United, Orbitz Sue Travel Site Over 'Hidden City' Tickets - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-18/united-orbitz-sue-travel-site-over-hidden-city-ticketing-1-.html

<comment><USER2> "Purchasing a ticket to a point beyond the actual destination and getting off the aircraft at the connecting point is unethical, It is tantamount to switching price tags to obtain a lower price on goods sold at department stores."

Are they being serious? It's 'ethical' to charge more for (A->B) and less for (A->B->C)? Do they even think about these things before they say them?

<comment><USER2> Instead of editing my original, I will just add here.

In response to the comment from the airline, no, it's like buying a pant & shirt combo set for $40 when the same exact pants sell for $70 and then throwing away the shirt.

How is that unethical exactly?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Is "promoting prohibited forms of travel" an actionable offense? Who prohibits this form of travel? Do private companies get to decide what is prohibited?

Also, linking to their websites? I just don't understand how suggesting ways/ideas for consumers to save money is fraudulent. Then again, Southwest airlines threatened to sue me for checking people into their flights, so maybe I just don't get it.

</comment><comment><USER4> Does anyone know why this is even possible? Is it due to airport fees? I was surprised to that the UK imposes such a high duty on incoming international airplanes [0]

[0] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Passenger_Duty](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Passenger_Duty)

<comment><USER5> Ticket prices are based on demand, not cost of providing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> We've reached this point because the airlines wanted to promote lower prices and make up the losses with volume. If they don't want this situation, it's on them to change it.

Their lack of foresight does not constitute a problem that I am required to solve, unless they want to pay me for it.</comment>


Cyber-Related Sanctions Designations - <AUTHOR> https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/OFAC-Enforcement/Pages/20161229.aspx <comment><USER2> The groups identified are sort of interesting; for instance, there's "AUTONOMOUS NONCOMMERCIAL ORGANIZATION PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DESIGNERS OF DATA PROCESSING SYSTEMS", which is either the most or least ominous hacker group name ever, and "ESAGE LAB", which has a zine!

According to Brian Krebs, the people named here have been on the FBI's most- wanted list for a long time.

<comment><USER3> Two on the FBI list

[https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/cyber/alexsey- belan](https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/cyber/alexsey-belan)

[https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/cyber/evgeniy-mikhailovich- bogach...](https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/cyber/evgeniy-mikhailovich-bogachev)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Does anyone have any good context for this? I.e., what are the political and economic implications of this?

Does it even matter if Trump is so soft on Russia? Won't he just revert this decision in January?

<comment><USER5> > Won't he just revert this decision in January?

He might, but now that the ball is in motion, it's the difference between him just doing nothing and letting it get swept under the rug, and him explicitly killing an active investigation against the recommendations of his intelligence organizations. It'll look a lot worse for him to do so.

<comment><USER6> Assuming his intelligence organizations hold to those recommendations. This whole thing smells of politics. Where was all this concern 2, 4, 6 years ago? You think cyber attacks weren't going on then?

<comment><USER5> > This whole thing smells of politics. Where was all this concern 2, 4, 6 > years ago? You think cyber attacks weren't going on then?

It sounds like you're both complaining that the government is doing _anything_ about cyber attacks, while also complaining that it hasn't done _enough_ about cyber attacks.

<comment><USER7> I think he's complaining about the suspicious timing of the sanctions. In which case it would be 100% political.

<comment><USER5> > In which case it would be 100% political.

Suspicious timing? What's suspicious? Absolutely it's related to the formal sanctions of the US against Russia—what could that possibly be apart from politics?

<comment><USER6> My complaint about the timing. I expect we'll also soon see some news releases or official government statements from Moscow about NSA and CIA hacking of Russian cyber systems.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> My condolences to anyone who shares a given name with any one on the sanctioned list or worse one of their aliases.

Had an acquaintance who had the misfortune on traveling with a fairly fresh passport while sharing a name with some one on the list he was held for 6 hours at O'Hare for winning that lottery.

</comment><comment><USER9> What are accusations about, to start with?

<comment><USER10> That russia hacked the DNC and Podesta's email, and gave their emails to wikileaks (something with assange explicitly denies), thus exposing how the DNC was rigging the primaries against Sanders (DNC hack) and how corrupt the clinton campaign was (Podesta emails).</comment></comment>


Trump can't stop the energy revolution - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2016-11-09/trump-cannot-halt-the-march-of-clean-energy <comment><USER2> What is this article talking about? Trump wants all forms of energy to compete in the free market. That includes coal, wind, solar, water, green, nuclear, gas etc.

Trump doesn't want to promote some while penalizing others, like what is happening right now. Let the market compete and decide.</comment>


Warren runs 'fake' FB ad attacking Zuckerberg over inaction on misinformation - <AUTHOR> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/elizabeth-warren-facebook-advert-zuckerberg-trump-fake-news-a9153221.html <comment><USER2> "It is not our role to intervene when politicians speak. That's why I want to be really clear today – we do not submit speech by politicians to our independent fact-checkers, and we generally allow it on the platform even when it would otherwise breach our normal content rules."

aka

"You're not allowed to lie, unless you're a politician who's paid for the right to do so."

<comment><USER3> Political advertising has special treatment among TV stations, so there is some precedent for not fact-checking political advertisement: [https://www.thebalancecareers.com/should-tv-stations-ban- fal...](https://www.thebalancecareers.com/should-tv-stations-ban-false- political-ads-3956480)

<comment><USER4> Ostensibly (not a lawyer) given the sensationalist false headline and the direct attack on his own business rather than just being 'politics', this could potentially be cause for a libel suit. That said, since the company is already in the sights of regulators, possibly not the best move strategically.

The 'best' part about it is that she's guilty of the same claim she's complaining about:

"facebook helped elect donald trump"

which isn't actually true in any direct sense (and debatably so in an indirect sense), yet they are allowing her to run her ad..

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> > Responding to Ms Warren's adverts, a Facebook spokesperson told CNN: "If > Senator Warren wants to say things she knows to be untrue, we believe > Facebook should not be in the position of censoring that speech."

Well, at least they're principled about it. They'll take your money either way.

CNN notably did not run the ad:

> CNN requested that the advertiser remove the false graphic that says the > mainstream media is 'fake news.' The mainstream media is not fake news, and > therefore the ad is false," the network said at the time. "Per our policy, > it will be accepted only if that graphic is deleted.

Which seems like an an awfully self-interested reason to reject the ad.

<comment><USER5> I respect the principal. It's messy when you start censoring public figures. Let them speak how they want and let the people decide through a 10 second google if it's fact or fiction.

<comment><USER6> The entire game is exploiting those who lack the critical thinking skills to sufficiently fact check themselves.

The median IQ is 100.

<comment><USER7> An IQ of 100 is now low by any means. I doubt the primary incentive is to seek out those with lack of critical thinking skills as they are actually a minority and would turn off the majority.

<comment><USER8> > those with lack of critical thinking skills as they are actually a minority

Where do you even come up with this?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I think the best thing happening in the recent time was when Zuckerberg was summoned by Congress to testify. It just opened our eyes that political advertisement and buying influence on social media is not only cheap but being done actively by groups whose members are not registered to vote in the USA. I'm told that this is also happening in other countries.</comment>


30 Day Meditation Challenge Update: Thoughts Are Like Fire - <AUTHOR> http://www.mostlymaths.net/2011/01/30-day-meditation-challenge-update.html

<comment><USER2> Well, it's neat that he's doing this and all, but... why? What benefits? What is the reason?

I even followed the link to where he begins the experiment, and it seems like this is just a sample challenge set forth, for no reason other than because it's there.

So, then, where is the relevancy?

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi Dan,

you address a very good question that I didn't consider: Why did I start? I didn't write it down, it wasn't conscious. First, I wanted to learn to tune my brain. From high activity to zero: I already knew how to put it at half-speed, and had my part of occasional high-speed modes (where all code you write works and all theorems you state you can prove). But I didn't know how to stop it and let it cool. Meditating solves this, supposedly.

Also, as of late, I have been feeling really un-concentrated. It was like I needed multitasking at every moment, when I was proving something I needed to switch to another paper and try to prove that, and then switch to something else. I wanted to disconnect and try to focus better. So far, I feel like I'm improving in this aspect, but it depends heavily on how the day is going.

As a simple side effect, this will also help my hip flexibility (which is quite hard right now) and my overall posture (in sitting meditation you need a very good upright posture).

I'm trying to see if I feel any difference from "before" (I have several batches of logs from last year with productivity, thoughts and so on hanging around that I will be able to put to use).

These are more or less the why's, which I will need to address in some post soon, thanks for making me see it!</comment></comment>


Social Psychology Is A Flamethrower - <AUTHOR> http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/06/22/social-psychology-is-a-flamethrower/ <comment><USER2> So a friend of mine just shared a survey from a student of social sciences on Facebook. The survey is concerned with stress levels of kids between age of 13 and 16, and is targeted to them. The data is to be used as a basis for a bachelor's thesis.

The first thing I learned is that my friend actually took part in the survey by "putting herself in the mindframe of a 13-year-old and filling it in as the kid would". After a short discussion about how doing so turns the whole thesis into pile of nonsense, she (herself a graduate from a liberal arts college) told me that the survey author was actually one of the better student in that she actually made the survey - as most people fill the surveys themselves or just make the data up.

So things like these give me trust issues with all the "soft sciences". I do consider most of the sociology nonsense, because I seriously doubt that people who make up data for their thesis will suddenly turn into honest researchers after graduation. Yes, the "best research in social psychology" might be "as well-supported as anything in physics or biology", but I doubt it's more than a small part of research done, and mostly research from first principles (so there isn't much chance that the research you're basing your paper on is crap).

<comment><USER3> Answering a survey by pretending to be someone else is clearly unacceptable and fraud by the student if they encouraged others to do it. I'm pretty sure that would lead to that student failing the class or worse if it were discovered where I study. The same is (even more) true for faking data. That's a disgusting violation of all scientific standards. For any somewhat larger project that might yield actual useful data our teachers are usually also involved to a degree where they would know if something like that is going on to a massive degree.

It is also standard practice to disguise these kinds of filter questions in surveys and to leave possible respondents in the dark about the ultimate purpose of the survey (insofar as that is possible and it isn't ethically necessary to be transparent about certain aspects). That way respondents outside the filter criteria hopefully couldn't participate even if they wanted to fake their way in. The way I do it, no one besides my advisor and a limited pool of pre-testers (who I make sure to tell not to participate in the main survey – and I also try to keep the link to the survey away from them) knows what the survey is about and what are the filter criteria.

That's students. Most of them won't go on to do any actual worthwhile research that will ever be cited by anyone. I would hope that the standards are even higher for research that's published in journals.

Social research is tough even if everyone behaves ethically. No doubt about that. But I have never encountered any culture of fraudulent behaviour outside of lazy students who will never publish anything anyone cares for.

<comment><USER4> I tend to agree that defrauding data is not so much of an issue. After all, filling in a survey does not require too much effort or equipment. Cherry- picking the data and biases are the main issues with some studies.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> _Most people are not consequentialists, but most people feel implicitly uncomfortable making moral arguments on non-consequentialist grounds. "Stop what you're doing, it disgusts and offends me" is less noble than "stop what you're doing, it will hurt people who can't stand up for themselves"._

I hear "arguments" like this all the time against data-mining public information and crowd sourcing and making it open on our site (and through an API) through our feedback and they make me chuckle seeing how they had to engage and co-opt a multitude of psychological/behavioral theories not drafted by themselves to say such things. Even more funnier is when the things they are protesting has been done in "private" for a very long time. Kind of reminds me of how the whole Snowden thing plays out on HN and in the general culture at large, despite the mumblings of such since the very beginning… quite amusing to say the least…

<comment><USER6> _quite amusing to say the least…_

Ah, yes, quite droll that people who don't make money from the thing I make money from have different moral opinions on it. Very amusing indeed. Because, of course, they're obviously wrong.

And they use other people's words when arguing their point? I'd point out that this is how just how ideas pass through society, but I'll settle for laughing at the fact you see unaware that you're also doing exactly that in your post.

<comment><USER5> Only if we all could conflate stating observed interactions with arguing a point like you just did exactly in your post, we all could laugh at ourselves more. :D

I guess those who think they are morally right can just give themselves a big round of applause while they continue to engage in behaviors that act against such moral beliefs, whether they are willing to admit that to themselves or not and I'll just keep exploring the infinite. :D

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> | The best research in social psychology is as well-supported as anything in physics or biology

Nope.

<comment><USER8> I am not sure why you are being downvoted, as the author himself first says:

 _The best research in social psychology is as well-supported as anything in physics or biology, and much more intuitively comprehensible._

And then he follows it up with:

 _Social psychology experiments in the laboratory tend to throw up spectacular mind-boggling effects. Many of these fail to replicate and are later discredited. The ones that do replicate are not always generalizable – sometimes an even slightly different situation will remove the effect or create exactly the opposite effect. The effects that remain robust in the laboratory may be too short-lasting or too specific to have any importance in real life. And the ones that do matter in real life may respond unpredictably or even paradoxically to attempts to control them._

<comment><USER9> He was downvoted due to lack of evidence and his casual dismissal of a point in the article. This isn't reddit, as easy as it is to see an unsubstantiated point in the OP and reply with an equally baseless retort, it doesn't help any of us learn more. Your comment, on the other hand does point out apparent contradictions in the OP, and thus is useful

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The issue with psychology is that double blind experiments are prone to observer effect.

The behaviour often have nothing to do with reality - when measured, everything tends towards the ideal.

And the experiments can often result in the results you want if the double blinds are removed.

I always fall back onto the Survey from "Yes Minister" to explain how that works

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA#t=30s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA#t=30s)

<comment><AUTHOR> > The issue with psychology is that double blind experiments are prone to > observer effect.

You mean, 'non double blind' experiments?

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> >Social psychology experiments in the laboratory tend to throw up spectacular mind-boggling effects. Many of these fail to replicate and are later discredited. The ones that do replicate are not always generalizable – sometimes an even slightly different situation will remove the effect or create exactly the opposite effect.

Generator-based tests (as in Haskell's Quickcheck) could help here. Standard unit tests run assertions with hardcoded input values such as [0, 1, -1]. Generator based tests instead try to show that properties hold over randomly generated inputs, by replacing 1 with a generator of positive integers, -1 with a generator of negative integers, etc.

Imagine if social psychologists ran generator-based studies as a hedge against unknown unknowns. The biggest challenge would be generating and executing valid permutations of the original experiment. Perhaps ad network AB-testing could be repurposed to run experiments as ads with randomly generated values.

<comment><USER12> The biggest challenge would be to get funding to run many slight variations of the same experiment without clear indications that this will produce many publishable results. Getting data from humans costs many orders of magnitude more than getting data from your code.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I went to a guest lecture by Michael Macy on network autocorrelation. its not fair for me to tell you what he was saying (so look him up if you want), but I will summarize.

there is a lot of research done with surveys, and most of these surveys have an inherent assumption: that the people live on an island and are not autocorrelated.

so he created a false network of people with random fake political views, etc and added network autocorrelation. they found that random views would cluster with demographics and were very statistically significant - but the views were random.

in a similar experiment, a music sharing website to collect data on its users separated users into 'worlds'. users could see what songs were downloaded by other users within the world. and each world had its own popular songs despite being made up of random people.

problem with networks (people) is that even a few missing nodes makes analyzing the network almost useless.

</comment><comment><USER14> >If I were a demon from Hell, charged by my infernal masters with increasing rape as much as possible, I literally could not think of a better strategy than talking about rape culture all the time.

I don't understand the proposed alternative. There is a widespread disconnect between the ethical view of consent ("enthusiastic yes") and the equally common disregard of consent ("well, she only said no the first time but then got real quiet...seemed OK"). Families and friend circles often fail to support rape victims or confront rapists. We're facing a structural cultural problem, and the solution is to...not talk about it?

<comment><USER15> One alternative (which appears to work with alcohol problem drinking) is to tell people what other people like them are doing. Thus, all the newspapers and tv programmes talking about the perils of binge drinking and how everyone is drinking too much and how it's harmful to them and the nation - that just makes people think that excessive drinking is just what people do. But if you tell university students that people their age tend to drink about 8 units a week (or whatever the actual real average is) then they realise that they drink a lot more than that and start to cut down.

Telling men that "most men think drunk consent is not consent" would be in line with this, and is I think what the article is talking about.

<comment><USER16> I remember those binge drinking proclamations in college and reading a few years later that they basically didn't work at all. People construct their social norms based on the behavior of those they observe around them, and particularly the people they care most about: their friends and their friends' friends, not some vague model citizen they were told about in some quasi- propagandist fashion. And if I recall the article correctly, the average they quoted wasn't even real, so in effect it was propaganda.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> As someone who has written his thesis in social psychology i have to say that social psychology is fundamentally broken, kaput. If you had a worker who fixed the pipes in your apartment the same way your toilet and kitchen would explode. But because we call social psychology a science we accept it somehow and hope for progress.

Issues i have:

1.) What would the practical consequences be if social psychology and it's knowledge would be erased. Not many that i can think of. Considering that the area has immense potential applications this is pretty telling.

2.) What have been the most important research breakthroughs of the last 20-30 years? There are new fads for sure (behavioral economics, neuroeconomics and evolutionary psych i look at you) but they all coexist peacefully. No falsification is happening, just new profs need new theories for publication.

3.) There is NO theoretical rigor. If you do have tons of theories you would suppose that there is much theoretic work going on clarifying and contrasting this theories to enable empirical tests of their validity. Not here. The more theories the merrier. Why? Every researcher needs his own theory or not crowded field so he doesn't rock the boat. That has lead to the development that one experiment is done by two grad students and a significant result in one direction is interpreted by one theory and in the other direction by another theory. Basically you give a sample of students a questionnaire and if it goes one way it proves that XY gave an evolutionary advantage to the prehistoric people if it went the other way it proves that the utility curves cringle on the right side. Both ways the researcher has something to publish. I do think that the 2 theories per experiment limitation is rather arbitrary and inefficient tough. There is definite room for improvement here.

4.) Many recent work try to address this by going theory free. All this different effects are the result. This is also practical because there is always room for more effects to research and if you happen to need one to explain a particular fact then there are always a ton to choose from.

5.) Cargo cult use of statistics. You could make an argument that most social science researchers are not able to understand the whys and hows of statistics and decision theory so giving them recipes to follow is better than the alternative. Might be. It just does not work. It really does not. Also the imperative of the researcher is not to generate knowledge but publishable significant results.

Basically i do think that we have to start over and scrap the work done so far. And no, i do not have a better alternative at hand. That is not necessary to see that the current process is broken and produces nothing useful and binds intellectual potential, tough.

<comment><USER18> > No falsification is happening, just new profs need new theories for > publication.

Much like macroeconomics, the problem with falsifying our hypotheses in the field is that you can't just build a culture in the laboratory. Even worse, there's no such thing as a control group: everything is observing everything and trying to self-modify to copy the good ideas of others, all the time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> > and studies on child porn show pedophilia is less common where it's more > accessible.

There's no link to the research.

Does anyone have any links? I'd be interested to know of this is just more lack of reporting of crime in a country that doesn't do much about that crime.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't know all the studies Yvain might have in mind, but at least one of them is "Pornography and sex crimes in the Czech Republic" [http://www.researchgate.net/publication/49644341_Pornography...](http://www.researchgate.net/publication/49644341_Pornography_and_sex_crimes_in_the_Czech_Republic/file/79e415111ced447bf5.pdf) \- one of a few papers exploiting various lapses in nations' child porn laws and observing not an increase in child sex crimes but rather decreases. You can probably find more studies by looking at related papers ([http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=14325274059754433423...](http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=14325274059754433423&as_sdt=20000005&sciodt=0,21&hl=en)) and reverse citations ([http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=related:j-vH2duYzcYJ:sch...](http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=related:j-vH2duYzcYJ:scholar.google.com/&hl=en&as_sdt=0,21)) of that paper.

(This is broadly similar to other correlations you may've heard about with more regular porn: porn seems to substitute for sex crimes, and not increase crimes like rape.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> _They found violent movies decreased crime 5% or more on their opening weekends, and that each violent movie that comes out probably prevents about 1000 assaults. Further, there's no displacement effect – the missing crimes don't pop back the following week, they simply never occur._

This is a very naive view of the idea that violent movies increase violence in the population - the author is acting a little surprised that the results actually show that crime goes down a little on opening weekend and doesn't change from normal in the weeks before and after. It makes no long-term analysis of the baseline; the _culture_ of having violent movies so prominent affecting levels of violence in the population. It just shows that violent people like to go to violent movies, not that the baseline violence is increased or decreased from those movies.

Reading over it again, the author is just guilty of bad journalism. The article he's quoting for this section is "Does opening weekend of violent films have an effect on violence rates?", which is a really very specific view, but is painted by the author as an incredibly broad "Violence In The Media Prevents Violent Crime". The irony is that it's the very first example given after a screed about how sloppy the field is.

<comment><USER20> That's _the whole point of the article_. He's showing that research can easily be twisted to support one conclusion or the other, and that the standards for what conclusions are acceptable to draw from social sciences research is far too low. It is __not __that the stuff listed there is in any way the "absolute truth".

<comment><USER19> Except that he does imply in the _conclusion_ to the article that they are reasonable conclusions to make. It's not just "twist to meet a predetermined conclusion", the author is actually saying that these are reasonable and plausible arguments. I'm saying that the first example isn't plausible because the quoted study is not representative of the argument being made. It's more a comment on spin-doctoring than quality of social psych research.</comment></comment></comment>


How to collect storage performance statistics using Windows Perfmon - <AUTHOR> https://community.emc.com/thread/182174

<comment><USER2> yes, if adding linux part, that would be great

</comment><comment><USER3> Nice Stuff

</comment><comment><USER4> Very useful! How about Linux?</comment>


When it came to robotic probes, the Soviets got to the Moon first - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160212-how-the-soviets-beat-america-to-the-moon <comment><USER2> This seems a good place to mention the wonderful BBC TV documentary: "Cosmonauts: How Russia Won the Space Race" which was on BBC4.

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04lcxms](http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04lcxms)

If you can find it in a watchable sate I highly recommend it. The scene where they talk about the Americans landing on the Moon is particularly good.

</comment><comment><USER3> You would think a BBC article on this topic would mention the bizarre postscript, where Lunokhod 2 and Luna 21 were sold at auction for around $70K USD to Richard Garriott.

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

<comment><USER4> Sold, sure, but possession is 9/10ths of the law, and both of those probes are currently on the moon. It seems more like one of those "buy a star" things than an actual bargain-basement sale of a priceless relic of the space race.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do you load test? - <AUTHOR> Took a look at blazemeter but it's too expensive for how many tests you can run per billing cycle. Are there open source solutions that'll hook up to my aws account and spin-up instances in order to load test my api for example? <comment><USER2> This isn't my area of expertise, but I think Gatling would serve your purposes.

<comment><AUTHOR> interesting but this is basically for executing many concurrent requests from a single source? i guess i don't know if it matters really that load should simulate truly distinct users (at the least to check ip throttling works correctly).

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Blazemeter now give 1000 API tests free a month. That might help?

</comment><comment><USER4> Check out Jmeter</comment>


Show HN: How to use xmake to build the cross–platform c/c++ project - <AUTHOR> https://asciinema.org/a/133693 <comment><AUTHOR> [http://xmake.io](http://xmake.io) [http://github.com/tboox/xmake](http://github.com/tboox/xmake)</comment>


What should I do about my lazy partner?  - <AUTHOR>

My partner and I are in the very early stages of submitting a business proposal to an entrepreneurship contest (and hopefully more than one). We have both committed to carrying our idea out - to building our product. As such, we agreed to meet every morning at 8am (we live in the same complex and no travel time was required). Since we are still both in school, we wanted to meet at a time we both could commit to every day, the purpose of the meetings being to discuss readings we have done, to bounce ideas around, to add specifics to our business idea, and to generally stay focused and motivated.
Here's the thing: in the past 7 days, my partner has failed to make ONE meeting. I'm up every day, down at the breakfast table by 8am ready to meet, and he fails to do so. Furthermore, he doesn't even acknowledge his absence. I'm upset obviously because this is something that I am really passionate and excited about, and he can't even wake up for 8am! I'm curious as to whether anyone else has had a similar experience.
Objectively the answer here seems to be to drop him as a partner. I'm torn only because I respect his intelligence and know that if he was on top of his work ethic we could build something great together. It's truly frustrating to find someone you could see yourself working with long term - who has committed to a project - only to abandon you essentially.
 I am worried about losing focus without a partner to push me (and vice versa) and bounce ideas around with.
Help and advice would be much appreciated. I've got to turn this into a positive learning experience. <comment><USER2> Dang, I probably wouldn't show up every day either. Do you really need to meet every day at 8 AM? Maybe he didn't have anything new to discuss.

The meetings are probably not so important in the grand scheme of things. How is everything else progressing? Meeting every day at 8 AM could be a big waste of time. Perhaps that time could be better spent actually building something rather than having discussions.

Personally, I keep quite busy with work, so if I were in this situation that meeting time might be the only time I would have to work on a side project. I'm a freelancer and I generally work in teams with other developers. We try to avoid meetings (chat or voice sessions) if at all possible. More effective is an email which the other person could read at any time. Meetings can turn into a serious time sink which can eat into the day.

Everyone has their own preferred way of working. Go ahead and try to find someone who is a closer match to your preferred way of working, but you will need to compromise as well, especially when you are looking at partnering with someone as opposed to hiring this person as an employee.

</comment><comment><USER3> There are plenty of smart people. Some people are results-oriented, others are not. I had an employee who could never keep hours. My superiors wanted me to fire him because he never came in on time.

But he got stuff done. I mean, middle of the night, when a server went down, he fixed it. I couldn't argue with that. Some people just do things on their own time.

But it has to work for you. If you're not cool with that kind of person, deal with it now, before you sign papers.

And it has to be a two-way street. This guy who worked for me let me know that he couldn't keep regular hours - it just wouldn't work. He didn't just stop coming in - he told me about it. We worked out something that would work.

If your guy is just missing stuff and not telling you, that's a trust thing.

Partnerships are marriages. You have to trust the other person. You are one. And it's way way easier to break up with your girlfriend/boyfriend than it is to divorce your spouse or dissolve a business partnership.

If it bugs you that much, deal with it now.

</comment><comment><USER4> be flexible... tell him "looks like 8am isn't working for you, let's meet for lunch (or whatever) instead". Maybe he's just not a morning person.

If his work ethic continues to be a problem, talk to him about it. Ask him to commit to a number of hours per week, and track/verify this. If he still fails, then call off the project.

You're both students. Don't get hung up on little stuff like this. You'll never have this much flexibility in your life again (well, until your start-up succeeds and you're gazillionaires, I guess). Don't try to be too corporate too fast. Be rock stars.

</comment><comment><USER5> >Furthermore, he doesn't even acknowledge his absence.

Have you asked him about it, or are you just quietly seething about this? If you're sure that he knows about the meetings and is deliberately blowing them off, then it sounds like you're much more excited about the idea than he is. I've watched a lot of early stage startups fall apart like this - one person is legitimately motivated, and the other is casually interested enough to stay partially engaged, but they disappear when when substantial work is required.

</comment><comment><USER6> Do you need that many meetings? That seems like too much of a time commitment for simple discussion which can happen via IM or phone.

Also if you live in the same complex and you have no idea as to why your partner missed the meetings, than your communication needs some work.

If all you are doing is just meeting to prepare for a business proposal, than most likely your idea isn't going to go anywhere. Start working on implementing your business plan rather than putting your business plan together.

</comment><comment><USER7> Does he even give an excuse for missing the meeting?

It's possible that his absence is his way of telling you that he doesn't think meeting everyday is important. I would hope it's not just that he forgets or can't wake up that early at least.

In general, intelligence is a critical feature of a good partner but reliability and chemistry are more important. If you do start a company with this person, you are getting married for 5 years (or at least you have to treat it that way). If there is already friction now, that should be telling you that you don't have the right fit. At the stage you are at now you should be running at full steam instead of wondering why you are sitting alone in the morning.

I suggest breaking it off. You'll be thankful later when you find a partner on the same wavelength and things really click.

</comment><comment><USER8> Some people are morning people, others aren't, despite best intentions. You could reschedule the meetings and see if he can make it at a different time. If he still doesn't, it will mean he's either not committed to the business, or not disciplined enough, so you will have to split.

</comment><comment><USER9> I don't buy the argument that this is okay because some pepole don't work well according to schedules or because there is nothing new to discuss every day. This is a problem of communication and accountability. If you've agreed to something, you'd better be accountable for it. If you're not a morning person, or you don't think meeting every day is necessary, then say so! Avoiding confrontation/communication only delays the problem. Making mistakes is not the end of the world --- as long as there is accountability. The fact that he didn't even talk to you about the missed meetings is the biggest problem IMO. How can you trust this person to talk to you about more important things later on?

</comment><comment><USER10> You're not going to have a future in business with him, and you know it. Man up (I assume you're male; if not, _woman up_ ) and tell him it's over!

If you don't have the courage to do this, how are you going to face the much tougher battles yet to come?

</comment><comment><USER11> You want him to wake up at 8:00 so he could keep you motivated. It was your idea, wasn't it? He is being too polite to tell you "motivate yourself!"

You don't need to be in touching distance to come up with an idea. When you do have a great vision, that will motivate you. It is kind of like trying to be motivated to fall in love before meeting the person you're going to be in love with.

Don't force it. On him or on yourself. When a great idea comes to you, no one will be able to keep you from getting there.

</comment><comment><USER12> I am more concerned by the lack of communication than by the missed meetings. Have you actually talked to him about this? Maybe he is sadly waiting for you at a different coffee shop, or under the impression that the meetings are only when needed.

Does he have any idea how much this is destroying your trust in him? Tell him your expectations, give him a chance to shape up, and if he doesn't, you know what to do.

</comment><comment><USER13> If there was more invested, I'd recommend a slew of advice for 'talking it over.'

But it seems like this is pretty thin at this point, so walk away.

</comment><comment><USER14> Is it only one meeting and a non-critical one at that? It's probably nothing. I don't think he's trying to ride on your progress. Heck, he may have stayed up one night playing WoW in a maid outfit and feels embarrassed after getting up late the next day.

Have you had a meeting to explain potential risks of foundership that includes a founder splitting off?

<comment><USER15> Looks like you're getting downvoted, but really the OP should be downvoted for bad writing.

"in the past 7 days, my partner has failed to make ONE meeting"

Dear OP, this states that your partner has made it to 6 out of 7 meetings. I know you didn't actually _mean_ that, but that's what you said (well, typed).

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Take this from someone who knows. Get rid of him. ASAP. People like him singlehandedly kill businesses.</comment>


Archeology Gives History a Makeover - <AUTHOR> http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/30/how-archeology-gives-history-a-makeover.html <comment><USER2> Note the juxtaposition of this self congratulation

> Yes, the stories about excavating with tiny brushes and grapefruit knives > are true, even though shovels and backhoes would get the job done quicker. > The stories about obsessive photography, data recording, sampling, artifact > recovery, and general record keeping are also true. The underlying reason > for these quirks is that archaeological search and recovery can often > simultaneously acquire evidence _and destroy_ its context. That being the > case, we are honor bound to document the process well enough to allow some > future researcher to use discoveries not just to test our conclusions but > also to help answer new questions that have not yet occurred to us. > _[emphasis mine]_

with this observation

> Technological advances have dramatically improved our abilities to detect > and recover archaeological information

I fuzzily recall going to an archeology talk soon after PCR came out, and hearing how carefully they _washed_ their recovered pottery shards. It reminded me of early paleontology using dynamite.

We can now do single cell PCR, and single molecule sequencing exists. We can do near-field spectroscopy of nanometer-scale samples. And the microrobots are coming.

Imagine a conversation a half a century from now. "We found a site untouched!" "Untouched? By looters, or by early 21st-century archaeologists?" "Given how much our technology has changed, and how rapidly it's changing now, there's little difference".</comment>


The Stalinist Trial of Julian Assange - <AUTHOR> https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/john-pilger-stalinist-trial-julian-assange <comment><USER2> It's funny how indifferent everyone is about this. If you read about atrocious events that happened in history you often wonder why nobody stepped up.

And here we are, things like this are happening in 2020 and almost nobody cares. Almost all of us choose comfort and a frictionfree life over morality when it comes down to it.

<comment><USER3> Honestly, what can we do? There were protests, but those barely ever have the desired effect. We can talk about it and make people aware, but the British people are also to blame for voting in a government willing to kneel to America. The EU might've been able to step in and provide Assange a safe haven, but a few citizens voting for Assange in a few countries ain't gonna do much.

What could we have done?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Every time this comes up on traditional media I scream at TV How on earth can you be guilty of TREASON of a country you are NOT A CITIZEN Of? Can anyone explain this twisted logic to me how an Australian can be prosecuted for treason of US?

<comment><USER5> Whooo whooo there buddy. Why are you using facts and logic?

That's not allowed anymore. He is either traitor or not. No other way. /s

Welcome to black and white world of 2020 where stuff like this is encouraged. Its deeply saddening how everyone is quoting scary stuff from 1984 and yet we are using it as a manual.

Thinking about it its really scary how close we are to that reality. Just mix in some Brave New World by Huxley and you get police state with docile drugged up society addicted to entertainment not caring for real world around them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Quick bit of recent background on the author, I don't think it's an ad hominem as it's at least peripherally relevant to the matter of what's being discussed here:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Pilger#Russia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Pilger#Russia)

> On the Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury, Wiltshire on 4 > March 2018, Pilger said in an interview on RT (formerly Russia Today): "This > is a carefully constructed drama as part of the propaganda campaign that has > been building now for several years in order to justify the actions of NATO, > Britain and the United States, towards Russia. That's a fact"

> "Without a single piece of evidence, the US and its NATO allies and their > media machines blamed ethnic Russian 'separatists' in Ukraine and implied > that Moscow was ultimately responsible". He asserted that "the newspaper has > made no serious attempt to examine who shot the aeroplane down and why".

That said, he's not wrong, but as with Assange the motivation and choices aren't what can be called honest journalism.

<comment><USER6> (minor clarification: not too wrong in the linked article, but definitely on the side of very wrong in those past statements)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> People like him should be honored and if not considered heroes, at least be remembered as people who standed for freedom. Instead they go under trial and their life ruined. This is our world.

<comment><USER8> Wikileaks had such a strong Western bias that it hurt democratic movements in third world countries. So no, it's not that black and white.

<comment><USER9> I have to admit I don't know a lot about the history of Wikileaks (I was still in school when they started going after Assange), but how did it hurt democratic movements in developing countries?

<comment><USER8> They never seem to publish any serious leaks pertaining to other countries with imperialist ambitions. For example, what bothered me, is that there wasn't anything on Russia. For example, the leaked Surkov emails (which among other things exposed Russian plans for the separatists in Ukraine) had to go through 4chan and other ad hoc channels, but not through Wikileaks. Couple that with the fact that the person responsible for CIS-country leaks at the time at Wikileaks was a well known anti-semite and conspiracy theorist, who left USSR sometime in the 60s or 70s and you start to build a picture of conscious bias, at the very least.

This allowed to build a bleak narrative in the former Soviet space, that "look, the West is corrupt as well, so you shouldn't try to fight corruption as it is hopeless". Which, by the way, is a classical FUD passive measure tactic.

<comment><USER10> Why would anyone in Russia with access to classified information send it to Wikileaks, an organization with zero Russian speakers and extremely limited influence in Eastern Europe. They would have far better options available to them.

This criticism comes up often, but it assumes a conspiracy is necessary for the expected behavior. How many Russian language news stories does your local paper cover? Assange does not need Russian ties to be antisemitic either.

<comment><USER8> Since Russian is my native language, I read enough Russian papers. And I can tell when a western outlet overlaps with the official Russian party line a bit too much for comfort.

So, I guess you admit that WL has a western bias?

Also, they don't really have any better options. Just FYI.

<comment><USER10> Wikileaks unquestionably has a bias towards English speaking nations. That is why their leaks primarily are about America.

If your criticism is that they didn't build a strong enough international team, remember that Assange spent most of their history unable to leave the Ecuadorian embassy. Those years treated as an enemy also likely led to him sympathizing with countries that aren't calling for his head. That isn't why they don't publish Russian leaks though.

<comment><USER8> WL tried to discredit the Panama Papers (which feature some prominent Russian officials). That doesn't look like just a factor of not having an international team.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I found this to be a very powerful statement, that exceeds the issue with Assange:

"Freedom of the press now rests with the honourable few: the exceptions, the dissidents on the internet who belong to no club, who are neither rich nor laden with Pulitzers, but produce fine, disobedient, moral journalism — those like Julian Assange."

</comment><comment><USER7> 67 points in 2 hours at the moment and the article is flagged...

<comment><USER12> For good reason. The article is written in horrible tone.

<comment><USER13> What exactly about the tone is "horrible"? That's a strong word and I did not perceive it that way.

<comment><USER12> It uses adjectives and descriptions that suffocate the reader.

Completely separate from the subject matter, that kind of writing style treats the reader as an idiot.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I don't know a lot about the Julian Assange case, but it's obvious that very powerful interests are at play here. This single point ought to be reason enough for journalists to put the issue front and center.

</comment><comment><USER14> Meanwhile the cooperation in the opposite direction doesn't seem so smooth [https://english.elpais.com/spanish_news/2020-09-10/us- demand...](https://english.elpais.com/spanish_news/2020-09-10/us-demands- hinder-spanish-probe-into-alleged-cia-ties-to-security-firm-that-spied-on- assange.html)

</comment><comment><USER15> The phrase "Stalinist trial" normally refers to either a staged trial [1] or to a trial-by-three without due process [2]. Which of these applies to Julian Assange?

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Trials](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Trials) [2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NKVD_troika](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NKVD_troika)

<comment><USER16> "the judicial authorities have already determined the guilt, and/or innocence, of the defendant. The actual trial has as its only goal the presentation of both the accusation and the verdict to the public so they will serve as both an impressive example and a warning to other would-be dissidents or transgressors"

<comment><USER15> The article has no such quote. And if it did, it would still have to back it up, didn't it? So far it looks like a bunch of overstatements without any real substance. E.g. "The extradition hearing in London this week is the final act of an Anglo-American campaign to bury Julian Assange." How can a mere extradition hearing be the final act?

<comment><USER10> This is a transcript of a public address. The time the speaker had was likely limited, and the target were people already aware of the details.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The trial might be unfair, but it's tone deaf to call it "Stalinist".

</comment><comment><USER17> It's weird that a Russia Today talking head would find Stalinism a negative.

<comment><USER18> why?

<comment><USER17> Because Russia Today promotes official Russian policy, with Stalinism whitewashing being one its major component.

<comment><USER19> To be fair, pretty much every country aside from Germany is whitewashing their past with the help of the media. Some call it propaganda, some call it patriotism, some call it "promoting of state policy" but it's all the same thing.

<comment> maze-le To be fair, even in Germany there is a substantial amount of whitewashing the past. Be it the founding of the BND predecessor "Organization Gehlen" or the Nazi sympathizers that worked as judges and prosecutors in the federal Republic.

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

<comment><USER20> That the denazification process in both the Federal Republic and the Democratic Republic was incomplete after the war is a pretty uncontroversial thing in Germany, I would say. Aside from the far-right fringe, I don't think there is a lot of "whitewashing" around it, although I might be wrong. The CDU certainly has incentive to not stress that part of their history too much, though.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Oregon wildfires: Half a million people flee dozens of infernos - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54113416 <comment><USER2> We are about 5 miles from an evacuation area, one of my wife's co-workers and several of her acquaintances have lost their homes. Fortunately the weather seems to have mellowed.

Frustrating that this seems off the national radar completely.

<comment><USER3> There is an article on Phoenix, Oregon, in the left column below the fold on page A1 of today's Washington Post.

Today's New York Times has an article on page A1 at the top of the fifth column (of six) filed from Molalla, Oregon.

I don't think this is off the national radar.

<comment><USER4> Agree, it's the top story on my news feed here in the midwest.

It's probably going to get somewhat diminished coverage, as by Monday it's highly likely that there will be 4 named storms in the Atlantic, with a large hurricane forecast to hit Bermuda and another bearing down on Texas or Lousiana by the end of the week.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> We're at our farm in Northwest Oregon and it's been a surreal few days with fires in nearly every direction — but luckily not on top of us. There has been untold devastation not very farm from here. The air quality has been oppressively bad — no sun for days, and two days of the strange orange glow.

Communications during the firestorms has been lacking, especially compared with our experience in the Bay Area. I've had to rely on random twitter accounts, and local newspapers from outside our county to cobble together info on whether the fires were approaching us or not on a given night. Part of that is the nature of the event — lots of fires, and rapidly changing conditions, and overstretched resources. But a lesson from this is that rural Oregon sorely needs a strategy for clear comms during these firestorms. Local stories are bubbling up about people not getting evacuation orders, or getting contradictory information.

Another part of this is infrastructure — no fiber or even DSL in a lot of these locations. Cell towers were up and down. Satellite internet was flaky. Grateful for our landline.

The smoke hasn't cleared yet, and massive fires are still going, but the weather is looking more favorable. Today was cooler and more humid and rain is expected by Monday evening.

But when the smoke _does_ clear, I'm afraid this will indeed be a great tragedy.

Stay safe everyone.

</comment><comment><USER6> >> The wildfires have also prompted mass evacuations in the suburbs of Portland, Oregon's largest city.

Does anyone know which suburb of Portland is being evacuated? It is mentioned in the article, but when I look at a state map of evacuations [1] it doesn't show any suburbs in the "go" section (ordered to evacuate). Oregon City is in the "be set" evacuation zone, so maybe they are considering that to be a suburb or Portland and are saying that it is evacuating when they aren't ordered to yet?

I don't currently live in the area, but most of my family and friends do (most live in the evacuated areas). It is hard to find clear information sometimes. The best resources I have found are the facebook or twitter feeds of the 911, sheriff, or county fire departments.

[1] [https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/6329d5e4e13748b9b9f...](https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/6329d5e4e13748b9b9f7f33f06a3c376/)

<comment><USER7> I live in Portland, and Estacada and Molalla were evacuated. Oregon City is currently on level 2 warning. Level 3 is immediate evacuation. Mostly it's places in Clackamas Couny. Here's the most up to date info you're probably going to find. It's from Oregon Emergency Operations. [https://www.oregon.gov/oem/emops/Pages/RAPTOR.aspx](https://www.oregon.gov/oem/emops/Pages/RAPTOR.aspx) . Here's a list of resources that was put up by the office of one of the Oregon state reps [https://bonamici.house.gov/media/media/statements/wildfire-r...](https://bonamici.house.gov/media/media/statements/wildfire- resources-stay-informed-stay-safe) . I found the Raptor link there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Oregon only has a little over 4 million people; half a million evacuated means 10% of the state is out of their homes. Even if only a small proportion of them actually burn we're looking at a serious housing crisis.

<comment><USER7> The governor just said that number was inaccurate. Here's a link to the coverage of the press conference. [https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2020/09/with- oregonians-...](https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2020/09/with-oregonians- evacuated-from-homes-worried-about-wildfires-gov-kate-brown-to-discuss-fires- spread-health-conditions-firefighting-plans-watch-live.html) .

Basically the 500,000 people was all the people in any sort of evacuation preparation zone. That includes everyone in a level 1 evacuation zone. That's the be ready level. There have been less than 100,000 people actually evacuated in a level 3 zone according to the press conference. That's still a lot of people, but not as many as had been reported. It's still horrific for everyone that's been displaced.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Slowly but surely the blind masses are waking up to the fragility of our modern infrastructure, as well as the terrible idea of millions upon millions of people living in small concentrated areas.

If you haven't seen the writing on the wall yet, MOVE out of the cities and heavy population areas. You will be glad you did.

<comment><USER10> But, one of the reasons for the fires is that due to lack of housing in cities, populations have been pushed more and more into wilderness areas, preventing proper forest management and exposing themselves to greater risks of fires.

Not to mention the second order effects of less density: more driving, more C02, more warming... more fires.</comment></comment>


Bitproof – Say Hello to True Certification - <AUTHOR> https://bitproof.io

<comment><USER2> Just registered, looking forward to seeing how this will be used. A free, legally admissible (still skeptical of that point) service like this is sure to tip the scales in favor of individual inventors and innovators at least somewhat - which is always a good thing (let's pretend the U.S. throw money at people to win "legal" system doesn't exist).

</comment><comment><USER3> I think it just hashes whatever it is, and transmits a minimum of BTC to that hashed address on the blockchain. You can do this yourself for free with any bitcoin client.

Subsequently, that transaction is encoded into the blockchain forever, and could be pointed to in a court of law.</comment>


Snowden's Leaks Forced the DEA to End Its Own Mass Surveillance Program - <AUTHOR> http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2015/04/snowdens-leaks-forced-dea-end-its-own-mass-surveillance-program/109618/

<comment><USER2> > "It has been a pretty good week for Edward Snowden."

That interview with John Oliver was not good for him. And who cares about a bust in some random park? I'd say this is one of his worst weeks.

<comment><USER3> How was it not good for him? Sure, Oliver poked fun at him, but contextualizing the leaks in terms of "Can the government look at my penis" will probably reach more people than the way they've been presented so far.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> tl;dr excerpt:

 _"The Justice Department was going into court and saying, in part, 'What we're doing in this intelligence-surveillance program is OK, because it serves national security interests and it's not done for routine law enforcement,'" journalist Brad Heath, who broke the story, explained in a video interview posted on USA Today's site. "And then they sort of had the problem of, 'Well, we're doing something like this for routine law enforcement.' And at the end of the day they had to make a choice between the two programs."_</comment>


So much for Twitter and the Super Bowl (app is down) - <AUTHOR>

I'm guessing Joyeur is no longer providing extra capacity?<p>EDIT 19:30 est: back up now <comment><USER2> Joyeur had some PR/blog post earlier this week or last week announcing that Twitter was on its own again, but Joyeur was standing by to assist. (Or some such wording that read to me at the time like "you'll be back").

</comment><comment><USER3> Twitter seems up for me via the twitter site, but not via twitterific.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> 22:23: down again.</comment>


GPUmat, CUDA enabled MatLab - <AUTHOR> http://www.gp-you.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=46&Itemid=54 <comment><USER2> I read the nVidia GPU Computing forums quite often, so I'm happy to see GPGPU programming spreading around more; in fact, I'm planning to submit an application to YC soon for a new GPGPU product I've been working on.

How does GPUmat compare (performance- and feature-wise) to the commercial Accelereyes "Jacket" product for Matlab? I'm not promoting one or the other...just curious to know!</comment>


Mailbird Brings Speed Reading Technology To Email - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/21/mailbird-brings-speed-reading-technology-to-email/

<comment><USER2> can someone run a user study on the difference in short term and long term memory retention through traditional methods compared to speed reading tech? this is likely paper worthy</comment>


Software eating the Fortune 500 - <AUTHOR> http://www.gabrielweinberg.com/blog/2012/06/software-eating-the-fortune-500.html <comment><USER2> This line of analysis looks promising, but the post leaves too many important questions unanswered, including:

* How have mergers and acquisitions affected the rate of churn in the S&P 500? It could very well be that S&P 500 companies are disappearing from the list at a faster rate because they're being merged into or acquired by other companies at a faster rate.

* To what extent does the rate of churn in the S&P 500 reflect declines in specific sectors of the economy unrelated to software? For example, US manufacturing has faced challenging times for several decades, so one would expect to see this trend reflected in the list.

* How did the inflating and bursting of the Housing Bubble impact the companies exposed to that industry in the S&P 500? For example, many home builders and mortgage lenders boomed during the bubble and then went bust when the bubble burst. How is that reflected in the data?

* How did the growth in financial services as a percentage of GDP affect the index prior to the financial crisis? How about after the financial crisis? Think not just about Lehman Brothers's demise, but about all the formerly high-flying financial firms that went bust or whose size is considerably smaller today.

<comment><USER3> This line of questioning looks promising, but the post leaves a question unanswered:

* Did the questioner notice the article was referring not to the S&P 500, but the Fortune 500?

<comment><USER4> I think GP comment is worth of discussion if you mentally replace "S&P" with "Fortune". No reason to downvote it.

<comment><USER2> Yikes. I'm the poster. Unfortunately, I can't edit now :-( Sorry about the mix-up!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "In another 50 years, would you expect Apple or Exxon to still be near the top of the list?". Is that a trick question? Exxon obviously - they make the thing we can't live without.

<comment><USER6> 50? Sure. But Exxon will also need to continue to evolve in order to ensure their relevance whenever the world's oil supply begins to wane. Probably won't be in our lifetime ... but someday something else will be more dominant out of necessity and Exxon won't necessarily be the one leading that charge.

<comment><USER7> Of course, as the supply of oil dwindles and demand grows, their volume will go down but their profit margin will go up.

<comment><USER6> Unless it becomes considerably more expensive to obtain, and/or affordable alternatives arise.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> For an article about "software eating the world" it would perhaps have been nice to use a list that isn't restricted to US companies.

For example, there is the Forbes Global 2000 - this is just public companies, but Apple isn't even in the top 20 there (it's #22)

<http://www.forbes.com/global2000/list/>

<comment><USER9> What is that list ranked by? None of the columns are in any strict ascending/descending order. In particular Apple has the highest market capitalisation out of all the firms of that list, 540+b compared to Exxon (#1)'s 400b.

<comment><USER8> Good point - they explain it here:

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottdecarlo/2012/04/18/methodol...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottdecarlo/2012/04/18/methodology- how-we-crunch-the-numbers/)

NB I'm not particularly attached to the Global 2000 - just it would be interesting to use a list that isn't only US companies.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> _In another 50 would you expect Apple or Exxon to still be near the top of the list?_

Exxon yes, Apple no. There isn't enough advantage to being the incumbent in Apple's weird combination of fashion and consumer electronics.

<comment><USER11> What if the world switched primarily to renewables? It is 50 long years...

<comment><USER10> There will still be a need for hydrocarbon extraction. We use oil and gas as feedstock for all sorts of chemical production from fertilizer to plastics. Plus we'll still be using oil for things like air travel and military operations.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Love the chart. Another fun thing to plot might be: what's the retrospective half-life of the Fortune 500? (That is, how far back do you have to go from each year for 50% of the companies to be different.)

</comment><comment><USER13> "In another 50 would you expect Apple or Exxon to still be near the top of the list?"

Well, maybe it depends on who is supplying power to the world, including, e.g., supplying the power to run Apple gadgets and Apple datacenters. Chances are it's still going to be Exxon.

</comment><comment><USER14> I'm intrigued by the idea of "regulatory capture." I hadn't heard that term before but that economic theory is playing such a prominent role at the moment in the growth of the market I work in, privacy (e.g. EU Data Directive, US Privacy Bill of Rights). We of course saw it clearly working in favor of IT in the US in the last decade with the advent of HIPAA, SOX and GLBA. Whole segments of the IT security business were basically born (re-born) due to this legislation.

I wish Gabriel went into more depth on this point. Specifically I wish he provided some examples. I think we would all benefit from considering what changes legislation will bring and seeing if we can't jump on the opportunities early.

<comment><USER15> It's a common term. He didn't make it up and I don't think he needs to discuss it.

<comment><USER14> I didn't imply that he was making it up. I just wish he elaborated on some examples of where that was going to take hold. There is no reason to get defensive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The margin paragraph is simply too optimistic, margins now are good because there is still small to no competition, when competition will come, margins will drop.

</comment><comment><USER17> Is software eating programming?

<comment><USER18> To the extent that it does, it will increase the rate of software eating the world.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> In 50 years, Exxon Mobile will be #1 while Apple will be nowhere in the top 50.</comment>


AI in medicine will help doctors, not replace them - <AUTHOR> https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/does-ai-have-a-place-in-medicine/ <comment><USER2> I'm always confused with these types of articles. "Will AI cause job loss" or "Will AI create jobs" aren't really the important questions. Because those questions are about net gain and loss, because yes it will cause job losses and yes it will create jobs. But that's not what's important to the average person.

If your job is automated away, what are you going to do? Hypothetically let's say that AI can accomplish everything that an X-ray tech can (or that with the help of automation a single tech can do what 10 techs do today). What happens to those people? They spent a lot of time and money getting that training. Retraining programs suck and are shown to be really ineffective. So do these people just go underemployed the rest of their lives? What about people who are 10-15 years from retirement? Even if retrained you go from peak earnings to starting wages. That's a huge disrupt in life.

Job loss is extremely important to consider ( _assuming you care about people_ ), even if the total number of jobs are increased. We've seen this in the past and we're seeing it today. Lots of automation came into farming and many of those jobs disappeared. Family legacies were lost. But at the same time it is inhumane to not allow the progression of technology (like we could even stop it...).

My concern is that people aren't discussing the transitions of economies. We all want to live in a post scarcity world like Star Trek. Where food, housing, and basic essentials are effectively trivially obtained (for the most part in the show). But transitioning to that kind of society is extremely disruptive and has a lot of pitfalls on the way. It isn't unimaginable to ask "What if 10% of your population is unemployable?" (several scenarios: jobs just automated away; only existing jobs require high skill and training; transition period where those people are trained for jobs that recently got automated away; etc) What do we do? How do we handle that? We're a society where people still believe your worth correlates with your wealth ( _diction intended_ ). I see very few people talking about this, and these kinds of scenarios are plausible within the next 50-100 years.

Net gains or losses of jobs is a distracting question and the wrong one to ask.

<comment><USER3> I basically went through this by getting divorced after two decades as a homemaker. I spent several years homeless. I previously had a class in _Homelessness and Public Policy_ while studying to become an urban planner.

Some things that would help a whole lot:

1\. We need to address our housing issues.

This isn't necessarily disastrous if you can move to some little hole in the wall in a walkable area with good transit so you can still have a life while living on meager earnings and retraining. The problem is that we've torn down about a million SROs in the US and the average size of new housing has more than doubled since the 1950s, so there just aren't enough places like that.

2\. We need to resolve our healthcare issues in the US.

Healthcare costs something like 20% of GDP and disproportionately negatively impacts poor people, unemployed people and people with chronic health issues (who are often pushed into poverty by that fact). If you can go to a doctor no matter how poor you are, these problems are vastly less likely to snowball out of control.

3\. We need to embrace gig work and figure out how to make it a positive instead of decrying it and vilifying it.

When I was deathly ill and homeless, gig work was a godsend. My earning capacity gradually went up and I eventually got back into housing. I still struggle, but it's better than it used to be.

Gig work allowed me to develop an earned income and marketable skills at a time and under circumstances where no regular job would have worked, yet all I seem to ever hear is how evil it is. It's not inherently evil, though certainly some gig work is handled in a problematic fashion that keeps workers trapped in a dead end.

<comment><USER4> Just want to say I frequently see your comments not get many replies, and at least in my case it's because you're so comprehensive and right I don't have anything to say.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I feel like I've read somewhat similar pieces about every single field affected by automation and AI at this point.

In every other article, there's a dichotomy between "everyone will keep their jobs and be more efficient and have more time to focus on what matters" and "everyone will lose their jobs and be replace by machines". This then gets resolved to "we will never be replaced because 'human factors'", therefore option a).

I am sure the author knows their field well, but this just doesn't seem to provide any interesting / new viewpoint on the issue beyond the arguments that usually come up in superficial discussion of the topic.

<comment><USER2> The bigger question, imo, is how we handle those job losses. Retraining doesn't really work. So what do we do with those people? Just say "whoops, your job is automated away. I'm sure you'll find some new equally paying job."? Because that seems like a good way to start a very bloody revolution.

<comment><USER6> Somebody has to annotate the data.

Joking aside, I think for a lot of medical stuff the shift is already happening- there are less people going into certain fields (such as radiology) due in part to fear that it isn't a long term career. This is driving up radiology pay as the demand is outpacing the incoming supply.

While I ultimately believe that most things are going to get automated, I do agree that in the short to medium term were going to see AI augmenting medical professionals rather than replacing them. This is just the natural progression of things- the technology can start off with the low hanging fruit and gradually take on more and more of the work. This provides immediate benefit while building funding and knowledge that can be used to take the next big step.

<comment><USER2> I agree with you. But what I'm saying is that this has societal impacts that we actually have to consider. A job's description drastically changing within a short period of time (i.e. a small portion of someone's career) is extremely disruptive. We should be having conversations with how we as a society are going to deal with these issues. (I don't think we should stop the march of progress. I don't think we even can -- short of a nuclear war)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The elephant in the room with doctors is that there are many countries where the supply is constrained by some sort of guild system and only very clever people do well.

If AI can lower the bar to the point where Ned the Nitwit can type in the symptoms, read the screen and get a reasonable diagnosis then 'doctors' are going to be a completely different class of people even if they share the same title.

<comment><USER8> There are a lot of current doctor work which involves. "Any issues with the medication your on, ok, can I see your bloodwork, no red values, here is your prescription."

<comment><USER9> Which really should be the job of a nurse or physician's assistant. Doctors should be reserved for the cases that requires the ~10 years of training they receive.

Most people probably only need a yearly-visit to the physician's assistant or a nurse for bloodworks. There shouldn't be a need to see an actual doctor on a regular basis (unless you have some chronic ailment that nurses / physician assistants can't handle).

\</comment></comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>

The prescription is probably the only part of that routine that requires a doctor.

<comment><USER10> Might be some sort of liability aspect to this, where the doctor has to certify in case something goes wrong. Do nurses/PAs have to carry malpractice insurance? Not super clear on this myself.

<comment><USER11> Nurse Practitioners can be sued for malpractice, but despite practicing independently they are held to a significantly lower standard of care.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> One boring truth is that so far the most notable universal and true advance AI has made in medicine (at least in the US) is in NLP with dragon dictate.

<comment><USER13> What do you think of m*modal? (If you've heard of them)

<comment><USER12> I have not heard of them but from reading their website looks like using AI to help charting efficiency and to squeeze more blood out of the turnip so to speak by making sure you get all those HCCs. This is the direction I've thought AI in medicine will go for a while: speech to text, suggested diagnosis and then suggested treatment plans. When you can get a HIPAA compliant way to record what the pt is saying and write the note (an AI scribe, so to speak), that is where I think it will start.

How is m*modal, have you used it?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> If people and especially doctors were serious about improving healthcare, they should strive to build reliable data collection means. That's the prerequisite to efficient 'AI', and would be a far better use of funding than all the present half-baked 'improvements' and star-system research. We could really do science, then. A man can dream...

<comment><USER15> There is a lot of data collection. With everyone using EMRs massive datasets are available. They just aren't available to people outside the walled gardens for PHI/privacy reasons.

At Kaiser Permanente, I regularly train models on 10s/100s M patient/dr encounters. Our transformer language models are fine tuned on multi-billion word corpuses. Some of our models do real time inference on millions of patient notes per month.

The thing is, from data governance standpoint our org, and most other health orgs, just aren't comfortable sharing this data with outside businesses or even each other. And of course orgs like KP strongly don't believe in licensing internally developed products to other health orgs.

<comment><USER14> I personally generate several Gbs of healthcare data per day.

I know we generate a lot of data. I also know it's data that's so unreliable that its business value does not lie in its real-world use for improving healthcare pathways. It's very valuable politically and from a managerial standpoint, though. Unfortunately.

<comment><USER15> I mean it depends. There is a lot of fairly reliable discrete data in medicine: medications/labs/imaging studies/procedures/flowsheet/etc. ICD10 diagnoses are discrete and fairly reliable. The progress notes have lots of copy/paste/smart-phrase/macro-generated trash, but at least Epic saves a lot of rtf markup about the source of the text data. I am pretty optimistic about data quality, it is availability to 3rd parties that I think is limiting the AI boom.

<comment><USER14> I remain unconvinced, but let's hope you're right.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> If an AI assisted doctor is 125% more efficient than a non assisted doctor, you only only need 80 doctors where you'd otherwise need 100. That's 20 doctors that have effectively been replaced

Then consider the amount of not-doctor roles in medicine which can be automated/assisted

<comment><USER17> Your looking at it wrong.

A doctor's appointment schedule is crazy busy, with "LONG" appointments being under 20min per patient. Imagine a scenario where a doctor is able to spend time with the patient/their medical history etc.

I spend a lot of time going to doctors appointments these days, and a large number of the doctors that I see, now have an assistant/transcriptionist in the room to manage the EMR/charting app, because that enables them to focus on the patient.

<comment><USER4> I've never understood this argument. Right now we have decided implicitly as a society we're fine with the current level of care. If we can provide that same level of care cheaper, what makes you think health care providers will decide to pass those savings onto patients in the form of more care for the same price?

<comment> Engineering-MD I would disagree with this statement. Every year, expectations rise, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to meet these expectations. Furthermore, I think expectations are tempered by the knowledge that staff are over worked and time is limited. It is infeasible to practice medicine the way it us taught in medical school in practice due to time constraints. And like everything else, the work tends to fit the time available.

<comment><USER4> I hope very much you're right, and that as medicine gets cheaper we get more of it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Machines are inevitable.

The concept of sensing and learning from surroundings should survive.

Human's feed AI, AI should go interstellar.

But what we will have to make sure is are we feeding the AI the right things?

Nope, Tech giants, once built by nerds are now ruled by political criminal minds.

Without living in harmony there is no way AI will serve only good purpose.

If you are a developer, think thorough whom are you helping, why they need you. The code you write is a part of your brain. Have self righteous that code should be used for good and good only.

How will you guarantee that? you cant. Then don't innovate!.

Stop being the old school nerd boy and level up. Do not show off and gain attention unless you fully solve the problem.

Circle back to start. Question again and again how this will be used flawlessly. If it doesn't its not worth sharing knowledge. Share morals.

</comment><comment><USER19> It'd be a pretty good thing if AI replaced (most) doctors, actually. Not for the doctors or the insurance companies, but for most everyone else.

</comment><comment><USER20> AI is not here for doctors but for insurance companies, to charge you more if risky group is detected. There is the money and far lower risks than "helping doctors". I am glad I have forseen this step into distopia and never shared any of my data with any online bussiness (lineage, xprivacy and netguard help here).

</comment><comment><USER21> ...yet. Maybe it will be 100 years in the future, but I think there's a good chance of it.

</comment><comment><USER22> The fact that I could see a doctor today, see a different doctor tomorrow, give them different scenarios and both will think of it as the truth is a bigger problem that needs to be solved</comment>


Freelancing and Lifestyle Design - <AUTHOR> http://bucketlistjournal.com/post/50175681785/freelancing-and-lifestyle-design <comment><USER2> I've been freelancing since 1997. It has its perks, for sure, but it's not simply "become a freelancer, work two hours a day, fulfill all your dreams!" That's as much of a stereotype as "become a freelancer, work in your underwear, never take a shower!"

Making a good income as a freelancer requires work. And clients. And paying attention to clients' needs. And spending much more time organizing your financial and business life. And dealing with work/life boundary issues. It's something I like to refer as a "job."

And he's certainly not "retired," as he seems to claim, if he's paying the bills freelancing. It kind of sounds like he's decided to take a major income hit in order to have more lifestyle freedom (aided by living in a place with lower costs of living). Which is totally fine! Especially when you're young. But that's a major trade-off, and not one that should be taken lightly.

<comment><AUTHOR> I have actually written about the pros and cons of freelancing in a previous post, showing that it's not all rosy: bucketlistjournal.com/post/46601822485/pros-and-cons-of-freelancing

(and P.S. - I personally did not relocate, so my living expenses are still high)

<comment><USER2> You seem like a good guy and I agree that balancing work and lifestyle is crucially important -- especially in an industry like ours that tends to like to grind people into the ground with mirages of fame and fortune. [Edit: Mixed metaphor. Sorry.]

But. You come off as someone who has just barely started thinking about these issues. You're being wildly overly simplistic about how freelancing works in real life. And using the skydiving billboard as a trigger makes it sound like "living your dreams" means doing extreme sports and hanging out on the beach. Which is fine, but kind of shallow and definitely not the end-all be-all of a well-lived life.

<comment><USER3> I didn't get that sense at all. What I took away from the post was a) in sad of packing your days with work now so you can do the things you want in 20-40 years, structure your life so you can do those things now and b) freelancing could be an option (but its not easy).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> _In one of my upcoming posts, I'll be giving concrete tips on how to actually start freelancing and get paying customers._

This submission has zero content.

<comment><USER5> It gets better when you look at his "about" page. All his startups failed, yet he still thinks he has something interesting enough to say that he needs a blog to put all this amazing content he's going to write in the future.

Most people start with freelancing then move on to start ups when they get sick of playing client roulette. He went the other way around. There's probably an interesting story there, something way more compelling than rehashing Tim Ferriss and Ramit Sethi in the most schlocky way possible. But it doesn't look like he'd know how to tell it.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm actually not quitting the startup world. But I'll probably won't return to the same classic routine of working full-time until raising VC money and then hoping to get acquired. More in the realms of bootstrapping an online business with a concrete business model that grows slowly.

By the way, what didn't you like about the way I wrote my post(s)? I'm honestly interested in hearing your feedback, since this is my first blog.

<comment><USER5> Your blog posts need to actually say something. I've read 4HWW, nothing you've written has anything new to say about the subject of lifestyle design, even though his book came out 5 years ago.

But it could have. The main problem I've found in doing this global arbitrage thing is that freelancing is actually hard to do remotely. I mean, you could go on eLance and Mechanical Turk and do boring-ass work for annoying clients for pennies, those types of gigs are easy to get and do remotely. But to do actual serious work that way?

There's plenty to discuss on this topic, but you managed to avoid everything that's interesting about lifestyle design and then promise only the most uninteresting content later. "How to start freelancing and get paying customers" is not a worthy HN post. Most of us, if we freelance, have already been doing it for awhile.

You need to decide who you're writing your blog for. I wouldn't necessarily choose the HN audience, you might be better off serving the legions of kids just out of college who want something better than the choices they have in front of them. If you're going to target that audience, then target them, don't write generally and definitely don't self-submit to HN just to get eyeballs.

If you want to target us, then you'll need to bring a bit more substance to the table.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think he forgot to mention that you need to try the freelancing route when you have saved some $$$ buffer, for me it was about a year worth of free falling.

It is going to be bumpy and you need to have the peace of mind to focus on the present.

Moving to a foreign country to save money could be a good idea, but only if you would like to live abroad. If you do it only for the money your life will be miserable. Also the cost of leaving your local network behind might be very high

<comment><AUTHOR> I completely agree. I'll address specifically this issue in one of my future posts (on how to get started).

<comment><USER5> "Don't wait 40 years to book a skydiving lesson. Wait until you've managed to save a $20K rainy day fund."

</comment></comment></comment><comment> k-mcgrady Not really much content here. It's been a while since I've read the 4HWW but I'm pretty sure freelancing wouldn't fit in with LD. For example, it's pretty hard to make any money freelancing when you're not working. I thought the point of LD was to generate recurring income that will continue to generate even if you do nothing.

</comment><comment><USER7> I see some negative responses to this, and I understand what people are saying, i.e. that people here are already familiar with 4HWW concepts so this is nothing new.

However, there are many people out there who are familiar with these concepts, and want to act on them, but keep putting it off. So seeing this kind of thing hit the HN front page once in a while, because reading it again rekindles the idea in the minds of those who are interested, but haven't yet acted.

<comment><USER8> Several people apparently did have their interests piqued by the title before coming back here to say the post sucks. Is this a "silent majority" type argument? "No no no...the _other_ people..."

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is such depressing reading — it's all about "me" and doesn't give a damn for anybody else. I guess on a spiritual level this is why I hated the 4 Hour Work Week cult: It was all a sort of cult of being self centered. And on the flip side I think this is why I admire Bill Gates: Because he's taken the money he has and is actually trying to improve the world. There needs to be a bit more of that in the tech industry...

<comment><USER5> I don't understand this. When you work in technology, the very work you do is a contribution to the world. It's not like finance where 90% of the money is in scamming the less-savvy by trading on the big name of the company you work for to inflate the price of crap.

Even if it's just making websites, you're increasing the size of the pie, not just trying to take other's slices. So why place this heavy moral burden on success?

Bill Gates is certainly an admirable figure, but really in spite of his philanthropy and not because of it IMO. He advanced the state of the art and made markets where none before existed. The "developers first" culture he created made it possible for regular people to make real livings in software, bringing tech out of the nerd boondocks.

<comment><USER9> Software is just a tool and can be good or bad like any other tool: You can do something very positive like create a website that educates people on health issues and may save lives — but on the flip side maybe you're writing code to guide nuclear weapons.

But I'm not objecting to that: What I am objecting to is the sort of "me first" mindset that you see in that page. Granted I'm not saying that not everyone needs to be a saint, but you do need to be aware that there are other people out there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> You don't save for retirement to do fun things. You save so that you can live when you have no ability to work.</comment>


Masterless Consensus Algorithm - <AUTHOR> http://gridem.blogspot.com/2016/05/replicated-object-part-7-masterless.html <comment><USER2> I'd really like to hear what the community has to say, what the tradeoffs may be, etc.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'd be glad to hear too.

<comment><USER2> Not sure why this didn't make it to the frontpage. Consensus algorithms are so essential today...

@gridem, are you the author?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, I'm the author.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How could the Australian digital census be architected to work? - <AUTHOR> What ideas do you have for how to architect a digital census that succeeds?<p>I wonder if perhaps it might have worked better using editable Adobe PDF forms. <comment><USER2> As the Prime Minister said, it was load tested to handle 1M form submissions an hour. Which is all of Australia completing it in 24 hours. The problem is everyone did it at once, so we only have ourselves to blame.

But seriously, handling 23M form submissions in 1 hour, isn't too hard to do. The 2 major considerations are: 1. How fast can we make the app handle that submission, which honestly is probably just writing to a DB, 2. How many servers so we need to scale out to do the work. You could do this on AWS pretty well, there's much bigger customers on there doing much more load. I've personally seen apps on AWS doing a sustained 1M concurrent requests per minute with less than 10 servers.

The point is, out-sourcing government IT to Companies that are satisfied with meeting the bare minimum requirements without any logical discussion about the maximum requirements, results in CensusFail.</comment>


Dropping out of High School to Join a Startup in San Francisco - <AUTHOR> http://www.zolmeister.com/2014/01/dropping-out-of-high-school-to-join.html

<comment><USER2> I have read the entire article. Seems like he knows most of the basics. No need to go to a school to learn the same things again, he will be bored out of his mind.

Having said that, this guy is an aberration(in a positive sense), and for most of the 18year olds, to be inspired by this guy would be fatal mistake. Some people are born to do somethings, like this guy. Most are _not_ .

And _don 't_ think that SF is some holy place where magic happens. It is only mecca in the sense Hollywood is mecca for aspiring artists. For every one you see on screen, there are 100s languishing doing smaller roles, and even more trying hard to make ends meet. SF is terribly expensive place to live.

</comment><comment><USER3> Best of luck Zoli and thanks for sharing notes from your process.

</comment><comment><USER4> I hope this works out for the guy, but can't help feeling it is going to be a mistake.

<comment><USER5> If I had this opportunity even being a decade older than him I'd jump at it. This kid will be fine even if this one choice turns out poorly.

<comment><USER6> I agree. He's 18 - even if he spends a few years doing this and then decides to go to college later, it's no big deal. As he said in the article, some people go to college, then drop out. He just bypassed that :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "We don't hire people without a degree," is not a good sign.</comment>


Sony Tries to Disrupt Downloads of Its Stolen Files - <AUTHOR> http://recode.net/2014/12/10/sony-pictures-tries-to-disrupt-downloads-of-its-stolen-files/ <comment><USER2> I don't see how this isn't disallowed by AWS term of services and easily identified and disabled by Amazon.

Also I find this funny that the same company that used a rootkit to disallow burning of CDs and also found guilty of using unlicensed software is in the DDoS business.</comment>