (healthy people don't get CT scans), you "don't see a problem".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Part of the issue is that the _doctor_ is on the hook if the _tool_ fouls up.

Consequently, having an extremely skeptical viewpoint on tools is perfectly rational.

I can also tell you from discussions with doctors that one of the problems is that the intersection of GUI programmer, competent engineer, and medical domain knowledge is either a null set or a single person. (For example: EEG analysis seems to be a natural fit for ML/AI--enormous amounts of data with events only sporadically scattered in it--yet there is nobody capable of handling the intersection of talents required.)

<comment><USER24> It reminds me of _Moneyball_ ; in it, the author points out that the statisticians were frustrated by their inability to get traction within the MLB, but their pitch essentially boiled down to "you guys don't listen to statistics, you should listen to these new ones we just developed," which left unsaid that the statisticians made up new quantifiers _because the old ones were ineffective._ The MLB had the lived experience of those statistics being ineffective, so they knew Bill James et al were right about that, but the idea that the answer was _more numbers_ that didn't make a lot of intuitive sense was a hard sell.

I would also add that my perception from working at a major east coast hospital has actually been that hospital IT clamps down on new tools more than anyone because of HIPAA requirements, etc, that the doctors ignore/don't care about as much as they should. It's a complicated, layered system.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> The number one thing you can do to get doctors to use your new tool is find a way so that they don't have to enter patient data _again_.

The fear they have isn't that they'll be replaced on the job. The fear they have is that they will be required by some policy to enter yet another copy of the same data into yet another "time saving" system.

</comment><comment><USER24> Healthcare industry insiders joke:

Any theory of the current state of medicine that involves a cardio-thoracic surgeon feeling like they are _not_ completely irreplaceable, one-in-a- trillion geniuses/minor deities, put here on this planet to spare us lesser mortals (as scheduling allows) seems... improbable.

</comment><comment><USER26> "They thoughtlessly order tests and thoughtlessly obey the results."

Hacker News, come on. You're better than this.

Taking it from the top: The obvious take is that the new tools this is referring to is EMR and things like Watson. Will return to this in a moment.

Subjective and objective data both a play a role in medicine. The eye of an experienced person can often see in a blink what would be missed by someone looking only at numbers in a chart. Gestalt, or the fast system of Kahneman, is invaluable when time is a serious concern. But noone starts out that way. The slower, methodical plod of consciously using bayesian thinking is how the art is learned. Hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras... trying to weigh all available data and attempting to chart a course that gives patients the best outcomes at the most reasonable costs. Nowadays additional hoops must be jumped through: laws constrain, institutions have policies that must be followed, and most of all care is dictated by what is allowed by the insurance company. Rather than an invisible hand, this is an invisible supervisor robbing much autonomy and initiative from a sense of worthwhile work. Furthermore the ever-present fear of litigation pushes towards a course with more testing than might be suggested by treatment and diagnosis alone: how would this course be defended if things go wrong, as they will for a certain number? All of these things individually stood to reason, but we as a society must keep in mind the cumulative weight of it all. Emergent phenomena isn't just a thing of programs and physics, it's a thing of human systems like healthcare.

Back to the article. A happy picture is painted of modern CT scans, yet it neglects the downsides. In 1980 the average per capita dose of radiation was 3.0 mSv, with 0.5 coming from medical imaging. It is now 5.5 mSv and rising, with medical imaging alone exceeding 3.0 mSv. Medical imaging is now a larger source of ionizing radiation than all other sources combined, with particularly high risks for those in utero or pediatrics. Like any other test or treatment, there is a risk/reward ratio. As technology improves, it is more likely to be adopted, not because earlier physicians were anti-technology Luddites, but because the improved technology changed that risk/reward ratio. We are more likely to use imaging with less exposure, or better yet use a modality without that risk.

Back to the Bayesian part of thinking... testing isn't perfect. I'd love to see a test that is 100% sensitive and 100% specific. But there are inevitably false positives and false negatives. Tools and tests need to be used in an appropriate situation. For example: I have a test that is 99% sensitive. Great! It'll catch someone with the disease, 99% of the time. So I can thoughtlessly order tests and thoughtlessly obey the results, right? Wrong. What happens if you use it to test for a rare disease that only 0.1% of the population will have? It depends on how specific the test is. How many false positives does it let in? If I test it on 1,000 folks indiscriminately, I'll end up with a basket of folks, only one of which actually has the disease. How many false positives got treated (and possibly harmed by that treatment)? Mammograms work this way (which have fallen a little out of favor in younger demographics without risk factors like the BRCAs), necessitating imaging and invasive biopsies that, upon further collection of data and review, seem not worthwhile for those under 40 and of questionable value under 50.

Tools are great! They need to be used appropriately though. Things have a cost, not just financial but physical and temporal. Indiscriminate use of tests and tools is the last thing anyone should want.

Nothing to add in a world of advancing technology? Bah. Most would love for its promises to come to fruition. EMR for example. We were promised time savings, with cross-talk between systems for better availability of data and improved patient safety. Mostly what has happened is administrators now have data used to push docs to see more and more patients (and spend less and less time with any one of them), all the while the paperwork stacks up. Somehow the paperwork never quite seemed to go away.

Maybe doctors don't reject tools that make their jobs easier. The article is full of tools that were eventually adopted, after all. I can point to many in development that have their ardent advocates, like point-of-care ultrasound among many others. Maybe they don't like tools that were sold as making their jobs easier but mostly don't, and instead benefit insurance companies and conglomerate administrators.

<comment><USER9> > Mostly what has happened is administrators now have data used to push docs > to see more and more patients (and spend fewer and fewer with any one of > them), all the while the paperwork stacks up. Somehow they never quite > seemed to go away.

Under capitalism, old companies (like hospitals) don't really tend to _adapt_ in response to market forces by actually changing anything as drastic as the shape/relative scale of their internal bureaucracy.

It _looks_ like that happens from a 10,000ft view, but what's really happening is that old companies are just dying, having been outcompeted by new small companies that "grew up in" the market environment where the changes were "the new normal." And then, eventually, the new, small companies acquire the big old dying companies for their brand value—so the resulting merged company has the appearance of the big old company having managed to turn over a new leaf.

When a company is only _slightly_ relatively unfit (due to e.g. serving a market with inelastic demand, like medical care), it can take decades for their relative unfitness to deplete their resources to the point that they'd seek to be acquired. The current heavily-bureaucratic hospitals might be actively dying _right now_ —it'll just take them another 50 years to become all-the-way dead.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> > Too many doctors have resigned that they have nothing to add in a world of > advanced technology. They thoughtlessly order tests and thoughtlessly obey > the results.

Thoughtlessly obeying is undoubtedly a sign of incompetence; a doctor must always use judgement based on patient's condition and not rely on a bunch of numbers, a doctor told me in my teens. However, ordering tech based tests is not thoughtless all the time, at least not with competent doctors. I mean, in this age of self diagnosing based on googling, a doctor not ordering such tests would be seen as incompetent, and even ignorant. Would a doctor risk his reputation, and possibly livelihood, just to prove a point, even when his spidey senses tells him there is nothing severe about the patient's condition when the patient insists on it, directly or indirectly? Only a House would do so. The writer is too eager to generalize for some reason.

</comment><comment><USER28> Flashy article title clickbait.

Doctors are not fools. If a tool truly made their job easier, it would not be rejected out of hand.

Job security for physicians is rarely the issue, there are plenty of sick people.

<comment><USER29> Surgical safety checklists were shown to lower 30-day post-operative mortality by 22%:

[https://www.cardiovascularbusiness.com/topics/coronary- inter...](https://www.cardiovascularbusiness.com/topics/coronary-intervention- surgery/hospitals-using-surgical-safety-checklists-have-22-percent)

You'd imagine something as basic as checklists would be implemented as standard procedure in modern medicine -- yet this study was in 2013, not 1963. Most likely the majority of surgeons are still dragging their feet on this. It's a very conservative field with lots of big egos.

<comment><USER30> Checklists make patient outcomes better; they don't make surgeons' work easier.

<comment><USER31> I guess killing the patients as soon as the cut them open would be easier for the doctor :), but their job us to heal patients. Anything that improves on outcomes is good. The OP might have suggested that instead of new tools, just use the old checklist system.

<comment><USER32> There's also trust issue. Doctors, who like everyone can be opinionated, had to be convinced one-by-one that checklists actually work and are worth messing up their work habits - unlike the many other things people are trying to sell hospitals.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> As a med student, using shinny new tech in medicine has become a dick measuring contest. There is absolutely no fear of new tech, just professionals rejecting useless unoriginal products that don't actually make our jobs easier. Like the data fad that will just make us manually reenter data into a new data silo for the benefits of other companies who will take no responsibility to the stability required in the field. I absolutely resent some of the interfaces we have to use but at least the CT/MRI reading software doesn't crash. Anything new and shiny does though.</comment>


Installing/Compiling iPhone apps without a MAC - <AUTHOR> http://nickalchemist.wordpress.com/iapproach-mobile-development-made-elegant/deploying-to-iphone-without-a-mac-with-an-apple-developer-account-and-phonegap-build/

<comment><USER2> Can I Install and compile non phonegap applications too?

<comment><USER3> Corona compiles on their machines, so you could do that (They use Lua)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> MAC? Mac!

<comment><USER5> I don't understand why people capitalize Mac like that. What do they think it's an acronym for?

<comment><USER3> They're technically writing it in all uppercase. "Mac" is capitalized. "MAC" is all uppercase.

<comment><USER5> You're absolutely correct. My original point still stands, though.

<comment><USER3> Oh indeed. It's like the people who call Computer Graphics effects in movies CGI.

No, CGI was a type of web script that existed right when CG (aka, computer graphics) came to a head and reporters got everyone mixed up.

<comment><USER6> It's not a mix up. It stands for computer-generated imagery.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-generated_imagery>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Seems like it's easier to get hackintosh.</comment>


Infographic: How Elon Musk Rose - <AUTHOR> http://www.visualcapitalist.com/how-elon-musk-built-his-empire/ <comment><USER2> argues with cto over which operating system to use (pc or linux)

<comment><AUTHOR> Baffling.

"X.com's troubles cascaded. Crooks were stealing millions of dollars from PayPal using stolen credit card numbers. Fixing those problems, as well as introducing new features, had to wait while Musk switched PayPal's operating system over from Unix to Microsoft. Thiel's loyalists, led by Levchin and then-executive VP (and former Stanford Review editor) David O. Sacks, staged a second coup, according to Jackson's book. They encouraged their staff members to threaten to quit unless Musk was replaced. He was, in September 2000–by Thiel." [http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2011/0214/features-peter- thiel-...](http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2011/0214/features-peter-thiel-social- media-life-after-facebook.html)</comment></comment>


Apple's Tumble Worsens as Stock Hits Lowest Since 2014 - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-06/apple-s-tumble-worsens-as-stock-hits-lowest-since-2014-chart <comment><USER2> This sounds like yet another "sky is falling, Apple is doomed" article. The same type I've been seeing since the early 90's.</comment>


How Much Action is in a Baseball Broadcast? - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703843804575534102219239786.html <comment><USER2> The use of the word "broadcast" in the title is apt. There is actually plenty going on during the "downtime" in a ballgame, but it's happening offscreen. Baserunners move around. Fielders move around. Many of these motions are subtle but important. Even the bullpen movements can be relevant.

Though baseball is nowhere near as bad as ice hockey. After having season tickets to college hockey for a few years I can't really watch televised hockey anymore. You just can't understand the game as well unless you can see things happening away from the puck.</comment>


Ask HN: Software Valuation and Quality Assurance - <AUTHOR> Are there reliable software valuation methodologies that consider the extent to which the software product meets QA standards? <comment><USER2> TDD - [https://www.agilealliance.org/glossary/tdd/](https://www.agilealliance.org/glossary/tdd/)

This would also depend on the intent of the software as there may be standards or specific requirements that need to be met. I.E Medical software.</comment>


Ask HN: Python vs. PHP - <AUTHOR>

I developed my website using PHP and I believe that PHP could handle all of the features that I have on my product roadmap.
However, now I as I look for additional resources I feel that most talented developers would prefer coding in Python instead of PHP.
What do you think?  Is it worth transitioning to Python in order to get better developers excited? <comment><USER2> If its good for you business, then do it. From your post, i assume PHP can handle all the needed features. Python or Ruby is just another tool. Don't worry about it now. Technology is just a means to get things done.

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with PHP. It has it's shortcomings, but if you program carefully I don't believe those become an issue, especially if you've found that PHP is sufficient for your current issues. I think PHP's biggest strength is that PHP has an abundance of free libraries, and works on virtually every OS, etc...

However Python shares those strengths, and in many ways is considered a superior language. Switching may even spark your creativity about how to improve the site.

I think what you need to consider if you can afford to spend the time redoing your site in Python, and learning Python sufficiently well to really get the benefits out of it. If you can, you may also want to look at other emerging web-dev languages and see if other languages suit you better. But if you can afford to do it, a switch could be good for you.

</comment><comment><USER4> build a good company that people in general will want to work for and you'll pull in the top developers. a top developer might prefer something else to whatever you're using, but a top developer will also be able to solve the same complex problems in any language.

</comment><comment><USER5> Don't learn python in order to redo the site. If you're hiring people that would that much rather have it in python than PHP, you'll probably end up making novice language mistakes that will make them end up hating the codebase and want to rewrite it themselves.

</comment><comment><USER6> Use AJAX for your new features. Let your developers write backend servers in Python which the AJAX on the site will talk to.

I think this approach is a great way to let developers try out new languages.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks everyone for your comments. I really appreciate the feedback.</comment>


Ask HN: What blogging platform do you use? - <AUTHOR>

What is the best blogging platform to use for a tech-related personal blog? <comment><USER2> Flat text files.

<comment><USER3> Consider this my vote of support for simple input and "baking" to yield something which suits your fancy. There are no surprises about content or server load.

It also seems like one of those things that (some) people eventually do: writing their own engine which makes their posts work. For something deeply personal that you might wind up using several times a day, sometimes it takes that kind of commitment to get a tool which is just right.

That's what I like to tell myself, at least. I described my own program earlier this year: <http://rachelbythebay.com/w/2012/01/12/publog/></comment></comment>


Having fun with URL shortners - <AUTHOR> http://breakingcode.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/having-fun-with-url-shorteners/

<comment><USER2> 'They were born out of Twitter users need'

While I'm sure it was a case of hands writing faster than your brain was thinking, wanted to pull you up on this given how many people do have that opinion. TinyURL is 8+ years old now (I think), certainly older than twitter. Twitter is just the reason that large(r) numbers of non-tech users have become familiar with them.

<comment><USER3> Indeed. I remember first seeing seeing TinyURL's in magazines and newspapers. Saved a bit of space and typing over some of the more unwieldy links. Seemed like a good idea for that, though I was unlikely to trust them online until Twitter all but 'forced' me!</comment></comment>


Canadian meat giant Maple Leaf debuts new plant-based burger - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-23/canadian-meat-giant-maple-leaf-debuts-new-plant-based-burger <comment><USER2> Very encouraging news for our environment to see a meat producer actively debut a non-meat product that will actively take away from meat sales. Reminds me of Kodak. Where Kodak did not embrace digital early enough, and then many years later was bankrupt.

<comment><USER3> _Very encouraging news for our environment to see a meat producer actively debut a non-meat product that will actively take away from meat sales. Reminds me of Kodak. Where Kodak did not embrace digital early enough, and then many years later was bankrupt._

I think that's a fanciful comparison. More likely they worked the numbers and realize two things. First, the people most likely to buy meatless products weren't part of their existing customer base, so there is no cannibalization. Second, that even if they don't sell at meaningful volume, it's fantastic PR. After all, when there are people so unaware of global trends and so wrapped up in their own desires and wishes that they honestly see meatless burgers as a harbinger of global change at scale... it would be crazy to leave the PR well untapped.

<comment><USER4> _First, the people most likely to buy meatless products weren't part of their existing customer base, so there is no cannibalization._

I'd like to suggest that the term "cannibalization" should be used gently when applied to a meat company. [ I would also like to take a look at your comment in terms of assertions because I'm having a hard time parsing it.

\- People who want meatless products aren't buying meat so they're an expansion opportunity. I think that's a fair assessment.

\- Meatless products may not be big sellers but they're good PR. I'm not sure about this.

\- People are unaware of global trends and are self-centered

AND

\- self-centred people see meatless burgers as a sign of global change

THEREFORE

\- making a meatless burger is good PR, so much so that not doing it is crazy.

Are you sure that last part makes any sense at all? It feels like an emotional appeal that doesn't really connect.

FWIW, if I were running a meat company I would be comparing the PR value of a meatless burger with the expense of tooling up an entire meat-free production and packing line. I think I'd need real sales to justify that outlay.

<comment> munk-a I'd also disagree with

\- People who want meatless products aren't buying meat so they're an expansion opportunity. I think that's a fair assessment.

I think that the desire to eat meat-like products is much lower than a lot of people assume in vegetarian/vegan people. Products like Seitan and other "meat texture" items have always done poorly when compared to vegetarian/vegan offerings that simply omit any meat-like ingredients, some people don't like the texture of meat and those that do find near-meat but not meat products to always fall short - sort of like (all)gluten free bread, it exists and you can buy it, but it feels like having a mouth full of sand. If it's late and you're itching for a slice of toast but can't have it it's just better to find whole alternatives, nuts, maybe something involving harissa. I think imitation foods will always end up falling flat because they're imitations - and there is some psychological reinforcement there that keeps us from saying "close enough" even when it gets really close - probably the same effect that makes people try to call backsies if they fail the pepsi challenge.

<comment><USER5> > Products like Seitan and other "meat texture" items have always done poorly > when compared to vegetarian/vegan offerings that simply omit any meat-like > ingredients

Hm... do _non_ -vegetarians/vegans actually prefer these newer "meat texture" items over the classic veggie ones?

<comment><USER6> I'd say "yes". I tried an impossible burger. It does a pretty good job of imitating meat in a way that my Morninstar and TJ's quinoa and bean burgers don't. However, I don't think I'd choose the fake "meat-like" stuff over the real, if given a choice. (I try to only eat red meat a couple times/month, though, so it's pretty much a treat for me.)

<comment><USER5> The reason I asked is I tried these meat imitations too and I felt I liked some (thought most definitely not all) of the usual soy-based kinds more. Sadly I forget what exactly it was but if I remember correctly MorningStar has been one of the ones I've liked better. So I'm wondering what the actual data on this is like.

<comment><USER6> Just realized that I also not eating my meat-substitute burgers to not eat meat, but to eat more veggies and cut down on that stuff in my diet. Which is probably why I still eat meat. If only a small amount per week (compared to typical SAD diet).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Semi-related, but the Beyond Meat burger at Canadian fast-food chain A&W has been a big hit too, it seems. I got one at a mall recently and was amazed that everyone in line at the time was there to try the beyond meat burger. There's a serious appetite for this stuff so I'm glad to see a big meat company paying attention.

<comment><USER8> You should give the Impossible Burger a try as well, it's even more meat-like and has a great taste. Both burgers recently announced 2.0 versions of their products so there's a lot of excitement in the field of plant-based meat.

<comment><USER9> I actually much prefer the Beyond Burger. Maybe it was cooked wrong, but the Impossible Burger I tried tasted a lot like a Morningstar Farm's Griller's Prime to me. Not a bad flavor mind you, just not worth the $3 surcharge.

<comment><USER8> Agreed, I think the way its prepared definitely matters.

For me, I think the Impossible Burger seems "better" because I've only had it prepared by restaurants whereas the Beyond Burger I've mostly made myself from the grocery store.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> As a long time flexitarian (I hate that phrase too), I just roll my eyes at all of these "non-meat initiatives". Impossible and Beyond burgers don't hold a candle to a classic portobello burger.

People have made delicious meals without meat since society began, and they didn't rely on "tricking" people into thinking a meal is something else. It's baffling that the marketing department of Beyond and Impossible have turned standard food r&d into an environmental savior.

<comment><USER11> My vegetarian (since her early teens) girlfriend rolls her eyes at portobello burgers and positively praises the gods that there are now brands like Field Roast and Impossible Burger.

Tastes differ, of course, and everyone is entitled to theirs. My sense from two other vegetarian friends, though, is that they feel they're finally coming out of a food ghetto -- vegetarianism is no longer considered an annoying quirk that goes with hippie political beliefs and wearing socks in sandals, and the food has been lifted up into a new level of quality. It used to be that every restaurant's idea of a veggie burger was a portobello mushroom between two buns, and this is fortunately no longer true.

I myself went vegetarian a year ago, and aside from occasionally thinking about bacon or pepperoni, I really don't miss meat. Like my girlfriend, I'm now actually slightly grossed out by the burgers that bring too much of the meat experience; I tried the Beyond Burger recently and while it tasted okay, it was a bit creepy. We're a big fan of Field Roast's Field Burger, which doesn't bleed and indeed doesn't look like meat.

<comment><USER12> I will second that as someone who has been vegetarian their whole life. I do feel like vegetarian (and especially vegan) food has steadily become more popular, and "coming out of the food ghetto" is a great way to describe it.

Based on my taste in food, I think if I wasn't vegetarian, I would probably eat a lot of meat -- so all the meat substitutes which have exploded in variety and availability has been a boon for me. It feels very "parallel universe" for me to hear that Carl's Jr and Whitecastle are selling premium veggie burgers now, I definitely had classified them as places I would never even consider eating at.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> All the black-bean and beet burgers in town have been replaced by these things. Sometimes I feel like the only vegetarian who hates fake meat and wants recognizeable veggie products.

Fake meat creeps me out.

<comment><USER14> It might be a far stretch to say that they've been "replaced". At least in my area the traditional vegetarian options are still there alongside these newer items.

It's not to your taste, which is fine. There are meat-eaters that don't like seafood. Let's just be happy that there is now an ever-growing choice in the plant-based section of the supermarket.

<comment><USER13> Three of the restaurants I most frequently went to have switched away. There are still other places with black bean burgers, but it feels like replacement given my restaurant preferences.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I suspect the timing deliberately lines up with the launch of the new Canadian food guide yesterday. [https://food-guide.canada.ca/en/](https://food- guide.canada.ca/en/)

<comment><USER16> This is interesting. One of the recommendations are to "Limit highly processed foods. If you choose these foods, eat them less often and in small amounts."

Would these meatless products be considered "highly processed food" that should be limited?

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Everyone here is talking about taste, quality, and all the other things office workers making six figures base their purchasing decisions on

For every pound of free range, organic fed, fair trade ground beef that gets sold at Whole Foods Walmart sells a truck load of house brand 80/20.

Plant based ground beef replacements are not going to have a measurable impact on the meat industry or environment until they can deliver almost the same experience as cheap ground beef at a lesser price.

I see no mention of price in this article which tells me price is not one of the strong suits of this product. While another choice of vegetarian beef is certainly a good thing for vegetarians and the Whole Foods crowd I don't see this product affecting everything at the macro level. Things will likely get cheaper over time but we do not appear at a tipping point yet.

</comment><comment><USER18> You people not in Canada, Canada has a new food guide:

[https://food-guide.canada.ca/en/](https://food-guide.canada.ca/en/)

It encourages people to eat minimal amount of meat and dairy products. Change is coming and it's good they are embracing it.

<comment><USER19> I don't see anywhere that it recommends eating "minimal amount of meat and dairy products". In fact, if you click on the "eat protein foods" part, it specifically recommends lean beef, pork, and poultry as well as milk and yogurt.

<comment><USER18> But that is a very small part of the whole meal. Look at the picture, you see very less meat and more nuts, beans etc

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Honestly, if it's as tasty and protein-filled as a normal burger, sign me up. I enjoy meat for the taste and because of my nutritional goals, so if it can be nutritionally better and as tasty, there's no contest.

</comment><comment><USER21> It seems to me that insect meat is the way to go taste, nutrition, and cost wise. But people are adverse to eating bugs. To me this seems to be a branding problem. One of the plant based burger producers should advertise that their food is supplemented with natural proteins and lipids, then stuff their plant burgers with ground up crickets or meal worms or whatever.

I don't think people would have as much a problem eating a plant burger with insect protein supplements as they would eating straight crickets

<comment><USER22> What they really need to do is stop pushing fake meat as "like beef" and start pushing it as delicious on its own.

Fried crickets are amazing. It's natural to be squeamish but just like people were once scared of red tomatoes they'll come around.

<comment><USER23> They started doing that in Norway with some of the veggie burgers and they are delicious. I don't think I've had a meat burger in two years.

I haven't been able to find insect meat here yet but it's probably coming soon if you got it in the US now.

We do eat meat though, but only once or twice a week and almost never red meat anymore.

<comment><USER22> I eat it all. Red meat, white meat, fish, you name it. If it's not going to kill me I'll try it and if it tastes good I'll likely try it again.

I have no qualms about eating anything and my comment is based purely on trying something new and actively enjoying in taste alone. I'd be more inclined to try something new if someone says it tastes good on its own accord vs "tastes just like X".

<comment><USER23> Oh yeah, I completely agree on the "tastes like X" thing.

The veggie burgers I talk about tastes nothing like meat and the texture is different, but they do not market it as meat replacement just a delicious veggie burger. The different ingredients are displayed on the package so it all looks very good too :)

I often find the "meat replacements" rather disgusting and I prefer to eat real meat over those.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> > "Consumers may realize the product is healthier for them and their family, > but when it boils down to it they're probably going to go with the thing > that tastes better or they're more familiar with," said Billy Roberts, > senior food and drink analyst at Mintel. But manufacturers such as Lightlife > are targeting younger consumers, he said, who are more likely to try new > products they see as healthier.

I sometimes think these plant-based burger outfits are doing themselves a disservice by trying to simulate a beef burger. At this point, the ground beef most people are accustomed to is not all that tasty.

As for taste vs healthy, well that's another, albeit related, issue. Food as a source of pleasure, as opposed to a source of nutrition for the body / mind, has distorted the consumption expections for the last 25 - 50 years. Too much salt, too much sugar, hyper-flavored foods designed to increased consumption are all status quo.

To me, the smart (startup) move would be to move beyond the confines (and baggage) of the burger, and become the sports drink of healthier eating.

Yes. Easier said than done. But being a cookie cutter is running into the competition storm.

</comment><comment><USER25> > its non-GMO, soy-free, gluten-free pedigree may give it a leg up on its > competitors

It's still not organic however, which makes it significantly less appealing for me. Since Beyond and Impossible don't seem to be organic either, they all have the same "pedigree", FWIW.

The packaging ratio for Beyond has always bothered me too. I believe it's recyclable, but it seems like a lot of plastic and cardboard relative to the amount of food.

I'm still enthusiastic about the overall concept though.

<comment><USER26> But it's a good proof of concept of the technology which could easily be remade into an organic version. And the cheaper price afforded by not using organic practices might help speed up adoption to a point where organic versions could become more cost-efficient.

<comment><USER25> I'd agree to a point, but it might be even more difficult to make the shift once the supply chain and pricing settles into place, particularly for restaurants that are already taking a risk on this as a new category.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Meat substitutes are the best for infrequent cooking. Chick'n by Tofurkey for example tastes pretty similar to chicken except it pan fries in minutes and lasts in the fridge for months. I think burgers miss the mark because hamburger buns don't keep but definitely excited by more innovation.

</comment><comment><USER28> I love meat but I would not mind having a healthy and good tasting alternative hopefully available at a reasonable price (eventually). great news

</comment><comment><USER29> > meant to be more like beef

I hate tastes like X concept. I don't care if doesn't taste like beef, it never works, our brain is way too smart to fall for this kind gimmicks.

Surprise me with new products, tell me whats in it straight up.

I really hope this "tastes like meat" trend dies.

<comment><USER30> "Uncanny valley" is the effect at work, likely. But about your point on the brain not falling for it... there is evidence that it can be done for foods. Just take a look at how many drinks and sweets contain artificial flavors.

<comment><USER29> > Just take a look at how many drinks and sweets contain artificial flavors.

Because most ppl have no idea of how any of those things actually taste. Its so easy to tell when flavor is artificial.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> when i saw animals being mistreated it made me feel sick for eating meat.

if this alternative has all of the same nutrition and taste and texture as real meat then i am switching

<comment><USER32> Sometimes it won't have the same taste, texture and nutrition [1] - but it's still worth switching.

[1] one for one (cow burger vs plant burger) that is. Plant based diets can absolutely have the same net nutrition as a diet with animal products.

<comment><USER31> if it's not 1:1 to meat then forgettaboutit

guess im eating steak tonite

<comment><USER32> Are you being sarcastic?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Off Topic: another example of egregious capitalization!

Is "Canadian meat giant Maple Leaf debuts new plant-based burger" easier on the eyes? Or should proper nouns be wrapped in quotes when part of a headline?

<comment><USER34> Is English not your first language? Titles are supposed to be capitalized

<comment><USER33> Canadian English is not my first language! "Meat", "Giant", "Maple" and "Leaf" can all be nouns, and some of them can be adjectives. With everything in that sentence being flexible words, and "maple leaf" not standing out, you can't parse that sentence in order.

Canadian - I'm with you

Meat - Ok, Canadian meat!

Giant - I'm not sure here, is Giant a kind of Canadian meat?

Maple - huh... ?

Leaf - I'm really getting lost here

It isn't until I get to the "Burger" that I'm starting to realize we're talking about a "meat giant" _company_ and that company is named "Maple Leaf." I get that if you know all companies in all countries, you probably recognize Maple Leaf, but I had not heard of them before, so it took some logic to interpret a sentence that, in my opinion, should be understandable the first time you read it, without making assumptions (or having explicit knowledge about a specific company.) If only "Maple Leaf" was capitalized, it would've been instantly recognized as a company name, and the "meat giant" descriptor would've been logical.

<comment><USER34> I understand your confusion, but titles are capitalized in the English language so I don't know what to say. It's not the most confusing rule we have at least

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Ah, a veggie burger. Truly a paradigm-shifting innovation.

</comment><comment> village-idiot No thanks. I suspect that the mass scale conversion from meat to plant based substitutes will go as well as our conversion to seed oils in the late 20th century: poorly.

</comment><comment><USER36> Normal Burger:

      Carbs   : 0 g
      Fat     : 10 g
      Protein : 17 g

[https://www.nutritionix.com/food/beef- patty](https://www.nutritionix.com/food/beef-patty)

"Lightlife Burger":

      Carbs   : 11 g
      Fat     : 2.5 g
      Protein : 10 g

[https://lightlife.com/sites/default/files/SmartPatties_Black...](https://lightlife.com/sites/default/files/SmartPatties_BlackBeanBurger_Nutrition.jpg)

Nope, not a substitute.

EDIT:

Apparently that is for a different veggie burger from the same company. Not sure where to get the info for the one under discussion here.

<comment><USER37> You're not comparing to the product mentioned in the article which clearly shows 20g protein in the image.

<comment><USER36> Thanks. I am not sure where to find the nutritional info for this then.

<comment><USER38> I don't think the nutritional info is available online, as they are just announcing the product and it's not for sale yet.

However, [https://www.lightlifenews.com/](https://www.lightlifenews.com/) as of the time of writing ([https://web.archive.org/web/20190124100505/https://www.light...](https://web.archive.org/web/20190124100505/https://www.lightlifenews.com/)) writes: "The Lightlife Burger has 20 grams of pea protein, 0 grams of cholesterol, and only 2.5 grams of saturated fat in a quarter-pound patty, compared to 80 grams of cholesterol and 9.3 grams of saturated fat in a quarter-pound patty made from traditional beef."

The 9.3 grams of saturated fat are a good match for your figure of 10 grams of fat, though note that they do qualify it as "saturated" and don't give figures for total fat or carbs. Bummer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> It's terrible news for the environment. In terms of environmental harm, vegetable farming is easily the most environmentally damaging human endeavor. The distant second is raising livestock. The most environmentally friendly method for humans would be the "hunter gatherer" diet ( wild vegetation and wild animals ). But we might be too populous for that to work.

If you care about the environment, this is the worst news. You essentially have to farm one plant ( either grain or corn or soy ) to feed livestock for your burger. How many different types of plants have to be planted to produce a single burger? And of course, most of those plants can't be raised in frigid canada so they'll have to destroy the environment elsewhere.

Not to mention plants are nutrient deficient and as a result people have to eat far more of it which means more farms and more environmental destruction. Ever wonder why grazing animals have to eat constantly?

It's amazing how PR has convinced people that industrial farming is actually good for the environment and animals. I guess if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it.

<comment><USER40> I want a source for that _outrageous_ claim that the most environmentally damaging human endeavor is growing vegetables. I suspect you being right would turn the world on its head.

<comment><USER41> Not the GP, and I don't have any conclusions in this matter - but I don't think we can outright dismiss the role of livestock in maintaining a healthy environment. For example:

[https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/reversing-desertification- with-l...](https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/reversing-desertification-with- livestock)

And many vegetables are fertilized with blood meal, which comes from animals...

Perhaps a more nuanced view is needed...

<comment><USER38> > [https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/reversing-desertification- > with-l...](https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/reversing-desertification-with- > livestock)

That link talks about Allan Savory's work. Savory has a reeeally well-done, convincing-sounding TED talk about this. But unfortunately it looks like many people who know a lot more about this than I do disagree with pretty much everything he says: [https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/04/allan-savorys- ted-t...](https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/04/allan-savorys-ted-talk-is- wrong-and-the-benefits-of-holistic-grazing-have-been-debunked.html)

Also, even if keeping livestock is a good idea in some environments, that doesn't mean that farming livestock elsewhere is a similarly good idea.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Pokemon Emerald Emulator - <AUTHOR> Hi there, this is a toy project I worked on for the past months. It's an early stage pokemon emerald emulator. Maps, tiles, animations, warps, sprites etc. are extracted from the provided ROM file.
There is a online demo [0].
After dragging a ROM file into the browser window, you can walk and explore the complete pokemon emerald world.
The game engine is created only for testing purposes, you will encounter a zillion bugs.
If you don't have a ROM file on hand (Attention, large GIFs):
- Warps: https://i.imgur.com/pYI9ipl.gif
- Behaviors: https://i.imgur.com/isgIRLD.gif
- Zooming: https://i.imgur.com/GMqDYKr.gif
- World Map: https://i.imgur.com/HmvBTAV.png
[0] https://maierfelix.github.io/emerald-engine/static/ <comment><USER2> Nice ! I like the zoom effect

</comment><comment><USER3> And where is the game itself?

<comment><USER4> he can't distribute the ROM (the game data) legally. But you can run his app and provide the ROM yourself...</comment></comment>


Spaceship Engine "EmDrive" Actually Works, Leaked NASA Report Reveals - <AUTHOR> http://www.thedrive.com/news/5904/impossible-spaceship-engine-called-emdrive-actually-works-leaked-nasa-report-reveals <comment><USER2> This is now _two layers_ of garbage clickbait.

The article links to:

[http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/11/new-nasa-emdrive- paper-...](http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/11/new-nasa-emdrive-paper-shows- force-of.html)

which links to:

[https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7kgKijo-p0ibm94VUY0TVktQlU...](https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7kgKijo-p0ibm94VUY0TVktQlU/view)

which is a year old and basically says "more work is needed to rule out mundane sources of error like thermal expansion".

If there was a new published paper anywhere, it would be significant but there isn't. This is just a work in progress with any number of corrections to be made (NOTE: in 12 months, no one has submitted this leaked paper).

Even if it _does_ work, it's less propulsion than an ion drive.

<comment><USER3> Your final sentence puzzles me. If it works, then it's new physics. That's tremendously exciting, no matter how little thrust it produces. Especially since this is a device built without the slightest clue of how it actually works, so thrust could no doubt be increased dramatically once there's a good theoretical foundation behind it.

Of course, the fact that it represents new physics is also why the smart money is on it being some sort of measurement error.

<comment><USER4> I'm confused how this was presented by someone 10 years ago, and with all the researches out there, no one has yet replicated or refuted his work, and NASA is the only one doing it... 10 years later?

<comment><USER3> The supposed effect is so small that it's extremely difficult to distinguish it from potential confounding forces, like air currents or magnetism. Sufficiently precise experiments require sophisticated equipment, so not many researchers can try it. Even with really good equipment, it's hard to tell if the measured force is real. The work has been replicated and refuted many times, but never conclusively.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Leaked from fall of 2015. I feel like we've already discussed this since then.

The fact that it works is surprising (and I'm still not convinced until we are actually in space testing it), but also, 1.2 newtons per megawatt is... not a lot of thrust. But the fact that it works at all still the shock.

<comment><USER6> "1.2 newtons per megawatt is... not a lot of thrust"

If I recall the previous conversations correctly - the amount of thrust is irrelevant, because in space you continually apply that thrust over time, and eventually reach ridiculously high speeds?

<comment><USER7> The amount of thrust is relevant if something like ion drives gives you more thrust for the same power.

Of course, with something like an ion drive, you're throwing mass out the back, and eventually you run out of mass. (On the other hand, eventually you run out of the ability to generate power, too...)

[Edit: The bigger picture is that, for this to work at all, there probably needs to be some kind of new physics here. If there is, this device probably only exploits it by accident (no matter how much the inventor may think he knows what's going on). Once we figure out what the new physics is, newer devices may be much more efficient.]

<comment><USER8> If you're generating multi-MW in space, you have to do something about all that heat anyway so I'm not sure this is an improvement over an ion drive.

That said, yes, the important thing is that this potentially indicates new science, which is exciting. When we understand it, we can likely improve the efficiency greatly. Assuming the effect is real.

<comment><USER9> Since there's no drag the thermal system isn't as constrained in space as it would be for a car or aircraft. If you assemble the final spacecraft in orbit, all that matters is mass so you can create very high surface area radiators that are extremely efficient as long as they're a few AU from the nearest star (or pointed in different direction). It'd probably be as big or bigger than a solar sail but it would use the sails to emit photons instead of absorbing them and itd work far from any star.

<comment><USER8> That's actually really clever!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> NASA haven't validated this [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/outthere/2014/08/06/nasa-v...](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/outthere/2014/08/06/nasa- validate-imposible-space-drive-word/#.WCJ2v9WGPOU)

Everyone go back to something meaningful.. like the election :p

</comment><comment><USER11> The paper in question: [https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7kgKijo-p0ibm94VUY0TVktQlU...](https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7kgKijo-p0ibm94VUY0TVktQlU/view)

</comment><comment><USER12> The leaked report:

[https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7kgKijo-p0ibm94VUY0TVktQlU...](https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7kgKijo-p0ibm94VUY0TVktQlU/view)

</comment><comment><USER13> Garbage article. Just a clickbait review of the article over at [http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/11/new-nasa-emdrive- paper-...](http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/11/new-nasa-emdrive-paper-shows- force-of.html).

<comment><USER14> Garbage article. Just a clickbait review of the paper over at [https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7kgKijo-p0ibm94VUY0TVktQlU...](https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7kgKijo-p0ibm94VUY0TVktQlU/view)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> So, someone more clever than me do the math: Can I take some solar panels, and a few of these babies and head on over to Mars? Or is this still impractical given the "micronewtons per kilowatt" levels we're talking about?

<comment><USER16> Assuming you and your ship weights 1kg, it would take 9.8 gigawatts just to get it to hover in Earths gravity.

This is roughly half the solar output of Germany at noon or about the same energy as the Space Shuttles boosters. Basically, if these engines prove out, they will only be used in space.

<comment><USER17> Its only usable outside of any serious gravity wells, e.g. for interplanetary and possibly intersolar travel. They would replace uses currently postulated for solar sails. Not sure, but it may also be suitable for use-cases currently postulated by small ion-thrusters as well (especially where weight is critical).

<comment><USER3> It would be useful once you're in orbit, even deep in gravity wells, if you're patient. For example, a geosynchronous satellite with a drive like this could be launched on a rocket just big enough to get it to low-Earth orbit, and then it could gradually take itself the rest of the way. But it won't be replacing traditional rockets for that initial launch unless it's possible to increase its thrust by many orders of magnitude, and that initial launch is really the hardest part of doing space.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I vaguely remember the inventor's theory on how it worked. It's an artifact of the speed of light being constant in all reference frames. If there is a pressure inside the chamber, intuitively the outside net force would be zero. But with light it's different due to the constant velocity. If the pressure was caused by little particle bouncing against the chamber walls, their velocities would counter each other as they bounced the chamber around. Velocities with light don't add that way.

I may have gotten some of it wrong, but that's how I recall it.

</comment><comment><USER19> Reported thrust to weight ratio is 360 times raw photons:

[http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(1.2+mN%2FkW)%2F(1%2F(3...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=\(1.2+mN%2FkW\)%2F\(1%2F\(300+MW%2FN\)))

I spent a little time evaluation some form of quantum resonant enhancement of pair production as an explanation, but not enough to make any claims. The pilot wave / ether theories suggested in the conclusion seem highly unlikely. I'm also still holding out for weird RF coupling - those Q factors are so high.

</comment><comment><USER20> I love this type of science. It's completely, totally impossible... until we learn about how it works and the mechanics behind it. Maybe this type of drive just previews a new discovery?

<comment><USER21> For most results like this, it turns out to be an experimental mistake. That's how the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" came about.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I'll believe it when I see a small spacecraft propelled by it (even if the entire spacecraft is the engine), but I think it's an experiment that should (and could) be done soon.

<comment><USER23> Seem like it's already in motion by USA and China

[http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/space-race-revealed-us-china- test-f...](http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/space-race-revealed-us-china-test- futuristic-emdrive-tiangong-2-mysterious-x-37b-plane-1590289)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> What "leak"? It's on the NASA Eagleworks Facebook page and there's a press release.[1] NASA has an in-house fringe science operation in case something actually works.

[1] [https://www.facebook.com/eagleworksnasa/](https://www.facebook.com/eagleworksnasa/)

</comment><comment><USER23> Technology presentation: [https://vimeo.com/channels/Emdrive](https://vimeo.com/channels/Emdrive)

Inventor website: [http://www.emdrive.com/](http://www.emdrive.com/)

</comment><comment><USER25> I wanted to understand the context. Does my analogy correctly approximate the claims?

The power of 100 100 watt bulbs applied towards pushing a 1 kg object 1.2 millimeters.

<comment><AUTHOR> It says 1.2mN of force per kW. One kW would be 10 100 watt bulbs. So for as long as you apply that amount of power, you get that amount of force. And because force = mass times acceleration, your 1kg object would be accelerated at 1.2mm/s^2 - meaning its velocity would increase by 1.2 millimeters per second, each second, for as long as the force is applied. So, run it for 10 seconds and then turn it off, and the object would be moving at 12mm per second, for instance.

That is in absence of any counter-force, such as would be applied by friction or air resistance. Practically those would overwhelm the tiny force from this drive, which is why it's only really practical in space.

<comment><USER25> Thank you for catching my conversion mistake. Also the helpful description

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I recall that some group was planning to put one on a cubesat and see what happens.

</comment><comment><USER27> Take that, physics!

</comment><comment><USER28> The going theory for why this works involves physics of the ether, something science has pushed into a corner and forgotten over the last century. Louis de Broglie would likely be disappointed it took us this long to realize what he postulated so long ago. I would also note that Faraday was running experiments late in life trying to dig up some experimental evidence for this hypothesized force, albeit by dropping bismuth chunks from a tower into a pillow.

[http://www.helsinki.fi/~aannila/arto/emdrive.pdf](http://www.helsinki.fi/~aannila/arto/emdrive.pdf)

<comment><USER29> Sorry to crush your dreams bud:

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment)

<comment><USER28> Don't speak for my dreams. I made zero comments regarding whether I think this is true or not and only provided as much info as I had on it. To have you comment in this way with some lame ass link is likely a sign of conflict within yourself.</comment></comment></comment>


The Myth of the Big Bang - <AUTHOR> http://cosmology.net/BigBang.html <comment><AUTHOR> Quote:

        By contrast an eternal, infinite universe, has
        no creator and renders the concept of god irrelevant
        and useless. The infinite, eternal universe precludes
        god, does not require god, and is completely incompatible
        with the creator god worshipped by Jews, Muslims, and
        Christians. There is no need or justification for
        religion, or a belief in a creator god, if the universe
        is infinite and eternal. In an eternal universe god
        becomes a creation of man, rather than the creator of
        man and the universe.</comment>


My 30 Day Challenge Learning the MEAN Stack – Lessons Learned (it Was Hard) - <AUTHOR> http://aaronmead.com/30-day-challenge/

<comment><USER2> Kickass stuff! Although if by chance you documented your way through out the app and could share it, it would make a pretty decent guide for people looking to go MEAN. And that would also add a lot of substance to the Technical Details section of the post.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the comment! That's a good idea, I will continue developing the app and keep that in mind. Since I didn't really know what I was doing, I ended up rewriting things several times anyway so I guess as long as I kept re- documenting I would have been okay ha.</comment></comment>


When evolution's path leads to a dead end - <AUTHOR> https://massivesci.com/articles/evolving-toward-extinction/ <comment><USER2> Extravagant display was a problem for Darwin, who realized it could make individuals vulnerable to predation, until he realized that it actually supported his theory, as it is the sort of thing that could arise where selection matters, and harder to justify as the work of an omniscient creator.

Current theory often explains such displays as hard-to-fake signals of health and general fitness, but I do not know if this idea originated with Darwin.

The size of male ostrocod genitalia is a different matter, as (I assume) it is not about display, but about emphasizing reproduction at a possible cost to the survival part of the strategy.

Dead-end strategies are not a threat to Darwinian evolution, as it only optimizes for the short term, and are harder to justify as the work of an intelligent creator.

<comment><USER3> If intelligent design is your null hypothesis you're going to have a lot of successful experiments.

<comment><USER2> It was one for Darwin; another was Lamarckism. Once evolution began to be accepted, it was often distorted by some ill-formed concept of a bias towards progress, always epitomized by the human form. All these alternatives have trouble explaining extravagant display.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Evolution just simply lacks a teleology, or, worse, implies a teleology so divorced from any notion of progress that it's horrifying. Probably the most genetically successful dog of all time is the one that "turned into" a cancer and is now canine venereal transmissible tumor.

</comment><comment><USER5> _...those ostracod species where males invested heavily in sexual selection chose poorly, it seems._

This is a kind of reversal of causality that is unfortunately is too common in popular discussions of evolutionary biology.

Sexual selection of males is the result of female choice.

</comment><comment><USER6> _How can we be sure of the ultimate effects of interacting drivers of environmental change, competition, and resource pressures._

Thought: evolution is an attemp to solve the halting problem.

<comment><USER7> So it spawned brains capable of conceptualizing the halting problem - and then proving it unsolvable. Shouldn't the universe shut itself down now?

<comment><USER6> It's working on that. Entropy's a slow process.

Shannon was right.

[https://youtube.com/watch?v=kt3csIz3hEk](https://youtube.com/watch?v=kt3csIz3hEk)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The article argues that sexual dimorphism is an extinction risk. I don't buy it: the ostrocod study doesn't generalize, and the rest of the author's links are evolutionary anecdotes.

There are plenty of species in which sexual selection has been highly adaptive, including our own: it's likely that sexual selection is what led to runaway intelligence growth. We've been incredibly successful despite being sexually dimorphic.

In fact, this article makes so little sense that I can't help but wonder whether there's a culture war aspect to it. It's become fashionable to bash masculinity.

<comment><USER9> Culture wars aside, the premise seems reasonable though, doesn't it? Intraspecies reproductive fitness is orthogonal to species success and there are clearly some examples (e.g. brightly colored plumage) where a trait that improves individual reproductive success is a net negative for the species.

<comment><USER10> Is it a net negative though? I would in fact wager the opposite. The tradeoff must be beneficial else natural selection would have culled them from the population.

I believe in this specific case, it is likely more difficult for males to attract females than avoid predators.

<comment><USER11> To start off, yes, the trait needs to provide a reproductive fitness benefit. The problem is runaway sexual selection [1]. The textbook example of that being the peacock plumage, which is subject to strong sexual selection, yet is a detriment to overall fitness (see link for more details).

[1]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisherian_runaway#Peacocks_and...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisherian_runaway#Peacocks_and_sexual_dimorphism)

<comment><USER12> Plumage is mimicri and so on.

The eye like patterns can scare and emulate size. The e tail does fiegn size and does not fall into the general visual bird pattern.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Chalk – Colorize your terminal output - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/sindresorhus/chalk

<comment><USER2> chalk is a solid library, and a great upgrade over colors, which was the best option for a long time.

</comment><comment><USER3> Cool, I started using this an hour before seeing this. It really is a good library, doesn't mess with the String prototype like some others.</comment>


Microsoft open sources gdb/lldb debug engine for Visual Studio - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/Microsoft/MIEngine

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey everyone, ChuckR from Microsoft here. We've been working on this for a while now and are incredibly excited for it to finally be open to the public. I'll be around today to field any questions that you may have! Blog post: [http://blogs.msdn.com/b/vcblog/archive/2015/07/20/source- now...](http://blogs.msdn.com/b/vcblog/archive/2015/07/20/source-now- available-for-gdb-lldb-debug-engine.aspx)</comment>