Online 'Shaming' A New Level Of Cyberbullying For Girls - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/2013/01/07/168812354/online-shaming-a-new-level-of-cyberbullying-for-girls <comment><USER2> _At school, she was hoping that it wouldn't be too big of a deal, but even the principal knew about the video. He brought her to his office and called her mom.

"I couldn't even look at my mother because I felt hurt and I also felt that I disrespected her," she says. "I didn't want kids in the school to look at my mother and be like, 'Wow, she raised nothing.' "_

A big amplifying factor in these examples seems to be a society and an upbringing that cannot to deal with sexuality in a pragmatic manner, and instead prefers a "everybody's doing it, but nobody is talking about it publicly" approach.

If someone posts intimate pictures or videos of somebody else without their knowledge, it should be the poster that is shamed and that people disrespect for it -- after all he has violated an expectation of privacy and intimacy. Instead it is the victim that is made to feel bad for "being promiscuous".

<comment><USER3> > A big amplifying factor in these examples seems to be a society and an > upbringing that cannot to deal with sexuality in a pragmatic manner

Interesting to see if society can adapt

<comment><USER4> I have my doubts. A lot of the southern parts of the US have a lot of religious conservatives. I don't see that changing very quickly.

<comment><USER5> Remember the Puritans settled in the North. In any case wherever this originates, the US's puritanical tendencies (compared to continental Europe) don't seem to be exclusively a southern thing.

<comment><USER6> I'm curious, does this kind of thing happen in Europe?

<comment><USER5> No idea, but they sure tolerate nudity and sexuality more. The original issue is more of a bullying one though...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I've seen a few other comments to the effect that if US society weren't so prudish about sex, incidents like this wouldn't be so bad. I do not agree. These situations are not about sexual imagery, its about people using that imagery and media to engage in harassment campaigns against others. This harassment is highly misogynist and often is focused on the girl in the photo/video rather than the person who is maliciously spreading that media, even if person doing the spreading appears in said media itself.

Fixing this situation requires many things, but at a minimum school administrators needs clear anti-harassment policies that are enforced against people who are spreading this media as a form of harassment. Sex education that focuses on consent and explores issues of patriarchy and rape culture in the US in addition to basic biology and mechanics of sex is also needed.

Of course, this is a long running issue in US society, so nothing will happen overnight, but we must demand that institutions we trust with the education and oversight of young folks be a force for defeating harassment and sexism.

<comment><USER8> If the girl is under age the photo and video are child pormography and evidence of statutory rape.

Many states also require consent of both parties for a recording or it is illegal wire tapping.

Why aren't these criminal acts being prosecuted?

<comment><USER9> Because ALL of the people in these videos are normally underage.

Who exactly do you propose we prosecute? And for what? This is a hard problem with no easy solutions. Principals all across the nation have been struggling with it, its just not as simple as people like to make it out to be.

<comment><USER8> I would prosecute the people who posses and distribute the child pornography - not the victims who are in exploitive pictures and videos.

<comment><USER9> You're misunderstanding how this normally develops.

I'll give you an example. Let's take the common version. Don't worry, I'll make it short:

Two 15 year old girls hang out one weekend and decide to take sexy pictures of each other. They share the photos with a few other trusted girl friends over time. Everything's ok, so far. Two months later, the girls are now "enemies". Or some girl in that small peer group, (clique), falls out with some other girl, you get the idea. One of them forwards pictures to a larger social group for the purpose of demeaning the girl or maybe demeaning multiple girls. BAM. Disaster. Photos are being forwarded everywhere. Parents are calling. Fights are breaking out in the halls, because maybe someone's brother is a hot-head. etc.

Now... who exactly do you prosecute for "distributing child pornography". The girl who was victimized by the bullying right? She was the one who INITIALLY forwarded the images. Do you see the problem school administrators face?

<comment><USER8> You are right; as the school administrator I am not going to wade into that he said/she said mess.

But I would call the DA and tell them there is a child porn "ring" in the school. Have them come in, subpoena phone records, and have a police detective read their rights and interview everyone involved. You probably only have to do that every 3 or 4 years to keep a lid on it.

<comment><USER10> So instead of one teenager who is embarrassed and emotionally disturbed, you'll have dozens who will go through life as registered sex offenders, constantly harassed by idiots who think they are child molesters, cut off from certain jobs, barred from living in certain neighborhoods, marked with the scarlet letter for something stupid they did when they were kids.

Did the police help solve our drug problems? No, in fact, they made society worse than it had been when drugs were legal; now we have teams of soldiers serving search and arrest warrants, all in the name of prosecuting drug offenses. Do you really want to bring that sort of chaos and mayhem into our nation's middle and high schools? Schools already have many of the characteristics of prisons; let's not make that any worse.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Teenage boys boast about their sexual exploits (with photos, on the internet, because it's 2012). Teenage girls are incredibly cruel to one another.

Media reports it because it fits an existing narrative about "technology and culture."

Back when I was in high school, it didn't take pictures on the internet to ruin a girl's reputation. All it took was some boasting followed by a lot of gossip. It sounds like the "technology" aspect of this is that the standards of evidence have gone up for a boy to defend his boast.

<comment><USER12> _Teenage boys boast about their sexual exploits (with photos, on the internet, because it's 2012). Teenage girls are incredibly cruel to one another._

Exactly; and this is not news, it's been going on for as long as there have been people.

The article doesn't even talk about the real lesson here: be careful who you trust. If you can't trust someone not to secretly record you having sex and then posting the video on Facebook, then you shouldn't be having sex with them. The lesson has always been the same, and there have always been people who don't learn it until it's too late.

Edit: I should make clear that I am not trying to exonerate the teenage boys; quite the contrary. To allow someone to make an explicit video of you without your knowledge and post it on Facebook is naive; but to make and post the video is malicious and cruel. The girls need to be reminded of the lesson; but the boys need to be shamed and punished.

<comment><USER13> > The article doesn't even talk about the real lesson here: be careful who you > trust. If you can't trust someone not to secretly record you having sex and > then posting the video on Facebook, then you shouldn't be having sex with > them. The lesson has always been the same, and there have always been people > who don't learn it until it's too late.

This is nice in theory, but no one really knows who to trust - adults and teenagers alike. Additionally, girls are often guilt-tripped into sending these types of photos lest they want to be told they don't really "care" about the person. I've been hit with that one a few times, even by guys that were otherwise very respectful. There's also the "come on, everyone does it" pitch, which is true, but doesn't mean anything when push comes to shove.

<comment><USER14> Girls (and boys) are often manipulated into acting foolishly. To generalize the above lesson, be careful how you allow your behavior to be influenced. Be careful how much power you give others over you.

(Note that this doesn't absolve others of wrongdoing -- it's just an observation of a way people can protect themselves from victimization.)

<comment><USER12> _Be careful how much power you give others over you._

This is as good a short, one-sentence statement of the general rule as I've seen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> From the comments on npr: _Where is the "and then the boys were arrested for illegal wiretapping and dissemination of child pornography" part of the story? "After their convictions, their friends didn't think it was so funny, and the boys didn't hold their heads up when they had to register as a sex offender" would stop this from happening quick._

Could you see some measures being enforced to minors?

<comment><USER8> Exactly, why is the principal of the school calling the _girls_ mother? He should be cooperating with the DA in bringing a host of felonies against the boys; and then letting everyone know how a felony will affect their lives.

<comment><USER15> Why should the principal be involved in an action that didn't take place on school grounds?

<comment><USER8> It sounds like the possession and distribution of child pornography took place on school grounds. I would call the boys parents after I called the police.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Heard this on NPR last night on the commute home. The piece is a powerful and very coherent analogy relating modern "slut shaming" to the classic The Scarlet Letter.

It's heartbreaking to hear about kids making bad decisions in an effort to fit in, but it's even worse to think that these mistakes can follow them forever due to the nature of digital content.

I couldn't believe how cruel even the girls were to young women that were victimized. Some of them were quoted as saying it wasn't even the guys' fault, that we can't help it. That's so offensive to me on so many levels.

<comment><USER12> _The piece is a powerful and very coherent analogy relating modern "slut shaming" to the classic The Scarlet Letter._

I'm not sure this comparison holds. AFAIK the girl in question in this case was not cheating on anyone; she simply made a bad choice of which boy to have sex with. Hester Prynne committed adultery (and with a minister to boot), and it was the adultery that got her the scarlet letter. Not at all the same thing.

<comment><USER16> Wow, I really want to ad hom here because you obviously didn't read the article or listen to the original (and excellent) WNYC Radio Rookie piece, but I'll resist.

This isn't about _a_ girl or _a_ case. It's about many girls (and boys) and how public "slut shaming" in the modern age affects their lives. Yes, Hester was forced to wear a scarlet "A" as her public shaming. But in today's world the scarlet letter is a digital record that follows you, potentially for the rest of your life because of a bad choice as a teenager.

Can you now understand Temitayo Fagbenle's allusion?

<comment><USER12> Ok, s/girl/girls/ and s/case/cases/ in my post. How does that change the point? AFAIK, all of the girls involved did not cheat on anyone. Hester Prynne did. My point is that the "scarlet letter" analogy is unfair to the _girls_ , because it implies that they have done something worse than just make a bad choice of who to trust.

<comment><USER16> They're both about public shaming for sex acts.

<comment><USER12> Yes, I understand the obvious comparison. I'm trying to point out that the obvious comparison has flaws that, IMO, bear some thinking about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Facebook needs to get involved in policing this sort of thing. They're not a neutral medium here--they make a lot of money selling 13-18 year old eyeballs to advertisers, and given the unique nature of the demographic (below the age of majority) I think they bear a certain responsibility in how these kids abuse their service.

<comment><USER18> What exactly should facebook police? Morality? Ethics? What if some group of friends always ragged on each other and got tripped up in this policing?

I don't necessarily agree that Facebook should be the responsible party. That really should fall under society and parents/children. A company isn't going to be able to enforce politeness or dissuade bullies from bullying. This is another aspect of the human condition. And if it is one we as a society of humans want to change, we need to do that. Facebook isn't the responsible party here in my humble opinion.

<comment><USER19> > _"What exactly should facebook police? Morality? Ethics?"_

You're suggesting a slippery slope where there is none. The authenticity of bullying is easy to verify because there is at least one party able to testify to its undesiredness. We're not talking about policing morality, we're talking about behavior that, in the vast majority of cases, is quite unambiguous.

> _"That really should fall under society and parents/children"_

There's a false dichotomy here. While we can expect and hope that people are self-policing of their children and peers, there is room for additional governance. Why can't we have both? After all, if you ran a convenience store and noticed that bullies were beating up kids outside and using their lunch money to buy goods at your business, why _wouldn't_ it fall upon you, where it occurs, to stop the behavior?

Nobody says Facebook has to become the grand authority on cyberbullying, but it is within their capability - and IMO there is at least a _slight_ tinge of moral responsibility - to put a substantial dent in the problem.

<comment><USER20> > The authenticity of bullying is easy to verify because there is at least one > party able to testify to its undesiredness.

And that one party ought to be able to unilaterally force me to take down content?

I understand that this is ok if I'm making a facebook page mocking a 13 year old girl, but what if I'm making a site that parodies a company, or a CEO, or a politician, or Justin Bieber?

This slope is indeed slippery as all fuck.

<comment><USER17> It's not a slippery slope, because there is a categorical distinction between people below and above the age of majority.

<comment><USER20> So no parodies of Justin Bieber, gotcha.

<comment><USER19> Despite his fame, Bieber _is_ a minor who probably suffers from many of the same problems we all did at his age. If he is being bullied to the point where he is compelled to challenge it on Facebook, I have no problem curbing it.

I do not believe our basic treatment of children should change just because they're famous. Fame is, after all, not a cure for bullying.

<comment><USER20> How do you make the legal distinction between bullying and parodies?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Anyone who heard the audio of this piece found out that the boy interviewed toward the end is a special kind of bad. Technology amplifies but this kid definitely has a problem.

<comment> brown9-2 For anyone who doesn't have the time to listen - the author interviews a boy in her school who had emailed a half-naked picture of his girlfriend to his friends, and the photo had then spread around the entire school. The author asks the boy "Did she transfer out of the school after this?" and he responds "No, she stayed and continued to be the same smut/smitty/skipscapscalleywag/whore she was". The author then asks "Did you intend it to be malicious?" and he responds with no hint of remorse "I guess I thought it would be cool or something".

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> This is an extremely difficult problem, and it goes a lot deeper than "prosecute teh boys!!".

They're able to shame sluts because _we_ shame sluts, as a culture. The roots of it are way social and way deep.

The actual thing that's happening, though, is frightening and damned-near unfightable.

It's classic and shitty adolescent behavior through a nation-wide megaphone.

We have to prevent kids from using hard drugs because it's literally not possible for them to adequately weigh the trade-offs and make an informed decision.

I'd say that posing in a picture smiling next to a penis (like a girl did in this story) is a similar problem. They are not equipped to make that decision.

As a parent of a daughter, it's terrifying to think that this decision might ever be one that's hers to make. I'd like to think she'd never do it, but it's not even a decision that will be made like you or I would make it.

Children don't think like adults. That's why we protect them. Apples go in and stupid square oranges come out. As much as possible, they should avoid the position, and as much as possible, we should avoid the consequences having to follow them for a lifetime.

<comment><USER7> I agree with you about a culture of slut shaming in the US, but I don't agree with the idea of protecting young folks for their own sexuality. The issue here isn't that young people have or enjoy sex, but rather about a culture that promotes harassment against women for being sexual and uses that as a way to keep those women invisible.

<comment><USER22> consciously posing in a photo next to a penis for posterity (which is, after all, what a photo is) has consequences that extend _far_ beyond your sexuality. This isn't about getting sheepish about teen sex, it's about long- term destructive decisions that aren't even necessary for pleasure.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> _Extracts from messages below:

"The author asks the boy "Did she transfer out of the school after this?" and he responds "No, she stayed and continued to be the same smut/smitty/skipscapscalleywag/whore she was". The author then asks "Did you intend it to be malicious?" and he responds with no hint of remorse "I guess I thought it would be cool or something".

From the comments on npr: Where is the "and then the boys were arrested for illegal wiretapping and dissemination of child pornography" part of the story? "After their convictions, their friends didn't think it was so funny, and the boys didn't hold their heads up when they had to register as a sex offender" would stop this from happening quick._

To sum that up : What will be the consequences for the guy who leaked the video? None. So why exactly do you expect a different behaviour ??

Make sure the consequence will be harsh and horrible and maybe the video won't be leaked but protected and well guarded, ie incentivize

TDLR: if you want to fix a problem, expose people to the consequences of their acts.

<comment><USER10> "TDLR: if you want to fix a problem, expose people to the consequences of their acts."

I think you missed the past century:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_prohibition>

<comment><USER23> Just try to picture what the situation would be without it. And the sentences doesn't seem quite harsh.

OTOH, look at what Singapore did - it seems to have fixed their problem. The "mixed message" in the west about not prosecuting casual users in some place is certainly also not helping.

(and I'm saying that as someone who believe there is no point in restricting what someone may or may not inject in its own body, but if one was seriously against drugs, the current situation would seem like a feeble response to a real threat)

<comment><USER10> "Just try to picture what the situation would be without it"

It is not hard to picture, because drug prohibition began a century ago in the USA. Back when drugs were legal here, things like the Industrial Revolution happened. Society was not some kind of pit of despair when drugs were legal; we had problems, sure, but we still have problems today and the drug war has not solved any of the problems we had previously (but it did introduce many of the current ones).

"the sentences doesn't seem quite harsh"

Jail time is a harsh sentence. America is so far to the right these days that we tend to think that putting someone in prison for "only" five years is not harsh.

It is not just about the sentencing. Right now, we have tens of thousands of paramilitary raids on civilian homes each year; property is damaged, dogs are shot, and people are killed. These raids are not reserved for the most dangerous criminals; they are routinely used to serve search and arrest warrants against people who are either unarmed or only lightly armed. Many thousands of innocent bystanders have been killed by the paramilitary teams that carry out these raids, as have many thousands of innocent people whose homes were incorrectly targeted.

Worse still, the very paramilitary forces that carry out these raids are allowed to keep the proceeds from the sales of property seized in the course of their duties for their own department budget. Some police forces have become "self funded" as a result. It is a case-study in slippery slopes.

This has not helped to solve our drug problems. Not only are people still using drugs, but the drugs they are using are causing unnecessary harm. Methamphetamine is not necessarily a destructive drug; it actually has medical uses (as a treatment for narcolepsy, ADHD, and for appetite control), and is sold by the pharmaceutical industry under the name Desoxyn. Yet people who want to use this drug recreationally cannot buy it legally (it is a felony to transfer it to someone who lacks a prescription and a felony to prescribe it unnecessarily) and wind up buying it from black-market sources, receiving a product that was produced under poorly controlled circumstances and which is frequently adulterated with the byproducts and waste from the production process (these cause far more harm than the drug itself; it is these adulterants that give methamphetamine abusers their "sickly" look). Likewise with opiates: heroine is often "cut" in ways that are poorly controlled, and on at least one occasion a black-market opiate dealer sold MPTP, a drug that permanently induces Parkinson's disease, after failing to properly manufacture the opiate MPPP.

So if someone were not on some moral crusade and actually wanted to address the problems society has with drugs -- someone like me -- they would support a complete repeal of the war on drugs and an entirely different approach. We manage to produce and distribute alcohol in a regulated manner. We don't need to throw people in prison, we just need to ensure that people don't kill themselves or anyone else and that if a person needs help, they can get it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Some teenagers these days are complete idiots, especially _boys_ , in how they treat their fellow female colleagues/partners.

They think they look cool by hurting the girl's reputation and her feelings in this horrible way, but in fact they bring to light their real character/intentions and this should give a BIG WARNING to anyone who interacts with such fools to depart from them and distrust them.

On the same par, another tragedy in the story is that there are _other retarded cretins_ like this that support such disrespectful acts, which makes me really angry and sad about the character of some of the young people of today's society.

</comment><comment><USER25> There's still often a culture where guys can sleep around, brag it out and the female party gets the stick for it, it's just become accelerated by technology and the fact it's always going to be there, pretty much as long as its ever referenced anywhere.

There's no technology solution that's easy, and no solution in tackling social motivations either. It's one of those seemingly intractable problems.

</comment><comment><USER26> This has been going on for as long as high school has existed. Hell even way before that. The only difference is social media has amplified it. When I was in highschool it wasn't naked pictures being posted or anything like that, but more just gossip by a guy saying he had sex with some girl or a girl saying a dude has a small dick. etc. People are shitty to one another. Social media helps their shitiness get broadcast in new and exciting ways.

</comment><comment><USER27> Racist comments, comments about skin, color, weight as well as nationality amounts to bullying and these bullies are nothing but psychos who need medical help. At home, I use a free app called Qustodio to monitor who my girl talks to on facebook as the app allows me to watch the profile pictures of accounts she interacts with. My way of ensuring that she stays safe. Just Google for it.

</comment><comment><USER28> To call it Cyberbullying is to weaken it.

Its the production of pornography by a minor, which is probably illegal. Its using Facebook against its terms of use which should result in a ban. Plus anybody liking or commenting on something which is banned should also receive a temporary ban from Facebook.

Not really a problem is the rules are enforced.

</comment><comment><USER29> The proper solution is to involve the police when someone posts such pictures of underage children on the internet.

<comment><USER30> What if that someone is the underage child themselves? There are several instances of children being arrested and charged with CP for sending their own pictures to each other.

IMO, the proper solution is to involve _both_ sets of parents.

<comment><USER31> Well that makes it harder on the cops and the DA - and in the end your elected officials.

But it's not society's job to make things easy for the Cops/DA/Lawmakers (It's really sorta vice versa.)

When serious crimes are committed they should be prosecuted not swept under the rug.

(In other words: do I think throwing kids in Juvie for publishing child porn on the internet is the right call? Yes. )

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Is this just a united statues problem, or in other countries of the world is it not ok for women to have sex? I want to blame religion, but I doubt that's the entire reason ...

<comment><USER33> You are looking for trivial answers. I doubt if there is one.

<comment><USER32> hmm, I suppose the people that think I have no value to add to this discussion are focusing on that jab at religion.

But to clarify, I'm not looking for "the answer" and my question still stands unanswered: what is the socially accepted view of women's sexuality in other cultures?

My only experience is with the US where there is a huge demarcation, generally based on the gender of the belief holder, and generally advertisements etc are weighted towards a masculine point of view for women's role.

Perhaps it would help to explain I've never taken any "gender studies" classes or similar, so this is a question of mere curiosity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I think one issue is that if in these situations, the guy is high-fived, and the girl is shamed. Why can't they both be high-fived? Sex-negative culture SUCKS.

</comment><comment><USER35> _At school, she was hoping that it wouldn't be too big of a deal, but even the principal knew about the video. He brought her to his office and called her mom._

So the principal was involved in the slut shaming? Some activist group needs to sue this principal to show the world that this isn't the correct approach to handle this type of situation. Her mother should not have been brought in.

The correct thing to do is to arrest the boy for creating and distributing child pornography and leaving the girl hell alone.</comment>


Graceful stopping in Go - <AUTHOR> http://rcrowley.org/articles/golang-graceful-stop.html

<comment><USER2> Not so graceful stopping in Go:

      panic()

:)

</comment><comment><USER3> Doesn't Go end when both players pass consecutively:-?</comment>


Find out who your friends are following that you are not (on twitter). - <AUTHOR> http://duckduckgo.com/twitter-follow-diff.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Follow @duckduckgo then tweet '@duckduckgo diff' or '@duckduckgo diff -popular', which does something like...

diff friends friends/friends | sort | uniq -c | sort -n

I looked for this functionaliry last night (<http://twitter.com/yegg/status/2259409150>) and again this morning, but didn't find exactly what I wanted. So I hacked it together myself!

Updated: you need to follow @duckduckgo for it to work (so I can send you a DM).

<comment><USER2> Cool, though I must say your option naming bugs me. a flag like "-popular" suggests adding/using "popular", not removing it. An irrelevant nitpick, but I was compelled ;)

<comment><AUTHOR> Np. I was thinking -popular as in "minus popular."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I wrote a quick Ruby script awhile back which provides the same function (without having to follow @duckduckgo):

[http://blog.jerodsanto.net/2009/05/expand-your-twitter- netwo...](http://blog.jerodsanto.net/2009/05/expand-your-twitter-network-in- less-than-15-lines-of-ruby/)

<comment><USER4> It's still faster for me to follow @duckduckgo, DM, and then unfollow.

<comment><USER4> Turns out my results were pretty disappointing. Sigh. I guess my extended network is just not that interesting.

<comment><AUTHOR> Did you try -popular and -popular -15 ?

<comment><USER4> I already unfollowed. I'm not willing to try it multiple times. I am not an earlyvangelist.

I could be persuaded if emailed a personal apology from the founder.

<comment><USER5> apology for what?

He's providing a free service that you tried and didn't like.

<comment><USER4> I'm a customer, a potential user of duck duck go; he didn't build it out of charity. By making it TERRIBLE, he is alienating me. He also wasted my time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I want to know about friends I may have missed.

Specifically: Friends of mine's friends who are following me and I'm not following them back. (Defining "friend" as a reciprocal follow relationship)

<comment><AUTHOR> Here's the first 25 (email me if you want the rest): @JasonCalacanis @kevinmarks @Scobleizer @loic @tonysphere @MParekh @brianoberkirch @dangillmor @steverubel @rafer @bijan @seth @LindaStone @iankennedy @DonMacAskill @VCMike @louisgray @Chad_Hurley @mathewi @austinhill @m2jr @vanderwal @fromedome @dburka @rklau

<comment><USER6> Exactly what I wanted.

I don't recognize a few names, but those I do recognize are all people I know. Absurdly accurate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I was another person looking for this feature: <https://twitter.com/pswam/status/1661113057>

I have been playing around with what Gabriel built, it's interesting, here are some of the queries I tried:

\- @duckduckgo diff

\- @duckduckgo diff -popular

\- @duckduckgo diff -25

\- @duckduckgo diff -popular -10

</comment><comment><USER8> The last time this type of thing came up (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=606801>) I decided to use it to help me learn some shell scripting:

        join <(twidge lsfollowing | sort) <(twidge lsfollowers | sort) -v 1

I tried using diff and reducing the sorts but couldn't make it clean. I am a beginner. Any suggestions?

</comment><comment><USER9> Why would a search engine do this as part of the same brand/domain?

Can somebody tell me how this is related to the search engine?

<comment><USER7> Quick q: Have you heard of duckduckgo before this post?</comment></comment>


What happened to US life expectancy? - <AUTHOR> http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/chart-what-happened-to-us-life-expectancy/ <comment><USER2> Ask and ye shall receive!

Answer: Americans engage in more risky behavior than other OECD members (driving, we also drive worse than some OECD members, etc):

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/11/23/the- myt...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/11/23/the-myth-of- americans-poor-life-expectancy/)

[http://b-i.forbesimg.com/theapothecary/files/2013/11/Nationa...](http://b-i.forbesimg.com/theapothecary/files/2013/11/National- Life-Expectancy12.png)

<comment><USER3> It's funny how oblivious Americans are to the dangers of driving. This despite generally knowing people who have been badly injured or killed in vehicular accidents.

Car exhaust is also a big deal. Air pollution kills.

Instead of talking about the very concretely understood dangers of car culture, people want to spout total nonsense about sugar or freak out about a little second hand smoke.

<comment><USER2> Hell is other people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Another big difference in the American way of life is that, in most cities, we've managed to engineer a wholly car-dependent transportation system, such that the average American walks half as much people in other countries: [http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/the-pedometer- test-...](http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/the-pedometer-test- americans-take-fewer-steps/?_r=0)

All that driving also puts the average American at huge risk for dying young in a car crash.

<comment><USER5> Especially as US driving tests are anecdotally much easier than tests in other developed countries. [1]

[1] [http://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2013/oct/11/brita...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2013/oct/11/britain- make-its-driving-test-harder-18-curfew)

<comment><USER6> The proverbial two-edged sword there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I know it is hard to control for culture, but seeing as how mormon men are still American but have a 10 year gap in life expectancy over other American men [1], any analysis on the effects of health care across nations should at least try to control for cultural differences. That singular cultural difference is _twice the magnitude of the difference between the OECD and the US_. And when you realize that culture could be a far stronger predictor than health care quality/availability, you start wondering how much of that gap is due to us being fatasses.

[1] [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the- people/post/morm...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the- people/post/mormonism-good-for-the-body-as-well-as-the- soul/2012/06/20/gJQARk3IqV_blog.html)

<comment><USER8> Mormons typically fast one day a week, no? What other concrete examples of culture do Mormons manifest?

CORRECTION: It's actually one day a month.

<comment><USER9> No smoking, no drinking alcohol, coffee or tea (I think it may be caffeine). They also tend to have a stronger focus on homemade food (rather than pre- cooked/boxed/canned) and habits/hobbies that aren't dangerous.

In other words, all of the fun, yummy, or convenient, but terrible for you things that tend to be in our lives, they're not allowed to do.

<comment><USER10> A few others that come to mind not related to food/drinks:

* Absolutely no work on Sundays (not even checking work email)

* A strong social safety net. Mormons are expected to tithe (pay 10% of their income to the church), and this is used in part to provide for members in need. Extensive volunteering is also expected, and used for some of the same purposes (e.g. caring for elderly or disabled).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The U.S. is #1 in common cancer 5-year survival rates:

[http://b-i.forbesimg.com/theapothecary/files/2013/11/CONCORD...](http://b-i.forbesimg.com/theapothecary/files/2013/11/CONCORD- table12.jpg)

Further, remove fatal injuries from life expectancy data and U.S. is #1 in life expectancy. Source:

[http://b-i.forbesimg.com/theapothecary/files/2013/11/Nationa...](http://b-i.forbesimg.com/theapothecary/files/2013/11/National- Life-Expectancy12.png)

<comment><USER12> Spoilers: that chart ends in 1999.

<comment><USER13> This. Plus why would anyone want to remove fatal injuries from life expectancy? It certainly looks like a legit concern to me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The U.S. has greater income and healthcare inequality, and has a larger population of poor people living without access to reasonable medical care. The major impact of this on life-expectancy shows up in infant mortality rates, which is 6.14 per 1,000 versus 4 per 1,000 OECD average: [http://www.nbcnews.com/health/us-infant-mortality-rate- drops...](http://www.nbcnews.com/health/us-infant-mortality-rate-drops-only- little-2D11763970).

The graphs in the article showslife expectancy at birth, which is a number dominated by infant mortality rate. For life expectancy at age 65, the US is slightly above the OECD average. Comparable to Germany or Norway. See Page 19 of this PDF: [http://www.oecd- ilibrary.org/docserver/download/8109111ec004...](http://www.oecd- ilibrary.org/docserver/download/8109111ec004.pdf?expires=1389124518&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=D26C4DD088EA8D0A1A891658B6A8AAAD).

The other OECD countries started pulling away on infant mortality starting in the 1970's: [http://www.conferenceboard.ca/Files/hcp/health/health2012_in...](http://www.conferenceboard.ca/Files/hcp/health/health2012_infMort_tbl.png).

<comment><USER15> _...and has a larger population of poor people living without access to reasonable medical care._

This is unlikely to affect the stats. Giving poor people access to health care does not improve physical health in any measurable way. It does make them feel better, however.

[http://www.nber.org/oregon/](http://www.nber.org/oregon/)

<comment><USER14> It certainly does make a difference for infant mortality, which is alleviated with proper pre-natal and post-natal care: [http://www- personal.umich.edu/~baileymj/Bailey_Goodman-Bacon...](http://www- personal.umich.edu/~baileymj/Bailey_Goodman-Bacon.pdf) ("Improved access to medical care resulting from the desegregation of hospitals and the initiation and expansion of Medicaid significantly reduced infant mortality (Almond, Chay and Greenstone forthcoming; Goodman-Bacon 2013; Currie and Gruber 1996b). During the 1980s, acute neonatal care (neonatal intensive care units) helped less healthy infants survive. Improvements in access to medical care also reduced the mortality of older children, especially mortality due to common childhood diseases such as pneumonia and meningitis (11 percent of all childhood deaths). Medicaid coverage played an important role for poor children as it increased care for conditions easily treatable with antibiotics (Goodman- Bacon 2013, Currie and Gruber 1996a).").

Of the various public health concerns, infant mortality is one of those that are most directly addressable with medical care directed at the poor. Improved access to health services won't get a poor person to change his diet, but can be very effective in catching potential complications from pregnancy, treating infections in neonates, etc.

Also, the study you linked-to doesn't support the claim you're making ("Giving poor people access to health care does not improve physical health in any measurable way."). The study looked at just three physical health outcomes, after two years: blood pressure, cholesterol, and glycated hemoglobin (a measure related to blood sugar level control). These are lifestyle-related measures unlikely to be affected in merely two years.

Moreover, the study is inappropriately designed to test the conclusion you assert. First, it is based on giving a random sampling of people access to Medicaid ("In 2008, the state of Oregon drew names by lottery for its Medicaid program for low-income, uninsured adults."). But to address lifestyle diseases, you need to build a culture of intervention over a long period of time. You can't do this in just a few years targeting a few members of the community. Second, the study doesn't measure the impact of "access to health care" but rather access to Medicaid. The non-control group still received healthcare services, they just did so through the emergency room and by doctors' visits that went unpaid ("Medicaid decreased the probability of having an unpaid medical bill sent to a collection agency by 25 percent.").

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> While I'm sure the lack of medical access and quality of are major contributors, I think this OECD document on obesity and overweight rates are telling as well:

[http://www.oecd.org/health/49716427.pdf](http://www.oecd.org/health/49716427.pdf)

<comment><USER17> The sugar- and grain-rich diet that has been aggressively promoted by the USDA for decades is responsible for a large part of this. The "low fat" mantra resulted in a lot of "fat free" but sugar-laden and/or grain based foods being the primary component of many diets, resulting in epidemic obesity and diabetes.

<comment><USER18> The USDA marketed equally to everyone, yet we see a wide gap in growth in life expectancy shows wide disparities between the poor and wealthy[1]. The growth of life expectancy of those with money has kept up with the OECD growth, while the life expectancy of the poor has largely stagnated.

[1] [http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/economic- ineq...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/economic-inequality- contributing-to-gap-in-life- expectancy/2013/03/10/54b5d21c-89df-11e2-98d9-3012c1cd8d1e_graphic.html)

<comment><USER19> It's easy to imagine that the damage from following a poor diet is harder on those with lower levels of income and education.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The Amish present another interesting divergence from the general populace's life expectancy:

"[T]he Amish have had a 72-year life expectancy not only for the past few decades, as have most Americans, but for the last 300 years—since they settled in the United States in the 1700s, when most people living in America were dying in their 40s."

[http://gerontology.umaryland.edu/documents/Advances_in_Aging...](http://gerontology.umaryland.edu/documents/Advances_in_Aging_fall031.pdf)

<comment><USER21> Was there really a time when most Americans were dying in their 40s (as opposed to 40 being the life expectancy from birth, which is a _wildly_ different thing)?

<comment><USER20> I had no idea the two were different, so thanks for making that distinction. For anyone else's sake, I'll share what I learned:

Life expectancy from birth weights times of poor medicine and prenatal care towards the low end of the life expectancy scale because of much higher infant mortality rates, whereas in modern times life expectancy from birth would be weighted the opposite.

So basically, if you filter out infant mortality and other "first years of life" deaths, you get a more accurate picture of how long someone could actually expect to live if they make it past the initial thresholds to human existence.

At least that's what I've grasped thus far.

<comment><USER21> Yeah, the problem is basically that historically you're most likely to die either very young or fairly old, but averaging out the ages at which people die creates the opposite impression — that you're likely to die sometime in your late 30s to early 40s, which was never actually the case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I wonder if the non-US OECD life expectancy might -- for some decades prior to 1990 or so -- have been excessively depressed by a couple of years. There are two major reasons I can think of for this. The first is that for at least the first half of the 20th century the U.S. population on average was probably substantially wealthier than European counterparts (European countries make up a substantial part of the OECD). The second is that the civilian population of much of Europe suffered much more during World War II. This might have resulted in lingering effects on life expectancy that gradually disappeared over the ensuing decades.

<comment><USER23> that would explain convergence between U.S. and OECD, but it wouldn't explain a continuously widening gap going forward in favor of OECD vs US

<comment><USER22> I think that it might explain part of the divergence. There are a couple of obvious reasons that the U.S. might trail the OECD -- the greater number of deaths due to higher car accident rates and a higher murder rate, as well as a well known disparity in the life expectancies of Americans of primarily European descent and those of people of primarily African descent.

I'm still trying to figure out how to say this. I'm wondering if the "natural" life expectancy in the U.S. has always trailed the "natural" life expectancy of the rest of the OECD (judged collectively, anyway) but because of some systemic effects in Europe this natural disparity was offset for some decades. The effect might have been something that gradually faded, exposing the natural life expectancy differential.

I don't want to overstate things here -- there are some clear candidates for things that might have gone wrong with health in the United States in the last couple of decades that we want to look at. But I suspect this is not the only thing we're seeing in this data.

<comment><USER24> This sounds plausible, though there might be many factors playing into this. Most of Eastern Europe has probably experienced a massive increase in wealth and life expectancy after the Cold War, perfectly lining up with the graph diverging starting at 1990. If you travel around Poland or the Baltics these days, the difference is remarkable. On the other hand, Russia has experienced a massive decrease in life expectancy at the same time.

And stats like these here suggest that Western European states that presumably changed less after the wall came down drifted away from the US, too: [http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?v=30&c=fr&c=gm&c=uk&c=us&...](http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?v=30&c=fr&c=gm&c=uk&c=us&l=en)

Couldn't find graph-able stats that'd go back to the 90s or are totaled by Eastern Europe, sadly, but poking around here suggests that several Eastern European states experienced a significant increase in life expectancy between 1990 and 2000, three years for e.g. Slovakia.

<comment><USER22> I had completely forgotten about Eastern Europe and the end of the Cold War.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Undoubtedly has something to do with the fact that patients and doctors are not free to make the best decisions for personal care.

You can actually do better in that regard in a German-style nationalized healthcare system than an American-style quasi-national corruptocracy.

But there is only one way to guarantee it completely and in principle: separation of state and medicine, just as we have separate of state and church and should have separation of state and economics.

<comment><USER26> > just as we have separate of state and church and should have separation of > state and economics.

That's a nice series of words that doesn't really have coherent meaning: "politics" and "economics" are different names for essentially the same thing, the manner in which a society distributes power. You can't separate them -- state action is inherently economic.

<comment><USER25> That's simply not true. Under laissez-faire capitalism, the state is separated from economics except in that it must tax and spend to maintain a night- watchman state (military, courts, and police).

The only thing that state action inherently is, is coercive. (Though I'm not advocating anarchy; coersion can be moral.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> This bit struck home for me:

        Some have also suggested that unfavorable US
        performance is explained by higher risk of iatrogenic
        disease, drug toxicity, hospital-acquired infection,
        and a cultural preference to "do more," with a bias
        toward new technology, for which risks are understated
        and benefits are unknown.

I know some people who use both the US and the Israeli health systems to some degree, and one contrast I've heard is that Americans (patients as well as doctors) tend to prefer newer, less well-tested (because newer), and more expensive (because still patent-protected and brand-name) drugs _even when the new drugs have the same or worse performance_ than decades-old alternatives. I'm not sure if the health drawbacks of this approach are significant, but the economic ones are stupendous; the newer brand-name drugs can be ten times more expensive than the old ones.

</comment><comment><USER28> I would love to see a comparison graph from Canada.

The US and Canada are not the same country, but they're similar in a lot of ways. If Canada's graph shows the same drop, it'd be an indication that maybe the problem isn't with the US healthcare system, maybe it's something about culture/diet/environment/etc.

<comment><USER29> From my perspective as a child of the 70s in a province not on the US Canada has been flooded with US culture.

At worst in my childhood were maybe a McDonalds and a Dairy Queen. No cable TV and few other cultural influences.

Now we're fat, WalMart shopping, gun toting, rap music/urban culture, even dialects are more US sounding.

<comment><USER30> My childhood exposure of Canada was through the movie strange brew. Still a favorite of mine.

[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086373/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086373/)

I figured all Canadians were hosers who scarfed donuts and drank beer.

Then I watched Kids In the Hall and I figured they were mostly funny gay fellows.

Then I watched South Park . . .

<comment><USER31> South Park is the most honest portrayal of Canada in the media today.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> We lack basic access to __affordable __health care, we drive too much which causes more fatal accidents /injuries, we don't walk enough so we don't get enough exercise, and we eat highly processed foods. Pretty simple.

</comment><comment><USER33> Universally available public health care, or lack there of. Americans spend a disproportionate amount of their GDP on inflated (private) health care costs, and are therefore more reluctant to seek treatment before conditions become acute.

</comment><comment><USER34> "perhaps doing and eating what we want (to the extent we're making choices) is more valuable than lower mortality and morbidity"

It seems more systemic to me. I go to my supermarket and decide to eschew snacks like candy or potato chips for dried fruit or the like. But even the dried fruit has extra sugar added to it. I look at the vitamins and such on some yogurts and there is very little healthy about them. Normal dinner type foods are loaded with sodium, cholesterol, saturated fat etc. Even when one wants to be eat healthy, it can be a trial, because so much food is loaded with junk, even "healthy" type foods.

<comment><USER35> i don't agree with this, at least for people who can afford it or live in non- food desert areas (you didn't make the distinction in your assertion)

if you walk into a any grocery store, there's fresh/unprocessed meat, poultry, eggs, fish, vegetables, fruit everywhere. you don't need to buy anything that comes in a box or wrapped in plastic or has added sugar or salt or anything.

you don't need to eat anything beyond that selection to be healthy. whether or not you want to go through the trouble of preparing it is another matter.

<comment><USER36> What you say is true, but don't forget that most people have rudimentary at best cooking skills and haven't learnt how to use a shopping list.

Combine that with misleading labels and massive advertising budgets of ready meals and it's easy to understand how people fall into the trap.

<comment><USER37> Most people haven't learned how to use a shopping list? What people are you talking about exactly (emphasis, as I'd like to know who you're describing here)?

I grew up in poor Appalachia. Every single person I knew, understood perfectly well how to use a shopping list, and how to cook. I simply can't imagine who these people are that don't know such things, given my comparison group is in theory low on the education chart.

<comment><USER38> I rented a room from a woman who had her mother cook or she ate out. I had to show her how to turn on her own oven. She owned the house, had a beautiful kitchen (open, good appliances, lots of cupboard/prep space) but never used it. Her brother, also living in the house, was AMAZED when I would cook and make my own meals.

<comment><USER39> I recently noticed a third Subway in a town of less than 15,000 people. How many people do they have to serve to be breaking even? Times three.

It wasn't so long ago that the second one went in (and that was at least partly to capture foot traffic from the high school).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> It strikes me that "Life Expectancy at Birth" is the wrong measure. I suspect (and would like to see the stats) that the USA has a higher mortality rate below age 40 than other western countries but that it levels out after that.

But is life expectancy the end all and be all. At age 98 my aunt, who was of sound mind and body, was informed she'd probably live to be a 100. Her response? "Oh, God, I hope not." She lived to 102, aware and cognizant to the end.

<comment><USER13> >I suspect (and would like to see the stats) that the USA has a higher mortality rate below age 40 than other western countries but that it levels out after that

The USA has a lower than average life expectancy at age 65, and the life expectancy has also grown less than average for that group, according to the OECD[1]

EDIT: >But is life expectancy the end all and be all I agree there. The same document includes a "healthy life years at age 65" (only for European countries though), but it is arguably a much less objective measurement and hence less useful.

[1] [http://www.oecd- ilibrary.org/docserver/download/8111101ec066...](http://www.oecd- ilibrary.org/docserver/download/8111101ec066.pdf?expires=1389206996&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=8971B0DE70B924813D5691E2D119601C)

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> US needs to step up its effort to export lower life expectancy: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_cigarette_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_cigarette_consumption_per_capita)

</comment><comment><USER42> The scary thing is that if you break it down by income top earners are improving. Similar findings if you look at infant mortality rates.

"The life of a single person is worth more than all the money of the richest man on earth." \- Che Guevara

</comment><comment><USER43> food, pollution, poverty, war.. many aspects where US does "more" than others

<comment><USER44> All nice guesses but I don't suppose you have any data to support them?

Yes, war for examples, sounds logical, but how many Americans have died in wars in the past 30 years? 10,000? Does that really move the needle?

<comment><USER45> Word. And remember, the OECD isn't "The US, France, Germany, and the UK."

This link is (on table 2) the PPP adjusted incomes for each decile of the OECD countries: [http://www.oecd.org/site/piaac/Additional%20tables.xlsx](http://www.oecd.org/site/piaac/Additional%20tables.xlsx)

The US median 1st decile hourly earnings are $7.40. Austria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Poland, the Slovak republic, and Spain are all below there.

Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, and the UK are above there.

So I don't think that poverty is causing the US to underperform compared to the OECD mean or median.

<comment><USER46> I think a honest comparison should use something like the Big Mac index ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Mac_Index](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Mac_Index)), but for healthcare.

If one does that I bet that first decile American scores way lower on the number of hours he can afford to spend in a hospital per year, or on the number of days he has to work for a visit to the dentist.

On the other hand, I think he will be able to buy more over the counter medicines.

<comment><USER45> Well, it's possible that I'm misinterpreting the parent commenter, but I don't think it's a very strong or interesting statement to say, "I think that lower healthcare outcomes are due to worse healthcare."

I assumed that when dewiz listed "poverty" in a group of confounding variables like "war" or "pollution" (which, by the way, is another thing that the US is probably not particularly bad about) in explaining lower life expectancies, he wasn't trying to use "poverty" as a proxy for "low access to healthcare," so much as something that independently worsens healthcare outcomes even controlling for healthcare access.

(And, by the way, while I don't think that it explains the difference in life expectancies raised by the parent article, I do agree with dewiz that poverty almost certainly has a negative effect on healthcare outcomes, even if you perfectly control for access to healthcare.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I would be curious to see not just the median but the mean. The median isn't super informative in the sense that U.S. is much more heterogeneous / unequal than OECD

<comment><USER47> In the absence of high infant mortality, it isn't clear to me why median and mean for lifespan would diverge in any meaningful way. In the presence of high infant mortality, the mean would just be lower than the median: how would that be particularly informative?

<comment><USER23> Median and mean could and most likely do diverge because poor people live significantly shorter lives than rich/middle class people. Europe in general is more equal than the U.S.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> One might guess that around 1995, something happened to the US food supply. Maybe the big surge of GMOs (which didn't happen in Europe because they're banned)?

<comment><USER13> GMOs are not banned in Europe as a whole, but it looks like only Spain have a significant GMO output [1]. Coincidentally Spain has a nice life expectancy, so there doesn't seem to be an obvious correlation (one might argue that Spain might produce but not consume most of it GM crops, which I don't know).

[1] [http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/03/spain-leads-the-eu-in-gm- crop...](http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/03/spain-leads-the-eu-in-gm-crops-but-no- one-knows-where-they-are/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I also wonder if population density makes a difference. An ambulance should take less time to get to you in Manhattan than 80 miles outside of Houston.

</comment><comment><USER49> One question: Are the OECD averages weighted by population, or does each country get equal weight?

</comment><comment><USER50> If you tweaked the chart to show relative lifespan based on income, I wonder what you'd see?

</comment><comment><USER51> Corn subsidies and good marketing.</comment>


AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X and 1920X Review - <AUTHOR> http://www.anandtech.com/show/11697/the-amd-ryzen-threadripper-1950x-and-1920x-review <comment><USER2> More test:

* [http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-ryzen-threadripper-...](http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-ryzen-threadripper-1920x-review,1.html)

* [https://www.techspot.com/review/1465-amd-ryzen-threadripper-...](https://www.techspot.com/review/1465-amd-ryzen-threadripper-1950x-1920x/)

* [http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/8303/amd-ryzen-threadripper...](http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/8303/amd-ryzen-threadripper-1950x-1920x-cpu-review/index.html)

* [https://hothardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-threadripper-proce...](https://hothardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-threadripper-processor-review)

* [https://arstechnica.co.uk/gadgets/2017/08/amd-threadripper-r...](https://arstechnica.co.uk/gadgets/2017/08/amd-threadripper-review-1950x-1920x/)

* [http://www.pcworld.com/article/3214635/components-processors...](http://www.pcworld.com/article/3214635/components-processors/ryzen-threadripper-review-we-test-amds-monster-cpu.html)

* [https://www.forbes.com/sites/antonyleather/2017/08/10/amd-ry...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/antonyleather/2017/08/10/amd-ryzen-threadripper-1950x-and-1920x-processor-review-is-this-intels-worst-nightmare/#7904f7ed3b85)

Other Links:

* [https://videocardz.com/71804/amd-ryzen-threadripper-review-r...](https://videocardz.com/71804/amd-ryzen-threadripper-review-roundup)

<comment><USER3> To add to that:

[http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks- review...](http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks- reviews/75827-amd-ryzen-threadripper-1920x-1950x-review.html)

[https://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/08/10/amd_ryzen_threadr...](https://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/08/10/amd_ryzen_threadripper_1950x_1920x_cpu_review)

[http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3015-amd- threadripper-1...](http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3015-amd- threadripper-1950x-1920x-review)

[http://www.legitreviews.com/amd-ryzen- threadripper-1950x-thr...](http://www.legitreviews.com/amd-ryzen- threadripper-1950x-threadripper-1920x-processor-review_196879)

[http://www.techradar.com/reviews/amd-ryzen- threadripper-1950...](http://www.techradar.com/reviews/amd-ryzen- threadripper-1950x)

[http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/108628-amd-ryzen- threadrip...](http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/108628-amd-ryzen- threadripper-1950x-1920x/)

[https://www.vortez.net/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_threadripper...](https://www.vortez.net/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_threadripper_1950x_review.html)

google translate of computerbase.de: [https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=h...](https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.computerbase.de%2F2017-08%2Famd- ryzen-threadripper-test-1950x-1920x%2F)

google translate of pgh.de: [https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev...](https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pcgameshardware.de%2FRyzen- Threadripper-1920X-CPU-266541%2FTests%2FBenchmark-Review-NDA- Preis-1235430%2F&edit-text=)

google translate of tomshardware.de: [https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev...](https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tomshardware.de%2Fthreadripper- gaming-workstation-leistungsaufnahme- temperaturen%2Ctestberichte-242381.html&edit-text=)

google translate of hardwareluxx.de: [https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev...](https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hardwareluxx.de%2Findex.php%2Fartikel%2Fhardware%2Fprozessoren%2F43901-threadripper- amds-ryzen-threadripper-1950x-und-1920x-im-test.html&edit-text=)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I was looking to build myself a new (Dual) Xeon workstation, but looking at these specs and performance, I am going to consider threadripper instead.

With this many threads, ECC support and 64 PCIe lanes this CPU looks perfect for my intended workload. It's also gonna be slightly cheaper than a dual xeon.

Exciting times!

<comment><USER5> Only slightly cheaper than a 2P Xeon system?

<comment><USER6> Comparable Broadwell-EP or new Purley chips cost _thousands_ more. They have better features and more cache but price wise these platforms are in different universes.

<comment><USER5> That's what I was getting at :-).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Unfortunately for me, the fact that rr can't run on Ryzen CPUs is a dealbreaker. :(

[https://github.com/mozilla/rr/issues/2034](https://github.com/mozilla/rr/issues/2034)

<comment><USER8> I am wondering why this isn't getting more attention.

> It appears that the Ryzen PMU just isn't quite accurate enough :-(. rr > > might work OK for some kinds of usage but I wouldn't recommend it. > > I'll > land the patches I have with a warning for Ryzen users that things > won't > be reliable.

Can someone with a technical understanding describe what's going on here? Is this a flat-out bug- or does the x86 architecture spec allow for this?

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Barring a major technical problem being uncovered (hopefully the segfault thing won't be an issue) or nefarious action by Intel I cannot see how this thing can fail. So much power at the price point. As soon as the price drops a bit I'll be replacing my FX-8350 setup with one of these. Go competition! Go AMD!

<comment><USER10> Considering they didn't give samples to any of the linux press... ?

<comment><AUTHOR> AMD changed their mind and are now sending samples to Phoronix (albeit too late for a launch day article).

[http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Ryzen- Seg...](http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Ryzen-Segv- Response)

> _We will also now be receiving Threadripper and Epyc hardware for testing to > confirm their Linux state._

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> One thing I have with Intel is the virtual certainty the machine will work flawlessly with Linux. Atom, Celeron, Pentium, Core, and Xeon E3 have built-in GPUs that are very well supported.

Before jumping to AMD gear, I'd like to know if I'd have the same "just works" experience. I'm well past the age I liked to waste time debugging setups.

<comment> old-gregg Ryzens do not have an integrated GPU, at least not at the moment. The CPU itself works out of the box, even slightly more exotic features like virtualization is flawless under KVM.

If you want a Ryzen-based desktop with "just works experience" similar to i7-based Intels, go with a Radeon RX460 or RX560 GPU. It will get picked up by the open source AMDGPU driver in the latest popular desktop distros.

<comment><USER12> Seconded on the RX460, that's what I put in the work machine, worked straight out the box on Fedora 26.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The note about this being the first time consumers will see NUMA systems is interesting. I hope reviewers are familiar with it when they're benchmarking.

</comment><comment><USER14> Apparently, if you were interested in using these for a DAW, you might want to wait for Tech Report's review[1]. They're late to the party[2] because AMD didn't send them a review kit until TR publicly asked their readers for a CPU to review[3]. Maybe because TR is one of very few publications using DAWBench?

[1] [https://twitter.com/jkampman_tr/status/895645729972080640](https://twitter.com/jkampman_tr/status/895645729972080640)

[2] [http://techreport.com/news/32377/here-a-sneak-peek-at-our- ry...](http://techreport.com/news/32377/here-a-sneak-peek-at-our-ryzen- threadripper- results?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+techreport%2Fall+%28The+Tech+Report%29)

[3] [http://techreport.com/news/32343/updated-wanted-for- review-a...](http://techreport.com/news/32343/updated-wanted-for-review-amd- ryzen-threadripper-cpus)

Ryzen is also comparatively poor at DAW workloads.

</comment><comment><USER15> I haven't been paying tremendously close attention to this line of CPUs, but I'm interested. I've seen indications that it's not particularly stable under Linux. Is that true? Is there a microcode update?

<comment><AUTHOR> AMD have acknowledged there is an issue with their mainstream Ryzen CPUs that can cause segfaults on Linux, but they claim it doesn't affect their Threadripper or Epyc models.

[http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Ryzen- Seg...](http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Ryzen-Segv- Response)

<comment><USER3> It seems to be related to php. A user on reddit which has a Epyc 7551 CPU has no segfaults without the php portion of the test: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/6rmq6q/epyc_7551_minin...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/6rmq6q/epyc_7551_mining_performance/dl7o8g5/)

<comment><USER16> I don't use PHP and have a Ryzen linux machine that hard freezes every so often (around once per week) with nothing in logs. Have pretty much given up on debugging it.

<comment><USER17> You should contact AMDs support and let them figure it out with you. From what I hear they treat that issue seriously by now, and if your processor turns out to be faulty they should offer you a RMA.

Though hard freezes not during compilation should be a completely different issue, and it will be an effort to pinpoint the processor as responsible.

<comment><USER16> Yeah, we pretty sure it's not a RAM, PSU, or SATA disk problem (because we had multiples of different kinds to swap around), and we also know that the problem gets much much worse when using an M2 NVMe PCIE SSD (as in hard freezes occur way more frequently, regardless of M2 model). (And it's also possible that the M2 issue is a different problem entirely.) But it could still easily be some kind of motherboard issue. And with it only happening around every 9 days on average... We could contact AMD, but how the heck do we ever narrow down what's going on if we can't trigger replication more frequently? And that's time that my actual job isn't getting done... (I'm personally inclined to think Mobo is at fault.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> old-gregg Does anyone have a theory for why Ryzens are beaten so badly by Intel in the Chromium compile benchmark?

<comment><USER18> I think on GCC or Clang Threadripper should be much better (see link on my other reply)

And also Arstechnica reported much better numbers, I think Anantech either had a bad config or there is a bug in the compiler they used.

[https://arstechnica.co.uk/gadgets/2017/08/amd- threadripper-r...](https://arstechnica.co.uk/gadgets/2017/08/amd-threadripper- review-1950x-1920x/)

<comment><USER19> The arstechnica numbers surprise me, given the sheer difference between the Ryzen 7 1800X and the Threadripper 1920X compared with the 1920X and the 1950X; either you've reached more or less peak parallelism by 16 cores, or the larger L3 cache and quad-channel memory makes the difference. Or something's changed in the benchmark setup (be it the compiler or whatever) since the 1800X was done.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Well, for multi core workloads AMD is a clear winner. Other features are nice too: ECC memory; no thermopaste nonsense. I'm really waiting for future Intel offerings, they must do something extraordinary to gain lead.

<comment><USER21> > Well, for multi core workloads AMD is a clear winner.

Actually not really. It's actually slower in x265 encoding than a 7900X, and it doesn't really pull away much in x264 or Blender rendering either (10-25% over a 7900X). Also, it appears to perform pretty badly at some compilation workloads too, like a 1950X barely beats a 6900K at Chromium compiling using MSVS.

At most you can say that you really need to look at the specific task. Of course there may still be some tuning, but right now it's certainly not the slam-dunk that everyone assumed it would be.

[http://www.anandtech.com/show/11697/the-amd-ryzen- threadripp...](http://www.anandtech.com/show/11697/the-amd-ryzen- threadripper-1950x-and-1920x-review/10)

[http://www.anandtech.com/show/11697/the-amd-ryzen- threadripp...](http://www.anandtech.com/show/11697/the-amd-ryzen- threadripper-1950x-and-1920x-review/8)

[http://www.anandtech.com/show/11697/the-amd-ryzen- threadripp...](http://www.anandtech.com/show/11697/the-amd-ryzen- threadripper-1950x-and-1920x-review/11)

[https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/asus_x399_...](https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/asus_x399_rog_zenith_extreme_and_ryzen_1950x_threadripper_review/7)

[https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/asus_x399_...](https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/asus_x399_rog_zenith_extreme_and_ryzen_1950x_threadripper_review/10)

Not a particularly great showing overall for a processor with 60% more cores. Despite AMD's attempted pushback it appears Intel's smack-talk was correct and Infinity Fabric is not a magic panacea for NUMA performance problems.

It also pulls an absolutely absurd amount of power to do it, literally more than a 7900X. The onboard package-power measurement appears to be drastically undershooting the power as measured at the wall. Even factoring out PSU efficiency losses, measuring inside the case _something_ is eating at least 130W that isn't showing up as package power.

[https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/asus_x399_...](https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/asus_x399_rog_zenith_extreme_and_ryzen_1950x_threadripper_review/3)

[http://www.anandtech.com/show/11697/the-amd-ryzen- threadripp...](http://www.anandtech.com/show/11697/the-amd-ryzen- threadripper-1950x-and-1920x-review/19)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> As somebody who uses a lot of NVMe storage it is nice to see expanded PCIe lane options. I can really a put one more drive into my current Intel box.

NVMe SSD drives feel like the only _large_ performance change this decade.

</comment><comment><USER23> Having to reboot to enable Game Mode really sucks. Usually I game after I finish working or maybe in between while I'm waiting for a download. I don't want to have to re-open all my programs and set up my desktop yet again after I'm done gaming.

I wonder if this will be fixed with software later on or we'll have to wait for the next model of Threadripper.

<comment><USER24> Any chance of just hibernating the system and then resuming it?

<comment><USER25> No way. It changes the number of CPU cores exposed to the kernel.

<comment><USER24> Hmm... I'm sure this is manageable. Windows Server supports Hot Add/Remove CPU and RAM. If it can do it hot, why not cold? Windows UPnP service is continuously polling hardware and reconfiguring the system.

I have a feeling Microsoft might have a solution in the works for this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I hope they do not suffer the same issues the already released Ryzen 7 and Ryzen 5 series CPUs are having.

I'm also cautiously optimistic for EPYC the server grade CPU that AMD is releasing soon, although in this world of "per-core" licensing costs there is a strong need for less cores and more single-thread performance in the server.

<comment><USER27> AMD specifically claims they do not suffer from the gcc segfault thing. So I guess it depends on what you mean by "issues?"

<comment><USER5> AMD claims it, but until I understand the issue better I'm a little skeptical. We'll see as these parts make their way into the hands of consumers who will run these tests.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > Given that Threadripper is a consumer focused product – and interestingly, > not really a workstation focused product

Huh. Will AMD workstations be built around similar Epyc products, then? But those would have worse power consumption, right? (4 dies versus 2)

<comment><USER28> Epyc as lower clock speeds and slightly lower TDP.

The fastest 16-core Epyc has 2.4/2.9 GHz (base/boost) while TR has 3.4/4.0 (4.2 GHz with XFR, also 16 cores).

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> This could actually be huge news for desktop based rendering, video editing, cgi of any kind.

Beeing able to render on 64 threads for just the price of 2 high end graphics cards seriously makes me consider stick with cpu rendering for my next workstation - even at a lower frequency per core the time savings could be substanial.

</comment><comment><USER30> How long until we can get chips with this many cores while still maintaining the clock speed needed for good single threaded performance?

<comment><USER31> I mean, it's a tradeoff. It will always be a tradeoff, so the answer you're going to get is "never". There will always be less cores vs higher base clock (i'd imagine).

However, the clock speeds of ryzen/tr/epyc/whatever are more than enough for a "good" workload. In fact you could argue that unless you're doing something which requires only one single core (and honestly, I can't envisage a workload like this in a professional environment, but i'm surely wrong) the speed is fantastic and not really noticeable.

It's incredibly easy these days, at least in .NET, to parallelize workloads locally, so using something like this would outshine any 4ghz base 8 core any day of the week. But to actually answer your question as to when can we see 4ghz+ base clocks on 16/32 core processors...the next 5 years? I guess...

<comment><USER12> Yep and the bottleneck moves around as well, Intellij used to take an age to do a full index rebuild on large multi-language projects, on the Ryzen 1700 I have it pegs all the cores at 100% for a few seconds and is done, the bottleneck now seems to be back on the disk access.

I pigz'd a 5GB archive in <20s and the bottleneck there was the SSD again, (Samsung evo 850 but it was a lot of small files and ~60,000 PDF's (don't ask...)).

The Ryzen 1700 paired with a good SSD is a dream for development workloads.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> No question about it - this is cool technology. I will be building an ECC based Threadripper this fall.

</comment><comment><USER33> My next plex server for sure.

<comment><USER30> I don't really see the point of using this for a Plex server. Unless you're doing massive amounts of transcoding 24/7

<comment><USER34> My Ryzen system can do 2-pass 1080p24 x264 encoding on "slower" preset in real-time. That is, both passes finish in the time it would take to play the movie. It would only make sense for streaming if you had >10 users at a time, and at that point it would probably save a lot of work if you just did the transcoding ahead of time and kept the right format on disk!

<comment><USER35> Do you actually gain anything from two-pass encoding for streaming? It helps with file sizes but not with momentary bandwidth requirements, as far as I know.

<comment><USER25> A little bit. Configured for constant bit-rates, x264 can still do a bit of jiggling on the assumption that there's a buffer, which helps with quality in general. Two-pass gives it information to do that better.

But constant-quality modes are far superior when you're not bandwidth- constrained.

<comment><USER35> Single-pass will also juggle within a seconds-long buffer. Does two-pass help on that micro level, in addition to the way it can allocate bits across an entire file?

<comment><USER34> x264 has a ton of settings for that kind of thing. This page has a good summary: [https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/MeGUI/x264_Settings#qpstep](https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/MeGUI/x264_Settings#qpstep)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> So have there been any announcements about whether there will be dual-CPU Threadripper mobo's in the future? Does the CPU even support it?

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't think they plan to support dual Threadripper, because single Epyc does more or less the same thing without the inter-socket latency or expense of a dual-socket motherboard.

It's effectively two Threadrippers on a single package (2x cores, 2x memory channels, 2x PCIe lanes) for only slightly more than double the price ($999 for 16C TR, $2100 for 32C Epyc).

<comment><USER36> Cheapest 32 core Epyc is ~USD3200, with 2GHz base clock. I'd much rather have 2 x Threadripper for USD2K with base clock of 3.4. I don't think there are any Epyc features that are relevant for compute loads - like the security stuff or guaranteed x years of support.

Either way it'll be an upgrade from my 4 core Xeon :)

<comment><AUTHOR> The $3400 model you saw is the dual-socket capable version, the single-socket version (EPYC 7551P) is only $2100. Point taken about the clock speeds though.

[http://www.anandtech.com/show/11551/amds-future-in- servers-n...](http://www.anandtech.com/show/11551/amds-future-in-servers- new-7000-series-cpus-launched-and-epyc-analysis)

<comment><USER36> Oh I see, I didn't realize that difference. Well if they can build 2CPU Epyc CPUs for 150% of the price, I'll stay hoping they'll do the same for Threadrippers :) Although at that point you're right, the price would be the same as a single Epyc (1k * 1.5 * 2).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Is Threadripper the first CPU that can support 2+ NVME (m.2) cards due to all of the PCI lanes it has?

<comment><USER37> I'm going to answer my on question.

From TFA:

"With Threadripper, you can run two graphics cards at X16 PCIe speeds, two at X8, and still have enough lanes left over for three X4 NVMe SSDs connected directly to the CPU."

[https://arstechnica.co.uk/gadgets/2017/08/amd- threadripper-r...](https://arstechnica.co.uk/gadgets/2017/08/amd-threadripper- review-1950x-1920x/)

<comment><USER12> Good _god_.

So you can stick four high end cards in with 3 X4's...

That would be an absolute monster for GPU workloads.

<comment><USER21> Threadripper is an enthusiast/workstation SKU. If you really want to go nuclear, Epyc gets you 128 lanes. Boom.

(Also note that Threadripper is only _60_ lanes, the other 4 go to the PCH, so the most you could do is x16x16x16x12. I'm unsure if Epyc gives you a real 128 or whether it's actually 120 or something.)

<comment><USER12> Next up, 512 lanes should be enough for anybody ;).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Do any of the Ryzen or Threadripper skus have on-board graphics?

</comment><comment><USER39> I feel like there have been unrealistic expectations of Vega compared to the expectations of how Ryzen was going to perform. Most people expected Ryzen to do ok but still loose to Intel by a 2 generation gap and here we are at what 5-10% behind Skylake/Kaby lake refreshes. With Vega everyone wants it to beat the gtx 1080ti but at best we might get something in between a 1080 and 1080ti for less money which isn't a fail in my views. The waiting however has sucked and has forced a lot of people to go team green who otherwise wouldn't of had too.

<comment><USER40> Yeah but with 64 pcie lanes and vulkan, that 1080i, and even 2 in SLI, is starting to look a bit old fashion. I think amd is actually ahead of the paradigm shift

<comment><USER41> The 1080ti has absolutely no competition from AMD in terms of performance/power and availability for most workloads; calling it "old fashioned" is... out of touch. And Nvidia is already on the move with Volta, which AMD will seemingly have zero answer for. They're running circles around themselves at this point.

If anything, Ryzen's increased PCIe lanes are a reason to go _for_ nvidia. You can get Threadripper and mobo at a much smaller cost than a Xeon rig, with more lanes, but just load it with Pascal GPUs. And they'll have better performance, power, and be easier to buy than any Vega card. This would do quite well for a deep learning machine, for example.

The place Vega has advantages are in more niche areas, like open source Radeon drivers, fully unlocked FP16 support (garbage market segmentation from Nvidia), and the Instinct/SSG GPU lines they'll be offering will be unique. And they're definitely cheaper, for sure. (But unless AMD can back it up with software, it won't mean much, especially for markets like deep learning, which NVidia is going full-force.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Intel will most likely have no advantage in usable performance on the The 12, 14, 16, and, 18 chips they use too much power and run way to hot so they will need lower clocks. The Ryzen 1950X will most likely clock around 4 Ghz on air on all cores, The 12, 14, 16, and, 18 core intel chips, will need a custom loop, or really low clocks, intel like's to do fuckery and, the only way i can see them making the The 12, 14, 16, and, 18 chips have good performance is too turbo up 4 or 6 cores for gaming etc.

<comment><USER43> > clock around 4 Ghz on air on all cores

That must be a _really_ high end air cooler. My R7 1700 runs 4GHz on a 280mm AIO water cooler. Sure the 1950X dies are better binned so they need less voltage on average, but with literally 2x the core count, that's gonna be quite a lot of heat.

Yeah, Skylake-X is a power monster, all the memes about "Core i9 best for burning your house down" are funny, but SIXTEEN Zen cores at 4GHz would not be cool and quiet either :D

<comment><USER21> > That must be a really high end air cooler. My R7 1700 runs 4GHz on a 280mm > AIO water cooler.

As you note, Threadripper is the best 5% of R7 chips, some of them are going as high as 4.2 GHz. But there appears to be a surprising amount of chip-to- chip variation even still.

> Yeah, Skylake-X is a power monster, all the memes about "Core i9 best for > burning your house down" are funny, but SIXTEEN Zen cores at 4GHz would not > be cool and quiet either :D

You don't know the half of it. Check out these power numbers:

[https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/asus_x399_...](https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/asus_x399_rog_zenith_extreme_and_ryzen_1950x_threadripper_review/3)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> TL;DR: clear winner in multithread productivity, intel better in single-thread productivity, around Ryzen 1800X in gaming (in game mode, which tries to pin threads to one die at a time and disables SMT), great TDP (stays under 180w at full load), has some teething issues with the NUMA nature of two-dies, but is overall a great processor.</comment>


Properly calling acquaintances such and not friends - <AUTHOR> http://jonsteinberg.com/2010/04/acquaintances/

<comment><USER2> Jon, your running "Me Real Time" is extremely distracting. It kept changing while I was trying to read your post, and my eyes would involuntarily shift for a moment. It's frustrating.

I didn't realize I could click to pause it until just now when I went to find out its title - I was trying so hard _not_ to read it! But it's also not a good idea to require your site's readers to click something so they can focus on your posts.

<comment><USER3> Also, it's not real time. If it actually changed when you posted something (preferably with an animated transition) then it might be worth it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think you could blame Facebook (and other social platforms) for 25% of this misuse and human nature for the other 75%.

</comment><comment><USER5> I also find it difficult when sites like LinkedIn or Facebook want you to categorize your relationship, especially when that relationship is in its infancy. It seems a bit presumptuous to say "I've done business with X" when I just met them, even in a business context.

I think it would be interesting if social sites and social graphs let you somehow define the quality of the relationship (each side could rate it and neither could see the other's rating). I'd like to see my strongest links to other people - even if it's not necessarily the shortest path.

</comment><comment><USER6> In my experience, most people speak of acquaintances as such, like "I know a guy..." or "I worked with a guy...". Maybe I'm just not rich enough to have associates who try to impress by name-dropping.

<comment><USER3> That's exactly the comment I was gonna leave. Acquaintance works in writing, but I can't imagine how to say it in casual conversation without sounding like a snob or a douche.

<comment><USER7> It works in Spanish :) ("conocido" is a much common word than acquaintance)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The tendency towards inflated-familiarity varies by region and industry. I think LA/entertainment led the way, but online social networks are bringing the same friend-inflation worldwide.</comment>


Rise of the Machines: The Future of Data Science and Machine Learning - <AUTHOR> https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2018/07/30/rise-of-the-machines-the-future-of-data-science-and-machine-learning/ <comment><USER2> Well, machine learning and AI, in general, have not evloved significantly over the past few decades, we have however advanced the computational power and have enough data to compute it on to start seeing real benefits. What is most significant is that the focus we have on AI right now is getting financial backing at all stages from startups to large corporates and governments. This, in turn, will be enough to accelerate development of more advanced AI techniques that will evolve/replace ML to make it General/Cross-functional. Very interesting times ahead.

We are soon to launch a new service [http://www.loomi.ai](http://www.loomi.ai) which allows you to create and train in minutes your own AI Assistant. Personal AI assistants are projected to be one of the most significant technologies transforming the way people interact with data.

<comment><AUTHOR> Have you heard of the one called x.ai?</comment></comment>


Failures of Deep Learning - <AUTHOR> https://simons.berkeley.edu/talks/shai-shalev-shwartz-2017-3-28 <comment><AUTHOR> See HN discussion on the related arxiv preprint: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13950423](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13950423)

Most of the lectures from Representation Learning symposium held at Simons Institute last month are made available online: [https://simons.berkeley.edu/workshops/schedule/3750](https://simons.berkeley.edu/workshops/schedule/3750)</comment>


How is Luminati.io different from Tor? - <AUTHOR>

I need to do some massive web data collection -- does anyone know how Luminati.io is different from Tor or a proxy network? <comment><USER2> Hi Albert. I'm Omri with Luminati. The Luminati network is built on top of a P2P consumer infrastructure, which provides several benefits over proxies and Tor, such as an almost unlimited number of IPs, IPs that are actual devices (not identified as proxies or Tor nodes), and are available in every city in the world. This lets you collect data much faster, from more locations, and more securely. You can contact me at omri at luminati dot io, or sign up for a 7 day free trial at lumianti.io

</comment><comment><USER3> Luminati.io seems to be payware, Tor is free.</comment>