Global warming has begun to make Norway warmer and wetter - <AUTHOR> https://www.nrk.no/chasing-climate-change-1.14859595 <comment><USER2> I'm certainly on the climate change team (if that's what you call it). But are articles like this good or bad?

When confronting climate change deniers the standard response is "weather is not climate". Saying it's hot today or cold today isn't an indication of climate change. It's what occurs over hundreds of years but especially the last 150 years.

It seems we are sending mixed signals saying that one day or a decade shows climate change. Then on the other hand we try to tell people one day or a decade is too short of a time to see changes. Yes we are certainly are seeing the effects of climate change now and it is real, just look at atmospheric carbon levels.

But saying it should be colder this time in the winter or last summer it was unusually hot. Anecdotal evidence isn't very reliable. My mother in her mid 70s told me her father (my grandfather) was out plowing the field in late November when my mother was born. Now if it's warm in late November people scream climate change.

Again, I do see and accept the evidence of climate change but I know people will see my comments as denial. I'm not denying it at all I'm 100% convinced it's just the phrasing and personal anecdotes I see disrupting the message.

<comment><USER3> I disagree, I live in Southeast Australia and have never seen so many people accept climate change as real as this past summer.

If it takes a slight misunderstanding about weather relating to climate change to get immediate action, isn't that a good thing?

<comment><USER4> "If it takes [mistruth] to get [policy change I want], isn't that a good thing?" vs. education and truth? Where does that slippery slope end?

<comment><USER3> It ends that it isn't a complete mistruth, just a small hyperbole. The massive bushfires we're still experiencing are real, the hail storms that followed were real and the 40+ days in hazardous air quality since 1 Dec are also real. As is the past 20 years of drought my country has experienced.

These events were definitively contributed to by climate change, perhaps not direct cause and effect as some assume, but there is more than just correlation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> What I have found more frustrating than those in denial of climate change lately, is those who deny responsibility. That the real problem is in other countries. India. China. America. Little old X in Europe can't possible be the ones that need to sort it out. Therefore there's no point changing our habits.

I feel a little hopeless in these discussions. I have little hope for change. I cannot argue against the fact that our impact in Europe will not be enough. This requires a global, concerted effort and it's hard to argue against the logic that it won't matter what we do in Europe if everyone else doesn't follow suit. We are just delaying the inevitable.

<comment><USER6> One way to approach this perhaps is to look at emissions per capita. Norway, as an example, is a way bigger offender (or at least has been, haven't check recent data) than China by this metric.

And it _is_ a political problem at this point. You cant really demand change from people around you if you're not prepared to do the same yourself.

<comment><USER7> I think a more useful metric is _per unit of GDP_. ...because then it becomes an efficiency metric. "How much wealth can we create with X amount of CO2".

<comment><USER8> I really don't see how this would be a good idea.

First of all it suggests that wealth is the be-all and end-all of human progress. It also implies that wealth creation is equivalent wherever it happens - that somehow if a place is more efficient at creating wealth than it should be privileged.

Finally, of course, this means that poorer countries that produce less wealth will almost certainly be less efficient by this metric, and hence should be penalized (of course, we shouldn't mention that a lot of their production actually ends up being consumed by the rich-world which can this way claim to be highly CO2 efficient).

<comment><USER7> > it suggests that wealth is the be-all and end-all of human progress

You misunderstand. The point is to quantify economic power. ...because economic power is the ONLY way fix global warming.

<comment><USER8> Well, we already have good measures for economic power, e.g. gdp. How would this extra measure help?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I live in France next to the Alpes and climate change is really real here. Next week it's expecting to rain on the ski slopes. In the middle of February! Lots of glaciers are gone. Many of my mountain climbing friends say they can't do the runs they used to because the terrain is getting too unpredictable.

It's quite scary.

<comment><USER10> The man in the article commenting that his father could no longer read the weather because the signs were wrong is my personal experience too - I've been tramping and hunting in a particular area of our Southern Alps since I was a child, and everything I learned about predicting the weather there when I was young doesn't work now. It used to be that autumn was the time of year with the most stable weather - lots of clear skies, no rain, so ideal for crossing rivers.

But now there's a lot more northwest winds in autumn, which causes heavy rainfall that floods rivers. And likewise, the spring "monsoon" when continual nor'westers are the defining weather pattern (when I lived in an alpine village, 29 days of continual rain in November was the usual) now extends significantly into Summer. And of course, the rainfall events are getting more extreme, damaging roads and hiking infrastructure - like this: [https://www.odt.co.nz/regions/fiordland/routeburn-closed- for...](https://www.odt.co.nz/regions/fiordland/routeburn-closed-foreseeable- future-milford-weeks)

<comment><USER11> I spent a couple of years in NZ and Australia a few years ago, and since then I've been hearing about quite a few places I loved that have been severely damaged by water or fire. I have a wonderful memory of a week spent on the Routeburn track in winter, your link is a bit of a shock.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The thing about climate change is that some small proportion of the population, probably elites, farsighted and lucky will likely benefit from it, in the form of profiting off the weakest and more vulnerable by providing some sort of assistance or accommodation, from new industries that will arise to accommodate or from arbitrage on land that will become uninhabitable versus that which will become newly inhabitable.

It's a massive structural shift in the earth's environment. So I wonder if not for some they happily welcome the change as an opportunity to seize the commanding heights of the future.

If climate change cannot be avoided, than the next best thing is to get ahead of it in terms of advantages over competitors in terms of technology, territory, products and services that the newly impoverished and vulnerable will require to survive.

I wouldn't be surprised if this was the real thinking behind billionaire oil tycoons or climate deniers. They see it as fundamentally political as opposed to scientific in nature.

<comment><USER13> This is too contrived an explanation (for the general climate change denialism), I think. I think there are two facets to it:

1) Some industries refuse to even consider it because it means they're effectively dead -- coal, oil, and a few other industries. They fuel propaganda because of this

2) Sheer ignorance

I say because it's very difficult and fragile to try and profit off a genuine catastrophe. We are indeed heading for a disaster (2C warming) even under quite optimistic assumptions about world politics and people accepting climate change and whatnot; if there is not enough action, if some technologies are not developed quickly enough, we are facing genuine catastrophe (I think there's far too much faith in a magical technological solution (rapid carbon capture) in current scenarios) -- 3 or 4C warming, where you start to talk about civilization collapse. This seems like a very weird thing to gamble with, specially since gambles require long term payoffs. If the economy and politics is a mess and there's general instability, how can you guarantee ability to monetize your bets?

No, I think most people are just genuinely not aware, willfully ignorant, don't believe humans could alter the climate, etc.

In a way it's good, because it means you can fight it to an extent with information.

<comment><USER14> > 1) Some industries refuse to even consider it because it means they're > effectively dead -- coal, oil, and a few other industries.

If coal/oil/gas is dead then most of humanity is dead too. Do you realize that coal, oil, gas are responsible for almost all of the world's energy production?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bp_world_energy_consumpti...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bp_world_energy_consumption_2016.gif)

Not to mention the world's agricultural production is dependent on oil, not just for transportation, but also for petrochemical fertizilers.

Also, almost every product ( medicine, electronic, clothes, etc ) have petrochemical derivatives in them. If those fossil fuel industries are dead, then civilization ends and most of humanity dies.

> They fuel propaganda because of this

There are plenty of propaganda on both sides along with the fearmongering. And the propaganda and fearmongering doesn't help anything.

Unless there is some technological breakthrough in energy production, we aren't going to stop using fossil fuels.

Much of the world is underdeveloped and looking to industrialize.

There are 1.3 billion people without electricity. Can you believe that?

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/world/world- without-...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/world/world-without- power/)

Climate change isn't a political issue. It is a technological one. Europeans aren't going to give up fossil fuels to end their first world lifestyle and destroy their society and starve themselves to death. The chinese are going to use as much fossil fuels needed to reach the first world lifestyle of the europeans. Indians, once they get their act together, are going to follow in china's footsteps. Same goes for ASEAN. And eventually Africa, etc. Can't expect the poor nations to stay poor forever. And of course, we aren't going to give up fossil fuels anytime soon in the US, especially since we just became a fossil fuel energy exporter recently.

So given these realities, what do you think the climate change issue is really about? It certainly isn't about fossil fuels or reducing fossil fuels because it's simply not possible anytime soon. So what is it about?

<comment><USER13> Doing all those things is possible and there are clear plans to do them, at significant economical costs but nothing that our economies can't handle. _This is the technological solution_ : transition out of oil and carbon in general! We already have I'd say 90% of the technological capability to achieve it and sufficient economic resources (in fact it's happening _even without subsidies_ in many places).

Europe is already on IPCC 2C targets, and it's clearly not starving, its economy is fine. What they need to do is show the rest of the world how we're toast without action.

Just look at the 3 or 4C targets -- that themselves largely predict quick oil phase out! Civilization runs real risk of collapse before the end of the century in those targets, and 3 decades from now it'll already start looking bleak. Imagine if we do nothing.

I guess the most dark humor thing is (most) people imagining their kids living in happy wonderlands, making retirement plans, etc. while the world is literally going to hell.

It really feels like a failure of science, technology and engineering community. We're failing at communicating. Because I owe to and admire so much of our scientific history and people, I'll gladly campaign for climate action to my last day (or at least until we're at a somewhat sane track).

<comment><USER14> > Doing all those things is possible

Renewables make up almost 0% of the total energy used by the world. Getting rid of fossil fuels or the fossil fuel industry is simply not possible. This is basic economics and physics. It's science.

> in fact it's happening even without subsidies in many places

Name one place where subsidies didn't prop up renewables.

[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/05/home- sol...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/05/home-solar-panel- installations-fall-by-94-as-subsidies-cut)

[https://ieefa.org/subsidy-cuts-result-in-sharp-drop-in-u- k-r...](https://ieefa.org/subsidy-cuts-result-in-sharp-drop-in-u-k- residential-solar-installations/)

The green energy industry itself admits it needs subsidies to exist hence why they lobby for more subsidies.

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2015/09/01/solar...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2015/09/01/solar- industry-admits-green-energy-only-exists-thanks-to-government-subsidies/)

> Europe is already on IPCC 2C targets, and it's clearly not starving, its > economy is fine.

That's because Europe's fossil fuel use hasn't dropped. It has actually increased. Not only that, europe is building or trying to build pipelines from russia and the middle east to meet their energy needs. What do you the instability in syria was about? What do you think the geopolitical skirmish with russia is about? Pipelines and fossil fuels. Europe wants more of it, not less.

> It really feels like a failure of science, technology and engineering > community. We're failing at communicating.

No. The communication is fine if you actually read and understand the science, technology and engineering. If you get your information from fearmongering newspapers, cable news or social media, then you have a real problem.

While you worry about the end of the world, the science/tech/engineering community is planning future research into the 30s, 40s, etc. Space flight into the 30s, 40s. Mega construction projects in the 30s, 40s, etc - some of which will last decades. Surely if the world was going to end, these highly intelligent people wouldn't be wasting time and resources on such projects.

I don't want to add to your anxiety, but the indian subcontinent, ASEAN, middle east, south america and africa are going to industrialize heavily in the coming decades. Conservatively, they make up about 40% of the world's population. So fossil fuel use is going to go up in the coming decades.

So economics, science and reality says that fossil fuel use is going to increase. So if you are really sincere in what you say, then ask yourself, what is all the climate change rhetoric really about?

<comment><USER13> > While you worry about the end of the world, the science/tech/engineering > community is planning future research into the 30s, 40s, etc. Space flight > into the 30s, 40s. Mega construction projects in the 30s, 40s, etc - some of > which will last decades. Surely if the world was going to end, these highly > intelligent people wouldn't be wasting time and resources on such projects.

I _am_ part of the science/engineering community. I also know oceanographers (personally), a handful of climate scientists (indirectly), several biologists from several fields, physicists, and more. People usually leave this stuff to specialists -- a physicist usually won't delve deep into climate science. Everyone I know that is informed (i.e. that doesn't say "I haven't looked at the climate data and projections") is deeply worried, and the oceanographer and climate scientists I know are the least hopeful (which should be worrying). Engineers generally just assume it's going to be fine for practical purposes -- I know a handful of civil engineers and electrical engineers working on large projects. The electrical engineer is informed on climate change and doesn't know how it will impact the project long term.

Just look at the data. It's the ethical thing to do, at least I believe. If you don't, we're both wasting our times.

Where to start?

I recommend simply reading the wikipedia article in its entirety:

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

paying special attention to this section: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Mitigation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Mitigation)

Look at the emission pathway -- it demands massive, immediate action.

Also read this:

[https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment- report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_w...](https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment- report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers.pdf)

again pay attention to page 11:

[https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment- report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_w...](https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment- report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers.pdf)

again the emission targets. You can see if emissions keep increasing, i.e. pathways RCP6.0 and RCP8.5 are _unlikely to keep warming under 3C_ (see table on page 13) -- likely to go to 4-5C of warming.

Finally, you can see some of the effects here:

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

(note that no emission reduction, i.e. RCP>6.0, >3C warming isn't given much attention, given it's quite apocalyptic)

and also here:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_and_ecosystems#...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_and_ecosystems#Forests)

It's anyone's guess what would happen under this scenario, almost certainly mass extinction on ocean and land, the tropics become literally almost uninhabitable, effects on civilization anyone's guess in the range of catastrophe to collapse (imagine all of India and large parts of China trying to migrate).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I liked how they linked a string of observations, to effects in the environment, to effects and costs on infrastructure to maintain necessities - all driven by climate crisis.

</comment><comment><USER16> Thank goodness they have $1T to help Norway through this period of climate change from all of the oil they pumped that is causing the climate change.

A lot of smaller island nations won't have that luxury.

<comment><USER17> I was also surprised not to see this little fact mentioned. Also, if anyone it's the Nordic countries that are going to be positively affected by the climate change.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Norway's sovereign wealth fund is over $1 trillion (with a T), which is all from petroleum profits. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Pension_Fund_of_Nor...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Pension_Fund_of_Norway)

They should pledge at least 75% of that fund for CO2 removal technology R&D and other mitigation solutions.

<comment><USER19> Assuming that CO2 is the actual cause of global warming...

<comment><USER20> Well, it's one of the causes

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Nice visuals/UX, contributing to a better understanding of changes.

FYI, happened last year: Norway refuses to drill for billions of barrels of oil in Arctic, leaving 'whole industry surprised and disappointed'. Government made the right choice, but a few (prosperous already) affected by making less money complained: [https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/norway-oil- drillin...](https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/norway-oil-drilling- arctic-ban-labor-party-unions-a8861171.html)

<comment><USER22> The 2010s oil glut is a considerable surplus of crude oil that started in 2014–2015 and accelerated in 2016, with multiple causes. U.S. oil production nearly doubled from 2008 levels, due to substantial improvements in shale "fracking" technology.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010s_oil_glut](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010s_oil_glut)

There are economic reasons as to why drilling for oil isn't a good idea right now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I think there are so many people already recognize climate change as a mega issue and just feel depressed. I would like to see more leadership messages of what is done and can be done in the present.

</comment><comment><USER24> Whatever the strange presentation, there's something about it for sure. A friend of mine used to run a skilift in Norway, and he's noticed how the length of the season has changed for the worse. In the end he sold it, didn't seem as good a business as it once was.

<comment><USER25> About the business side, there is also another factor.

Somehow, during the last 2 or 3 decades, people have been nudged to believe that snow and ski times are February and Christmas/new-year holidays. Only. Easter has disappeared from the picture: now what is sold for Easter is a holiday in the sun, a stay by the sea (and nowadays, it means flying abroad, not trying your luck on your national shores). And that is stupid, because people come for Christmas when in fact there are 50% chances that there is no snow at that time of the year, and leave disappointed because the White Christmas thingie they were sold didn't exist; and they don't come any more around Easter, while there is basically always snow (soft snow, admittedly, but with a sufficient stock accumulated along the whole winter to enjoy). So basically the only time left to make money for a ski resort is February: can't open around Christmas because there is no snow, can't open around Easter because there are no customers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Are there any AMAZING startups working on treating the global warming marketing challenge as a direct response problem?

Politicians - including our sitting president - figured out that leveraging the ad tech of the FBs / Googles etc to micro-tune and micro-test messaging wins elections.

Who is doing the same for climate change?

Start with massively targeted message testing attached to an outcome that demonstrably has an impact on the problem.

No bullshit "awareness" vanity metrics.

I'm talking direct donations to projects that reduce co2 or recapture co2.

Direct donations to organizations or politicians that are demonstrably impacting in a similar way.

?????

Is somebody working to harness the brutal machinery of FB / Goog's advertising platform to do some good?

Can I help or write your first check as an investor?

</comment><comment><USER27> This is excellent. Thank you for sharing.

</comment><comment><USER28> Listening to Randall Carlson on this subject has really given an interesting take on all climate change-related matters. Cheers!

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJD-391JzHs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJD-391JzHs)

</comment><comment><USER29> People need to stop acting like this is news. It's the new normal. Welcome to the anthroposcene.

</comment><comment><USER30> Since it is claimed that climate warming is bad, i wonder what is the correct average temperature that our planet should have? Should it be like it was in the early eighteen-hundreds before the industrial revolution?

</comment><comment><USER31> Ask HN: Can anyone point me to an article debunking this particularly insidious climate denier narrative?

This is how it was given to me:

1\. CO2 is a green house gas, but a very weak one. Like, homeopathically weak. We could increase CO2 100x in the atmosphere and it wouldn't change a thing temperature- or climate-wise (other than inducing more plant growth).

2\. The reason we see CO2 increases associated with warming in the geological record is because the oceans sequester CO2, and the amount they sequester depends on temperature. As the Sun heats up the Earth, the oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. As the Sun cools the Earth, the oceans re-sequester the CO2 they previously released. That's why CO2 concentrations are linked in the geological record to temperature.

3\. Thus, the Sun is what heats and cools the earth, not CO2. CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are a bi-product of warming and cooling, not a cause.

<comment><USER22> > the Sun is what heats and cools the earth

The Sun very obviously heats the Earth. However, in what will come as a complete shock to many, things can have multiple causes - particularly things which occur on a planetary scale. The Sun is a source of heat that everyone is well aware of. If that was all there was to it then the models would be extremely simple. We can measure the Sun, we know what it is doing.

Building a climate model based on a single variable would be _fantastic_ if it was predictive. Definitely important and good start - now add the other 10,000 variables to the model.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> These visually ableist articles need to be stopped. I have vision problems from an eye injury and I can't read the damn thing because the varying contrast between the pictures of every single sentences is very uncomfortable to read. Light-dark-light-black etc. If you turn off js or use a minimalist browser like netsurf you get the same long scrolling page without the pictures which defeats the articles purpose.

Tech and UX folks need to step back and realize that it's not just a silly design but a discriminatory one at that. Not everyone can enjoy literal flashy articles.

<comment><USER33> It's not a "silly design", but a well-established storytelling format known as photo-essay. It's unfortunate that you cannot enjoy it to the fullest, but there is no reason to deny everyone else that experience. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo- essay](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo-essay)

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Assume there is no collective action in the next century. What next?

I actually only think things will be done once insurance companies start accounting for costs here.

<comment><USER35> Regardless of whether one believes "collective action" is desirable on a global I don't think it's possible. I think our policy and planning focus should be on adaptation over trying to fight against the changes that appear to be occurring.

Human beings adapt. We are now a technological species, and can alter our surroundings to quite a large degree. As things change, we should be working toward improving lives - our own and those of others - and better positioning ourselves to exploit the advantages that our future holds.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> it's ironic that my energy company probably burnt coal to power my laptop for this, which was running 100% for this website. When will web developers become more aware of the implications that their choices for rendering can have

</comment><comment><USER37> This is definitely not scientific and is effectively misrepresentative.

"But it is frightening just how much a few tenths of a degree can change the seafloor. The changes in the ocean are massive." It's misleading to pursue this idea that tiny changes in temperature, which fluctuate up and down as well, are somehow the primary drivers of such things. Such changes happen constantly, all over the ocean.

Species of moths and insects come and go, and sometimes cause what we perceive as destruction. This may be due to a variety of factors.

I think what happens in such situations, is when you take a kernel of truth (like climate change), that also happens to be emotional for many people, they can easily turn anything anecdotal into evidence to support their view.

</comment><comment><USER38> Norway got rich by pumping oil.

</comment><comment><USER39> Very impressive.

</comment><comment><USER40> I wouldn't have led with brown-water-that's-also-related-to-a-fall-in-acid- rain.

The best (worst for humans) stuff is buried.

</comment><comment><USER41> I think this is one of those instances where the UX makes it better.

It forced me to slow down, parse each line one at a time, read line-by-line, image-by-image, and let the gravity sink in. I would have just skimmed it if it were a text article with a photo gallery, to no great effect.

<comment><USER42> I loved the process as you could think about what you were seeing. Also to be able to read without annoying ads or extra clutter was wonderful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> I find it really depressing that as I write this comment, the other top-most comments are complaining about the article's UX.

Meanwhile we are radically altering the natural environment. As the TFA spells out, so superbly.

<comment><USER44> It's not an article, it's a slideshow with pictures. Who actually wants to consume information like this?

<comment><USER45> I liked it. Fight me.

<comment><USER32> The UX is discriminatory against visually impaired people.

The layout genuinely hurts my eyes to read. I have vision problems and the continuous picture changes after every sentence is very uncomfortable to view. The contrast changes rapidly from bright to dark or completely black. Then there are light pictures with white text rendered over them. After the first few "slides" I had to close the article. It was too uncomfortable to read. Perhaps you should think before you run with your ableism.

<comment><USER33> Bland high-contrast sites are discriminatory against people with depressive disorders. I'd kill myself if all information and storytelling came in man page format. So perhaps you should think before you put yourself on a pedestal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> I'm usually not a fan of this kind of interface but for some reason I felt like this one worked pretty well and it was a good read. Would probably not have worked well if I didn't have a decent scroll wheel though so they should definitly offer an alternative UI as well.

<comment><USER47> I liked the article but scrolling was terrible for me. I'm on a Macbook with a trackpad and the page couldn't load the content fast enough.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> I'm disappointed by the typical Hacker News folks complaining about the presentation format. This isn't the target demographic, and I applaud trying different approaches to convey the seriousness of these issues. The kinds of people who just want a spreadsheet and a PDF report are already bought in on the ideas.

While I find the format a bit cinematic for my taste, I can't help but respect their efforts to drive home the tangible effects of global warming in an emotional way.

<comment><USER49> I find the UX undermines the credibility journalists are usually given, earned or not. This looks like a story, or a propaganda piece.

I wouldn't be the first to point out that the medium is the message.

<comment><USER50> Seeing is believing, i think the UX with tons of pictures actually help the credibility and impact of the story.

I think they choose the right medium for the message.

<comment><USER51> I agree, this is more of a slideshow than an article, and I don't think having it as an article with pictures would make it more plausible. The pictures tie in neatly with the content in a way that doesn't annoy me as much as other similar experiences have.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> I can't ignore the UX of this as simply not conducive to an article. It gives off such a strong PR vibe. Maybe it's just me

<comment><USER53> Yeah, the whole scrolling for data thing is cancer.

Who do people think this is how users want to ingest information?

Its the 2020's equivalent of a flash based website.

<comment><USER54> Personally, I like how this website is styled. It's really well executed. I think it caters to a very broad audience - people have become used to full screen pictures and small bites of texts evenly distributed (eg in Instagram Stories).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> Here's a text-only version, so to speak. lynx --dump's output: [https://pastebin.com/3wP3mL75](https://pastebin.com/3wP3mL75)

<comment><USER46> The images and gifs contribute to the story so I'd still recommend that people scroll through the original article even if they read the text here instead.

<comment><USER44> I wouldn't. It's bad and not worth the caloric swiping effort.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Is there a text version of this thing?

And it would be really nice if someone could do this for, say, Bangladesh, Yemen, or Guatemala where it's becoming life and death.

<comment><USER57> "Is there a text version of this thing."

Text-only browser is easiest way.

       links -dump https://www.nrk.no/chasing-climate-change-1.14859595

Netcat-like programs, or wget-like http clients, will also suffice

       x=$(echo y|tr y '\004');
       curl https://www.nrk.no/chasing-climate-change-1.14859595|sed "s/<p /$x&/g;s/ *//"|tr '\004' '\n'|sed -n '/<p /!d;s/<\/p>.*/<\/p>/;/./{/<p /,/<\/p>/p;}' > 1.html

       firefox 1.html

Add the 1080p videos to the end of the text:

        curl https://www.nrk.no/chasing-climate-change-1.14859595|grep -o https[^\"]*1080p.mp4|sed 's/\\u002F/\//g;s/.*/<p><a href=& \/>&<\/a><\/p>/'|uniq >> 1.html

        firefox 1.html

<comment><USER56> Thanks, someone already posted [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22270107](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22270107) ... I asked for the same reason I need the text representation. I don't have time right now, but want to read it. I don't have any huge problem with site format or firefox, I just needed something more efficient.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> the CPU used by my computer to display the first half a second of that web page just contributed to Norway's global warming problem

<comment><USER59> Let's not even think about the heat generated by friction from all those fingers swiping and mouse wheels spinning!

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> That's really well-done!

I like the "Source" buttons.

</comment><comment><USER61> To those using javascript blockers: the background image changes as you scroll if you unblock js.

</comment><comment><USER62> This is a terrible headline, too.

<comment><USER63> We've replaced it with a subheading.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> This is a very pretty website although complete overkill and slightly frustrating. I like how they did it though. I find it surprising it's nearly all old school JS libraries which are now hated (jQuery, requireJS etc...)

</comment><comment><USER65> Jesus fuck. I was in Svalbard 25 years ago. The change is absolutely mindblowing.

I really thought I was somewhat informed about the effects, but what happened there is way beyond anything you get from reading papers.

But sure, HN, go ahead, discuss if it's the right format/UX to deliver the message that we're fucked. Heaven forbid we talk about the message itself.

<comment><USER63> > But sure, HN, go ahead, discuss if it's the right format/UX to deliver the > message that we're fucked. Heaven forbid we talk about the message itself.

Please don't contribute to the problem by going off topic in this way—it just adds more of what you're complaining about. (As, alas, does this comment.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> ax ads ax ads

</comment><comment><USER67> While economy and consumerism are destroying our planet, we are complaining about the UX of an emergency call.. In other news stories I see participants of Extinction Rebellion being arrested by police as if they were criminals, while temperatures world wide are breaking all records and the ramifications are clearly seen almost anywhere on the planet. It just renders me speechless.

<comment><USER68> Can you explain to me how yoga and drum circles in the streets of London helps combat climate change?

<comment><USER69> Sure as hell beats the alternative of driving to work everyday and eating meat as usual.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> Reader mode on Firefox

</comment><comment><USER71> Norway's top 2 exports are oil and fish. It's a bit ironic to be surprised about the outcome.

</comment><comment><USER72> > _The short summary of climate change in Norway is that our country has > become one degree Celsius warmer over the past 115 years_

Honest question, how is 1 degree not in some kind of normal range or within measurement error?

<comment><USER73> Room temperature is about ~300 Kelvin (and of course 1 degree Celsius is 1 degree Kelvin). Temperatures rising by 1 degree Celsius is about .3% average absolute temperature increase. It's hard to imagine that over 150 years, a change of .3% is particularly significant.

<comment><USER22> Odd way to measure it, starting from absolute zero.

If we take extremely conservative numbers and say the current average temp is 0C and death is certain at 100C then we moved 1% closer. I suspect some krazy kooks might suggest that the Earth would be uninhabitable long before 100C is attained.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER74> This is a terrible way to present content.

</comment><comment><USER75> We don't have to be surprised about some of these events, since they have been predicted in the scriptures, for now, for a long time (ice melting, storms, quakes, waves of the sea heaving themselves beyond their bounds, fires/smoke, all things in commotion, and other significant catastrophic events).

I greatly appreciate the science and am glad for progress in our efforts. But I think we are not competent to solve planet-wide issues when we have largely rejected the instructions given by the earth's Creator (like, honesty, the Golden Rule, etc, etc): we have a hard time trusting each other even when we say we agree. I'm glad we can share our own thoughts. We need His help both to address important issues globally, and in our personal lives.

And importantly, we can be OK. Related, more detailed thoughts at [http://lukecall.net/e-9223372036854581820.html](http://lukecall.net/e-9223372036854581820.html) , a simple site w/ no javascript or sales).</comment>


Gitlab 12.1 Released - <AUTHOR> https://about.gitlab.com/2019/07/22/gitlab-12-1-released/ <comment><USER2> Summary of the release:

\- The first iteration of Merge Trains [1] is released, allowing merges in the pipeline queue to run in parallel

\- Merge requests for confidential issues [2]: there is now the ability to mark MRs on confidential issues as confidential, instead of having to work in a private repo

\- Automated Let's Encrypt certificates for GitLab Pages [3]

\- Git object deduplication [4]

\- Deploy Boards for Kubernetes clusters at the Group [5] and Instance [6] level

\- Assigning groups as code owners [7]

[1] [https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/ci/merge_request_pipelines/pipeli...](https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/ci/merge_request_pipelines/pipelines_for_merged_results/merge_trains/index.html)

[2] [https://about.gitlab.com/2019/07/22/gitlab-12-1-released/?ut...](https://about.gitlab.com/2019/07/22/gitlab-12-1-released/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter#merge- requests-for-confidential-issues)

[3] [https://about.gitlab.com/2019/07/22/gitlab-12-1-released/?ut...](https://about.gitlab.com/2019/07/22/gitlab-12-1-released/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter#automatic- https-for-pages-with-lets-encrypt)

[4] [https://about.gitlab.com/2019/07/22/gitlab-12-1-released/?ut...](https://about.gitlab.com/2019/07/22/gitlab-12-1-released/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter#git- object-deduplication)

[5] [https://about.gitlab.com/2019/07/22/gitlab-12-1-released/?ut...](https://about.gitlab.com/2019/07/22/gitlab-12-1-released/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter#deploy- boards-for-group-level-kubernetes-clusters)

[6] [https://about.gitlab.com/2019/07/22/gitlab-12-1-released/?ut...](https://about.gitlab.com/2019/07/22/gitlab-12-1-released/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter#deploy- boards-for-instance-level-kubernetes-clusters)

[7] [https://about.gitlab.com/2019/07/22/gitlab-12-1-released/?ut...](https://about.gitlab.com/2019/07/22/gitlab-12-1-released/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter#assign- groups-as-code-owners)</comment>


Preserving Flash with WebAssembly the right way: without re-implementing it - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/leaningtech/preserving-flash-content-with-webassembly-done-right-eb6838b7e36f <comment><USER2> This seems very ambitious. I hope they succeed, because the amount of content which will be wiped off the face of the internet will be astronommical. (It'll be astronomical regardless, but still)</comment>


How to win 2048 everytime - <AUTHOR> http://jennypeng.me/2048/

<comment><USER2> Mphf, here I thought I'd learn how to master it so I'd finally be able to let it go. No such luck I guess.

<comment><USER3> Nope, it's just the original game with different start values -- [https://github.com/jennypeng/2048/commit/11032b0d1e157b69655...](https://github.com/jennypeng/2048/commit/11032b0d1e157b69655d7849dd2895ee9a9fe190#diff-3545c7afc8e1c76d67b442ea2a308f25L24)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I _have_ to upvote this for the best laugh I've had all week.

</comment><comment><USER5> What ?! This isn't about robotron? Ah. I thought 2048 was a typo.

</comment><comment><USER6> The only losing move is not to play.

</comment><comment><USER7> I love that this uses the FF6 victory theme</comment>


The Elves Leave Middle Earth – Sodas Are No Longer Free (2009) - <AUTHOR> https://steveblank.com/2009/12/21/the-elves-leave-middle-earth-%E2%80%93-soda%E2%80%99s-are-no-longer-free/ <comment><USER2> Past substantial discussions:

Six years ago: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1007750](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1007750)

Three years ago: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5751329](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5751329)</comment>


Ispc: A SPMD Compiler for High-Performance CPU Programming - <AUTHOR> http://ispc.github.io/documentation.html <comment><USER2> Used in the implementation of a production raytracer at Dreamworks Animation:

[http://tabellion.org/et/paper17/index.html](http://tabellion.org/et/paper17/index.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> I think SIMD programming is a simple way to improve the performance of applications that use the CPU. The real solution for applications that are computation bound and not inherently sequential is to perform the computations on an architecture that allows massive parallelism (a manycore architecure like Xeon Phi, a GPU, or even an FPGA).

<comment><USER4> Sure, but you still need to the software to manage this massive parallelism. It cannot just be OpenMP or OpenCL with C++. It needs to be a better and faster system, such as ispc or pony. ispc is faster, pony is safer, both are better and faster than C++.

<comment><USER5> At a glance, ISPC looks a lot like OpenCL. Does it outperform Intel's OpenCL- on-CPU engine? If so, why?

<comment><USER6> Original ispc author here.

I have no idea how performance compares to OpenCL on CPUs today, but it was in the same ballpark a few years ago.

The big difference is that OpenCL imposes a device model which is (IMHO) ridiculous if you're running everything on the CPU. With ispc, you have:

* Ahead-of-time compilation to binary code (no driver compiler in the way, so you can look at the ASM and know that's what will run.)

* Straightforward interop with C/C++ code: it compiles to the C ABI, so going from whatever other language to ispc code is just a function call. (Similarly, ispc can call out to C code.)

* Straightforward interop with application data structures: you can (and should!) pass pointers back and forth between C/C++ code and ispc code, do computation using the same data structures, etc.

All three of those are much uglier / more painful with the device model.

<comment><USER5> I'll play OpenCL's advocate:

> a device model which is (IMHO) ridiculous if you're running everything on > the CPU

How so? It's rather GPU-flavoured, sure, but is this a problem? My understanding is that it all maps down to CPUs just fine... even if no-one's really using OpenCL purely for parallel CPU work.

> Ahead-of-time compilation to binary code

OpenCL offers this too - `clGetProgramInfo` lets you access the compiled binary, and `clCreateProgramWithBinary` lets you make use of that binary.

> no driver compiler in the way, so you can look at the ASM and know that's > what will run

Intel's OpenCL development tooling is really pretty good - it's not hard to inspect the assembly. Same goes for AMD's tooling.

> going from whatever other language to ispc code is just a function call.

Neat. OpenCL can't do either, as everything it does has to work sensibly with GPUs.

> ispc can call out to C code

Same again.

> Straightforward interop with application data structures

Fair point. I don't know if/how OpenCL handles the question of struct layouts, or memory compatibility more generally.

I've passed structs between CPU and GPU with OpenCL, and it worked, but I think that's a hail Mary situation where really there's no assurance that the compilers' data layouts will match.

Even the definition of 'int' must be free to vary. I can't see how it couldn't be.

<comment><USER6> IMHO, the problem with the device model is that it imposes a bunch of unnecessary overhead on the programmer for cases where memory is shared and you're running on the same processor.

If I just want to call a function, pass some parameters, have it do some work, and get a result, things like OpenCL require all sorts of annoying boilerplate just to pass parameter values, map buffers, copy results out, etc. Sure it's all straightforward to write, but it's friction, and it's annoying.

Regarding clGetProgramInfo: does that return actual native executable code or IR? (I assume it's free to do either but in practice returns the latter, and that there's the usual "final driver compiler" between that code and what runs on the hardware, but I don't know.) An issue with that is that you can't be sure of what will run on users' systems; you're at the mercy of the version of the driver they've got installed.

<comment><USER5> > annoying boilerplate just to pass parameter values, map buffers, copy > results out, etc. Sure it's all straightforward to write, but it's friction

Agree. It's quite a lot of work to orchestrate even a simple kernel.

> I assume it's free to do either

Looks that way - it seems AMD's engine lets you configure it. There are bunch of 'non-native' representations:

* the OpenCL C source itself (which may end up getting stored in the ELF)

* LLVM IR

* AMDIL (based on LLVM IR but not identical)

* HSAIL (again, like LLVM IR but not identical)

* SPIR (yet again, except that later versions of this IR aren't directly based on LLVM)

[http://openwall.info/wiki/john/development/AMD- IL](http://openwall.info/wiki/john/development/AMD-IL)

The poorly-documented "-fbin-exe" flag gets you the real native code.

[http://developer.amd.com/wordpress/media/2013/07/AMD_Acceler...](http://developer.amd.com/wordpress/media/2013/07/AMD_Accelerated_Parallel_Processing_OpenCL_Programming_Guide- rev-2.7.pdf)

I believe there's a way to get it to build for GPUs other than your own. Whether it's exposed through the API, I'm not sure, but I'm fairly sure it can be done with the dev tools.

(That took quite a bit of digging, which I suppose proves your point.)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Casimir Effect - <AUTHOR> http://alphaprobe.com/equation.html

<comment><USER2> Nicely written article! The Casimir effect is a great example of quantum mechanics which is actually tractable without too much math (until you start getting to the weirder renormalization schemes). Bonus question: after reading, do you believe the quantum vacuum (or even "the electromagnetic field" can be said to "exist"?

I wrote my thesis on the Casimir effect last year, strangely enough. If you're hungry for a little more, it might be worth scanning. <http://aphyr.com/data/journals/113/comps.pdf>

<comment><USER3> Could you convert the mechanical energy of the moving plates into electrical energy? Probably orders of magnitude too small, eh?

What about at the nanoscale? Could these plates be like springs that provide motive force? What scale are these plates we are talking about? What are the wavelengths of the particles?

<comment><USER2> Sure. You could mechanically couple one of the plates to a generator of any type. Keep in mind though that the Casimir energy is conservative--meaning that you can't extract more energy out of it than you put in. You'd get one extremely small electrical charge... and then need to use more energy to pull the plates apart again.

The plates do need to be extremely close for this to be noticable. Definitely nanoscale. :)

The wavelengths of the particles are any which satisfy the boundary condition that the transverse component of the electric field is zero at the plate boundary. That's basically satisfied by any photon with wavelength above the plasma frequency. For aluminum, that's about 15 electron volts or 82 nm. (warning, back of the envelope math) Obviously the lower frequency bound depends on the distance between plates.

You can indeed make springs with the Casimir force, although the force depends quartically instead of quadratically on the distance. Measuring the springy oscillation rate is how we experimentally measure the force.

<comment><USER4> I've always understood an inverse quadratic relationship to be related to the surface area of the sphere over which a force is distributed at a given distance. Is that correct, and if so, does an inverse quartic relationship suggest additional dimensions in which the force is propagating?

<comment><USER2> That's an interesting idea. In this case, though, I don't think it does. In fact, many radial forces don't scale with the square law--the weak and strong nuclear forces, for example. The fourth-power scaling in the parallel plates example is strictly geometry-dependent, and doesn't apply in other circumstances.

I do wonder, however, if power-law forces in general reflect some measure of the "dimension" in which the system's phase space is embedded. I vaguely remember that the zeta regularization scheme is in fact tied to the dimensionality of the quantum algebra for the system... but that's higher math than I can handle. :)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


How often does it happen that the oldest person alive dies? - <AUTHOR> http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/349155/how-often-does-it-happen-that-the-oldest-person-alive-dies

<comment><USER2> I love mathematicians. They give a complicated function, explaining how they derived each term, and then consider the problem solved, without bothering to give a number.

It's correct, of course, as the problem _is_ solved, but most people would attempt a ballpark approximation in the end!

<comment><USER3> That is kind of like how you can take a class in number theory, and not actually use any concrete numbers (like 7, say).

<comment><USER4> There's an excellent quotation attributed to Alexandre Grothendieck, one of the greatest mathematicians alive. At a seminar he was giving on analytic number theory, someone suggested that they should consider a particular prime number. "You mean an actual number?" Grothendieck asked. The other person replied, yes, an actual prime number. Grothendieck replied "All right, take 57."

<comment><USER5> Is there a significance to 57 there?

<comment><USER6> Yes, it isn't prime, that's the joke (I guess).

<comment><USER7> Yes, but not in the sense that Grothendieck made a joke by saying '57', but in the sense that Grothendieck, who knows quite a bit about prime numbers, said '57' without realizing that it is composite.

<comment><USER6> Yes, I understood it in this sense too :) Quite a character, Grothendieck.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It seems to me that we can get a pretty decent approximation as follows:

1\. At any given time, Pr(oldest person <= age x) = Pr(one person <= age x)^N. So (over time) the median oldest-person age is the (1-2^-1/N) quantile of the age distribution. (For large N, this is roughly 1-log(2)/N.) (You can get that from actuarial tables, or use the Gompertz-Makeham approximation.)

2\. So, crudely, the time between oldest-person deaths is comparable to either the expected lifetime of a person of the age found in step 1, or 1/Pr(someone of that age dies in a given year). (Both are approximations. The former will give shorter inter-death times.)

3\. According to Wikipedia (which is always right, except when it's wrong), once you get old enough it's a decent approximation to say that that a Very Old Person has about a 50% chance of making it through any given year, and that figure doesn't depend very much on exactly how old they are.

Which would suggest that we should get a new oldest person about once every two years, and that for decent-sized populations (say, 1000 or more) the figure should depend only very weakly on population size.

If #3 is correct and at very advanced ages the mortality rate is roughly independent of age, it seems like this result shouldn't actually depend much on the details of the probability distributions. (The oldest person alive will almost always be very old.)

(You'd get quite different results if, e.g., there were a hard divinely- appointed cutoff at some particular age.)

<comment><USER4> Do you have a link for 3? It would probably affect my answer[0] as I was assuming that the probability of dying between ages x and x+1 increases as a power law after age 60 (which fits well for 60 <= x <= 100, but I don't have data for beyond 100).

[0] <http://math.stackexchange.com/a/387581/4873>

<comment><USER8> All I have for #3 is a brief comment on a Wikipedia page. I wouldn't trust it much, and would in fact expect your model to be nearer the truth.

In fact, I'd expect your model to be nearer the truth than it actually is. It seems that the true oldest-person death rate is on the order of 2 per year; my argument yields one per 2 years, your simulation yields one per 1.6 years; is it possible that there's a bug still lurking in your simulation code? (I know you fixed one already! ... and I see you've already responded to my asking the same question over on math.se. [EDIT to add: and I think I may have found a bug, which would make your code underreport oldest-death events. I've reported it on math.se.])

What happens as you twiddle the parameters of your power law to make mortality increase more sharply with increasing age? What do you need to do (if it's possible at all) to get the oldest-person death rate up to 2 per year?

It's conceivable that there's some bias in the reporting of deaths of oldest living people that causes too many to be reported -- but I haven't been able to think of any remotely plausible mechanism that would have that effect.

<comment><USER4> The latest iteration of the code (I fixed the bug you pointed out, and another one that I spotted myself) reports 1 death per 0.66 years, which is close to 2 per year. The remaining difference, as you said, could be due to the mortality rate in my model not accelerating fast enough past 100 years old. I'll have a play and let you know.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The person who asked the question on math.stackexchange.com referred to news reports, and is asking what is essentially a historical question, so the question really should have been asked on a question-and-answer site about historical research rather than on a site about mathematics. That's why the answers are so irrelevant to the nature of the question.

The Nexis commercial database of news stories may be comprehensive enough these days to answer a question like that in detail going back to your own birth year. It would cost money to do the Nexis search, and you'd probably have to pay someone to pore through the search results and edit a document that would accurately summarize the results, but this should be a solvable problem these days.

(As another comment here has already pointed out, the basic answer is "Every time someone becomes the oldest person in the world, that person eventually dies," but I take it that the question actually asked means "How often does the identity of the 'oldest person in the world' change to being a new individual?")

<comment><USER10> > That's why the answers are so irrelevant to the nature of the question.

I posted a historical response there, so hopefully that settles the issue.

<comment><USER9> Thank you for that. I see the French woman Jeanne Louise Calment (21 February 1875 – 4 August 1997) who long held the title of world's oldest person is an impressive outlier.

I heard a description of the life of Calment by a local researcher who participates in longitudinal studies of extreme old age. She outlived her husband, and all her (few) descendants. She only gave up smoking when she became so blind that she could no longer see the end of a cigarette to light it. The researcher told me this story (taken here from Wikipedia) about how she kept living in her house after she became aged and widowed:

"In 1965, aged 90 years and with no heirs, Calment signed a deal to sell her former apartment to lawyer André-François Raffray, on a contingency contract. Raffray, then aged 47 years, agreed to pay her a monthly sum of 2,500 francs until she died. Raffray ended up paying Calment the equivalent of more than $180,000, which was more than double the apartment's value. After Raffray's death from cancer at the age of 77, in 1995, his widow continued the payments until Calment's death."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> You can't trust the actual data on this one, because the "oldest person alive" is often a deceased Japanese person whose death has not been reported, for the purpose of pension fraud.

<comment><USER10> That's why they start by mentioning the GRG, which does do some investigation of its official entries and is aware of issues like pension fraud.

<comment><USER10> If anyone is curious, I just updated the post with a quickie analysis of the GRG data (I'm on the mailing list and brought this and the post up and someone else posted the relevant table). Turns out the actual timing differs on whether you're looking at mean or median, because Calment screwed things up by living a ridiculously long time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Every time. 100%. Next question please!

</comment><comment><USER13> Since the question is about the average, it seems the question can be simply answered: the next-oldest person, on average, will die at the same age as the current oldest person. (Obviously, assuming an unchanging mortality rate over time, but this sounds like a valid approximation for very old people. There seem to be a wall around 122.) Thus the average waiting time between two oldest-person deaths is the average age difference between the two oldest living persons.

Edit: actually, an even simpler first-order approximation is possible. If we take at face-value that very old people have a 50% chance of living one more year, and that this statistics holds whatever the baseline date, then upon the death of the eldest person, the average life-span of the next eldest person is 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 ... IOW, 1 year.

</comment><comment><USER14> Should it be of interest, here's a list of those people born in 1800s still alive today (i.e. over 113 years old): [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_surviving_1800s-born_peopl...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_surviving_1800s-born_people)

<comment><USER14> ps. All are from Japan, US, Italy or UK. I suspect that may be down to record keeping as much as lifestyle. For example, a friend's wife is from Turkey and doesn't know how old she is as her date of birth was never recorded; one year her parents just made a guess saying "well, you were born in summer and you look like an 8 year old, so we'll stick you down as 21st June 1965".

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> This seems like one of those interview questions where there is no right or wrong answer, they just want to see your method. I'll probably waste most of my day thinking about this.

</comment><comment><USER16> For the last 20 oldest, the five person rolling length of time as oldest seems to be hanging around 200 days.

</comment><comment><USER17> I need a number.

<comment><USER18> 3

<comment><USER17> So the oldest person dies every 3 years.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> tq;dr

tq = teaser question

</comment><comment><USER20> Depends, in some specie, the older you are, the less likely you are to die.</comment>


Go to Prison for File Sharing? That's What Hollywood Wants in the TPP Deal - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/go-prison-sharing-files-thats-what-hollywood-wants-secret-tpp-deal/# <comment><USER3> What I do not like about these deals which always have funny acronyms TPP, ACTA, SOPA is that they are done in secrecy. If the one who are drafting these agreements are acting in the publics best interest, why are the deals and drafts drawn up in secret? If you have nothing to hide and have good honest intentions why hide your drafts?

That makes me come to the conclusion that the deals they are drafting are not in the publics best interest and thus they want to hide their bad intentions!

Guess what, we live in the information age and the public will know anyway.

<comment><USER4> > the public will know anyway.

Yes, but that does not mean the public can actually do something about it (not saying we should not try, though). Political lobbies can be more powerful than citizens, it would not be the first time it happens.

<comment><AUTHOR> _> that does not mean the public can actually do something about it_

If public businesses and consumers believe they can or cannot do something about it, they are correct (remember SOPA/PIPA? [http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/media/2012/01/5094412/...](http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/media/2012/01/5094412/defeat- sopa-and-pipa-washington-learns-not-meddle-west-coast-code-and-)). Choosing which something is the important part. Learning about the proposals is a start.

Why did most countries drop their opposition to criminalization proposals? Possibly because implementation will be delayed until the government who sign the agreement have left office, [http://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2014/10/17/latest...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2014/10/17/latest- tpp-leak-shows-even-harsher-copyright-rules/)

 _"... while the last leaked draft of the TPP, dated November 2013, showed strong international opposition to this criminalization plan, Canada now seems to be the only serious hold-out. This may, suggests James Love of Knowledge Ecology International, be because this new draft gives some countries extra time to implement the agreement – meaning that current governments won't necessarily have to carry the can for their decisions."_

Public opinion matters, otherwise why delay implementing the proposed rules?

<comment><USER5> Given the failure to pass measures SOPA and PIPA, et al; expect new tactics from the proponents. They will keep trying new and old tactics until fatigue sets in on the other side, or they get a lucky break.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hopefully opponents are prepared for any lucky-break attempts to rush TPP/TTIP/CETA through while press and populace are distracted by some future unpredictable crisis.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> This is a complex topic with many nuances, all of which need public input. Glynn Moody at Computerworld UK has been providing detailed coverage on TTIP issues at [http://www.computerworlduk.com/blogs/open-enterprise/ttip- up...](http://www.computerworlduk.com/blogs/open-enterprise/ttip-updates--the- glyn-moody-blogs-3569438/), which has similar provisions to TPP.

The US has a legislative process that reduces the chance of bundling of non- contested and practical trade agreements with debatable propositions. Fast Track would bypass debate on topics that need both public and legislator input. In the US, Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon needs to be lobbied by constituents, to block Fast Track, [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/19/ron-wyden-fast- trac...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/19/ron-wyden-fast-track-trade- deal_n_6714748.html)

 _" Seventy-three percent of respondents indicated that they oppose "Congress giving the president fast-track authority for the NAFTA-style trade agreements like the TPP." If fast-track authority is in place, lawmakers can vote only "yes" or "no" on final trade packages."_

A Japanese lawyer comments on TPP implications for fanzines, which showcase new manga artists and are tolerated by publishers, even though they are technically infringing on copyrights, [http://japanitlaw.blogspot.com/2013/01/tpps-effect-on- fanzin...](http://japanitlaw.blogspot.com/2013/01/tpps-effect-on-fanzine- environment.html)

 _" in practice, it is rare for the police to commence an investigation without a complaint by the rights holder.

However, this situation may change. The draft of the request of the US on Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) 15.5(g) stipulates, "its authorities may initiate legal action ex officio with respect to the offenses described in this Chapter, without the need for a formal complaint by a private party or rights holder."_

Could someone be charged with copyright violation even if the OWNER of the copyright does not want to press charges? That would defeat the purpose of copyright (promote creative works) and property rights (respect decisions by copyright owners). It also risks selective abuse by law enforcement, who would no longer need anyone to press charges, before seizing computers, etc.

<comment><USER6> If it needs public input while is held in the secret?

<comment><AUTHOR> We need people to call and write their representatives. Europe has moved towards greater transparency and received 150,000 public comments, [http://www.computerworlduk.com/blogs/open-enterprise/ttip- up...](http://www.computerworlduk.com/blogs/open-enterprise/ttip-update- xlvii-3593403/)

 _" The Commissioner outlined two main proposals for boosting transparency. First, to extend access to TTIP texts to all Members of the European Parliament, beyond the currently limited group of Members of the European Parliament's International Trade Committee. Second, to publish texts setting out the EU's specific negotiating proposals on TTIP."_

[http://www.computerworlduk.com/blogs/open-enterprise/ttip- up...](http://www.computerworlduk.com/blogs/open-enterprise/ttip-update- xlviii-3593961/)

 _".. the unexpected decision to hold a consultation on the area last year. The hope seems to have been that this would keep critics quiet, and allow the European Commission to come up with a few minor tweaks to its proposals while claiming that the public had been allowed to air their views.

It didn't quite work out like that. An unprecedented 150,000 replies were received - and this was on a hitherto obscure aspect of a traditionally boring trade agreement. That number alone bespeaks a new relationship between the public and the politicians who are supposed to serve them. "_

<comment><USER7> I'm not sure the European powers that be are as transparent about TTIP in practice as the spin might suggest, though:

[https://www.gov.uk/government/news/transatlantic-trade- and-i...](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/transatlantic-trade-and- investment-partnership-cable-urges-greater-transparency)

"In a meeting in London today (16 February 2015) Vince Cable and UK Trade Minister Lord Livingston will ask Commissioner Malmström to give senior UK parliamentarians access to TTIP treaty text as it is developed, so that they can monitor progress and ask questions on the public's behalf."

That is, in the UK even senior members of our own national government don't know what we're supposedly signing up for with TTIP.

Given that:

\- we have an election coming up in less than three months

\- the outcome of that election is probably the most unpredictable in living memory

\- TTIP is already perceived by a significant proportion of the general public to be a threat to "national treasures" like the NHS

\- depending on the outcome of the election it is quite possible we will have a referendum on leaving the EU entirely within the lifetime of the next government

these kinds of shenanigans seem likely to push the UK public even further towards leaving the EU.

<comment><USER8> Its seems to be worse than this. According to a radio interview I heard a few weeks ago only MEP's can look at the TTIP text and then only in a special secure room. They are not allowed to make any notes or take any copies and are not permitted to discuss it.

TTIP seems to me the antithesis of any semblance of a democratic process we should support. I don't know how they get away with it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> For some mysterious reason, Americans always talk about TPP and never about TAFTA. But both are parts of the global US strategy, and both are secret agreements chock full with odious provision against the people. It's US imperialism at its worst, and both treaties are Trojan horses direct from the big lobbyists to get at last out of reach of the rule of law. If both these treaties come into existence, democracy will be dead for good.

<comment><USER10> It seems that TAFTA and TTIP are the same thing, no? [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/tafta-us-eus-trojan- tr...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/tafta-us-eus-trojan-trade- agreement-talks-and-leaks-begin)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> It's ridiculous how much money tech has yet media can push us around. I know media has been in bed with the govt for a longer time, but in DC, money talks and bullshit walks. why can't we bribe errr lobby the hell out of DC on behalf of what's best for society and tech.

<comment><USER12> If the taxpayer wasn't so easily distracted they should be voting for Lobby Neutrality where the communication ways with politicians would be guaranteed to be equal to everyone, be they a citizen or a corporation or Israel.

<comment><USER13> > where the communication ways with politicians would be guaranteed to be > equal to everyone, be they a citizen or a corporation or Israel.

So... everyone in America is entitled to about 52 milliseconds a year with each politician? That's how you'd have to split it up to be "equal" (assuming we force politicians to spend an unrealistic 12 hours a day satisfying the requirement to provide "equal" lobbying opportunities).

<comment><USER14> Thats actually not so stupid: you could donate your miliseconds to whatever cause or group you believe in and they would then get a pooled time to speak with the politician. Can't get ten thousand people in the US to care about your cause? Then the cause likely suck.

There are certainly other, better options, but it is not clear that it is as bad as you suggested.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The average user can avoid prosecution by setting their torrent client's upload speed to 0. No upload == no share, and besides, the folks 'capturing' IP addresses need to get a "clandestine" packet from you before they can put you on the naughty list (since they can't send _you_ a clandestine packet, for obvious reasons.)

Don't need a VPN, just don't upload.

<comment><USER16> If everyone did this, it would render torrents useless.

<comment> T-hawk There is room for users in a hostile jurisdiction to avoid uploading, while users in a permissive jurisdiction provide the uploading to keep the torrents functional.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The Media lobbying efforts, specifically with respect to Copyright and punishment, make the Patent Wars look like a knock-off. According to the MPAA/RIAA, their industries are essentially responsible for the health of the US economy...if you read some of their PR, that's what you'll find. Deeper evaluation of the numbers shows they're outright lying about their importance. Like with many large entities, the money floats to the top (e.g. "investors") and wages, labor conditions, and investment in communities is outright terrible. It has been this way for a long time, and the money pays to influence DC and the world to try and keep the status quo.

If you want a couple good explanations for how the Media industry keeps rigging the game, just take a look at two of the major power players / persons of influence. One is Chris Dodd ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Dodd](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Dodd)). The other is Maria Pallante ([http://copyright.gov/about/office- register/](http://copyright.gov/about/office-register/)). Through their words, actions, and espoused philosophies, neither of them genuinely serve the public interest, or by proxy, the US economy. It's not about individuals, per se, but about power being funneled through individuals that needs to be strongly monitored.

</comment><comment><USER18> Here's the deal with the TPP. It is a critical component of the financial and strategic future of the United States.

Put plainly, Asia and the Pacific Region is forecasted by both OECD and the International Monetary Fund to be the primary area of financial growth for the next several decades (while down in the latest report the long term prospects are encouraging). China continues to grow despite recent staggarings; Taiwan is projected to continue acceleration of growth; South Korea with support from China and the United States are planning for reunification with North Korea (and the subsequent acquisition of resource rich lands). The region's development index is cresting a knee on the curve - pairing nicely with its large population, strong trading routes, and stability (compared with the European pressure cooker).

China, the new kid on the block, now the largest creditor nation and second largest economy is leading a trade deal in the Pacific (and a few other invited nations) called AFTA - a trade deal the United States has not been invited to, despite her vocal interest.

The US has done what it can to dissuade allies from joining in on AFTA, and has offered these allies instead membership to an alternative trade deal - <USER2> that curiously lacks China, despite its vocal interest...

The Trans-Pacific Partnership represents a keystone in America's 'pivot' to Asia (/'rebalancing'); a bid to win key influence on the rules for international trade policy in the region that will benefit the US - and will exclude China unless it agrees to the some longstanding US wishlists (especially with regard to intellectual property).

It is an unfortunate fact then that what is know from leaked drafts of the trade that it comes with certain trojan horses - administrative and corporate wishlists that could not pass the muster of even a generally distracted domestic voting population, such as requirements mentioned in the article for internet service providers to filter and monitor customer traffic.

It's a sort of damned if you do damned if you don't scenario. The TPP is important for navigating future global financial and international policy options, but bundled with it are laws that would otherwise be rejected at the ballot box.

To summarize it's important to understand the issue broadly: it is dangerous to be a single issue voter. It would be a shame to trade major strategic opportunities for the ability to share ripped DVDs. It would also be a shame to take another step back on internet freedom for international trade whose benefits in the short term are bound to be largely captured by large and multinational corporations. Thus enters the important of a representative government - only a representative government has the perspective to both barter at the macro scale for the benefit of whole of the nation as a singular identity at the same time brokering for the interests and the preferences of the daily concerns and liberties of the regular citizen.

<comment><USER19> So how much do they pay you to post that "press release"-style post that doesn't actually explain _how_ the TPP would help? You've posted a lot of fear-mongering, but haven't actually shown what would be changed by the treaty.

As we _already_ have very little in the way of tarriffs or other barriers to international trade, there isn't a lot that could be done to "improve trade" between US and asia. So why the treaty? The TPP is nothing more than an attempt to legalize the movement of _capital_.

I suggest reading this fun comic that explains the economic history and theories, and what is actually being done to try and consolidate even more wealth.

[http://economixcomix.com/home/tpp/](http://economixcomix.com/home/tpp/)

In the long run, once _both_ goods and capital can be moved freely outside the reach of government regulation - and taxation - we find the true purpose of the TPP in these two terrifying words: Corporate Sovereignty.

John Oliver just a good example of the narcissism and greed that we can expect to get a _lot_ worse if the TPP were to pass:

[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150216/17390930032/john-...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150216/17390930032/john- oliver-highlights-ridiculousness-corporate-sovereignty-provisions.shtml)

<comment><USER20> I do not get paid to post to Hacker News. That would be a fun job... but alas I am not that lucky.

Why do you think my post was fearmongering, specifically?

As per the implication that corporations stand a lot to gain from the TPP - you'll see in my post I've said precisely the same thing. I would agree that there is a trend in the direction of corporate sovereignty - another large trend in this direction is what Bruce Schneier calls "Public-Private Partnership" where he suggests (rightly so IMHO) that as each is subject to different laws partnerships allow them to be bound by neither (he's gone so far as to call this partnership a "Modern Leviathan": [http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/06/corpora...](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/06/corporate- government-data-collection)).

You can be sure that the TPP _is_ in the interest of the US's strategic financial and diplomatic future. That's not a lie - nor is it fearmongering.

Regarding what can be improved regarding trade - most of it has to do with fixing international standards and laws - though there are other details being ironed out (is it Korea or Taiwan that is building a giant shipping port as part of the agreement?). That's actually why it's important for the US to have influence there. The US wants to have as much influence setting the standards and regulations regarding trade and goods as possible. An important secondary effect is that both the process of negotiation and resulting trade partners garners political clout for future joint (bi- and uni-lateral) ventures.

<comment><USER19> > Why do you think my post was fearmongering, specifically?

You're entire original post - and part of this one - is trying to stir up fears about the future financial stability of the US. This is fear mongering because you haven't actually shown how the TPP fixes this other than to say it is necessary in some vague and highly theoretical ways.

> You can be sure that the TPP is in the interest of the US's strategic > financial and diplomatic future

No, the TPP is in the strategic financial - and diplomatic - future of _corporations_ , while _removing_ much of the features of government that might stop those corporations. Allowing foreign corporations the power to wield a criminal codes or civil liabilities - that they largely get to make up - over people in the US can only be "in the interest of the US" in the "we had to burn the village down to save it" sense.

I would consider this kind of end-run around the amendment process to pass things that would obviously not pass a legitimate legislative process to be the very definition of trying to undermine the authority of the constitution, aka "sedition".

Any legitimate concerns about _specific details_ of trade or the US's relationship with the growing economies in asia can be brought up as normal legislation, where they can each be argued about on their own.

> nor is it fearmongering.

lol

<comment><USER20> I can garuntee you that my post is not trying to stir up fears. (I know this because I wrote it...)

That said if the idea that the gloomier prospects of US finances and it needing to jockey for position in the Asian Pacific region is new and scary I would suggest two things: first that the original post included some perspective regarding the importance of the region in upcoming decades and second that it is mere truth that the dollar, US bonds and Western financial institutions have not been seeing strong trends. The US and China are in the same relationship the UK and US were when the Stirling Pound was traded for the US Dollar as the international fiat currency; with the UK as the largest debtor nation and the US as the largest creditor. This is true today but it is the US who is the largest debtor and it is China who has been establishing international banks and building an empire of credit. I do not claim that the sky is falling, nor that this is somehow a secret disclosure - it is in fact commonly traded knowledge. My bet is that if you do independent research regarding the strength of the US as an economic power you will see that she is facing challenges. Not sky is falling challenges. But challenges that require action to address them. One of those things is the TPP. Or rather, one option is the TPP. The US government chose the Asia-Pacific option a decade ago and the TPP today is one tactic in that continuing strategy.

The TPP is not _the_ fix. Complex problems do not have simple singular fixes. It is, however, a keystone effort to establish a primary trade treaty in the region at a time it may be otherwise denied from.

Nor does the post champion the TPP. I hoped to show how it is both important and potentially damaging, specifically in regard to domestic law.

> No, the TPP is in the strategic financial - and diplomatic - future of > corporations

I'm exactly the sort of person who would agree that there are dangerous trends toward corporate world governance. Nestle owns nearly half the world's potable water and 51 of the world's one hundred largest economic forces are international corporations (and as opposed to a democracy of any sort corporations are primarily autocratic and required _by law_ to maximize the wealth of their leadership at the possible expense to others).

However, I think we depart. Where you see a cabal of corporations running the show, bending the US government to its will, I see something very different. I see a US government, earnest to do right by its people (albeit partially blind to some of it's peoples ideals and struggles), positioned in stride with corporations. That is: from the perspective of both the US government _and_ from US corporations the TPP is a strategic win.

That the TPP may go further to enshine corporations as global players and a powerful political class is not mutually exclusive with the TPP being an important diplomatic and financial opportunity for the US as a republic. Rather, it is precisely what I say in my parent comment - that it's a damned if you do damned if you don't situation. The TPP is sincerely important for the US as a nation. It also further benefits large and international corporations. This is to say - yes I agree with you that corporate governance is an emerging threat. But it isn't the _only_ emerging threat. The US's future is too. It's important that we recognize the issue in full scope rather than make it about any singular favorite issue.

> I would consider this kind of end-run around the amendment process to pass > things that would obviously not pass a legitimate legislative process to be > the very definition of trying to undermine the authority of the > constitution, aka "sedition".

The constitution directly allows the US to make treaties with other nations and for those treaties to be the law of the land. This is also not the first time, nor and exceptional time, that this has been done.

So I think I misunderstood you here. You're clearly not saying this is unconstitutional. I think you're saying that the TPP is an agreement that will hurt the US more than help it - and that US leadership knows this - and thus it is 'sedition'? Again we depart. The TPP is important for the US and US leadership recognizes this. An unfortunate truth is that the TPP will not correct, and will probably exacerbate, the power and wealth concentrated within large corporations. We should definitely be having conversations about the role of corporations and their domestic and international political power. But we don't need to unilaterally reject the TPP - in fact if we were to we would still have a problem with corporate power. It's absolutely important we deal with consolidated capital and influence inside of these institutions - but it should not blind us from everything else going on. I would suggest, with my tongue partially pressed to my cheek, that making the TPP out to be entirely about corporate world order sounds a whole lot like... fearmongering?

> Any legitimate concerns about specific details of trade or the US's > relationship with the growing economies in asia can be brought up as normal > legislation, where they can each be argued about on their own.

Negotiating trade deals with so many divergent interests is not something that is done well by normal legislative bodies - nor do I think you want to suggest our deadlocked legislation would be an improvement. But with regard to the general sentiment that you wish there were more transparency: I agree.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> It's all about money. Hollywood is greedy and wants more to create another mediocre (at best) movies.

<comment><USER22> A business wanting to make more money by charging for their good/bad/ok product? how evil.

I don't agree that copyright infringement should be a criminal rather than civil matter.

Even when I'm watching a mediocre movie, I still appreciate that it took lots of peoples time and money to create.

Edit: updated with word 'more' in response to response to this response of a response

<comment><USER23> _> A business wanting to make more money by charging for their good/bad/ok product? how evil._

A business encouraging governments to throw people in jail for something which has never been considered a criminal infraction in order to make more money is pretty evil.

I would never dream of asking a government to throw somebody in jail for pirating my software. The benefit that I get (ostensibly deterrence) is minuscule in comparison to the human cost of a criminal record and even a short stint in jail.

<comment><USER22> I think i made it clear in my comment that I also dis-agree with it being a criminal matter. That was not really the argument I was responding to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Hollywood brought that up to itself, you can't be paying actors for millions and then wonder why people want to get your stuff for free. Make affordable prices by reducing actors salaries and gfx artists salaries to 6 figures rather than having them sitting at a lot of millions.

<comment><USER25> I think you got it completely backwards. It's demand vs. supply,like everywhere else. If you are making a film,and want to hire an actor, you have to look around - if Robert D. Junior wants $10 million to play this role,and an unknown actor X will play it for $100k, you either pay $10 million to hire RDJ,or he won't work for you. You can't "Make affordable prices by reducing actors salaries" \- you are simply not in charge of that, you are not their boss, or their accountant. And in general, I have no idea where you got this silly notion that somehow people wouldn't want films for free if the actors were paid less.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I can't speak for the US, but I'm just not buying the fear about the TPP. I honestly can't see the Australian judiciary sending people to jail, or issuing large fines, for sharing media.

Suppose the sentencing is mandatory leaving the judiciary with no choice. We'll see how long that lasts, but very well then, I'll happily spend 3 months in an Australian prison for sharing media. I think you'd probably have to book in advance. How comical.

How can law enforcement possibly police this? The idea is so ridiculous, like some kind of 'War on Piracy'.

> penalties that include sentences of imprisonment as well as monetary fines > sufficiently high to provide a deterrent to future acts of infringement

C'mon, seriously? Is there anyone who doesn't know risk of imprisonment doesn't act as deterrent. There are Australian's about to be executed in Indonesia for drug trafficking. Should be pretty obvious.

I'm sorry, but with all the hyped up FUD, I just can't seem to get uptight about the TPP.

Certainly life will go on, and people will continue to share media.

<comment><USER19> You apparently haven't been keeping up with the news, as this kind of "remote prosecution" _already happens_. It is not theoretical.

If you want a quick intro to these attacks, I suggest watching the most recent John Oliver episode.

[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150216/17390930032/john-...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150216/17390930032/john- oliver-highlights-ridiculousness-corporate-sovereignty-provisions.shtml)

<comment><USER26> Did you link to the right video? We still have plain tobacco packaging in Australia. Can you tell me where to skip to in the video that talks about remote prosecution of individuals with regard to piracy.

<comment><USER19> Keep watching - the corporate stuff starts a few minutes in, with the tobacco industry throwing around threats to various countries legislatures to stop those legislatures from passing Australian-style packaging laws and other public-health regulations.

edit: if you're in a hurry, try starting at about 5:55 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=6U...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=6UsHHOCH4q8#t=355)

<comment><USER26> Can you tell me where to skip to in the video that talks about remote prosecution of individuals with regard to piracy.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


$100 laptop problem solved quietly? - <AUTHOR> https://www.amazon.com/s?k=laptop&rh=p_36%3A-10000 <comment><USER2> I'm not sure if you've ever tried using Chromebooks with your kids, but I have... and a lot of schools try it. They don't last long. I currently have four Chromebooks, and after a few months of use, only one of them is in fully working condition. They are really fragile.

So why not just toss out the broken ones and buy more? Well, they are a bad use of my time, as the system administrator who has to reconfigure them...

Much better and more cost-effective to buy new old stock, older model, full- sized ThinkPads or similar machines. They last FAR longer.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I remember this was a big goal at one point: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5ySOqtxhbw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5ySOqtxhbw)</comment>


Ask HN: How would you organize/classify/sort your ideas? - <AUTHOR>

Pretty open ended, but I don't want to constrain any replies by being too specific for now.<p>I will say that I will be using Org-mode (most likely) for this purpose, and am interested in hearing suggestions before I start recording mine. <comment><USER2> I use <http://www.mindnode.com/> and <http://www.evernote.com/> Happy thinking!

</comment><comment><USER3> This is the shit: <http://zim-wiki.org/> The best feature is you can type cntrl-j and it gives you an autocompleting text box with which you can jump to any page. This saves a lot of time.

</comment><comment><USER4> Any sort of mind mapping software usually works for me. I've had great success with bubblus[1] which is a very simple web based mapper.

[1] <http://bubbl.us/edit.php>

</comment><comment><USER5> I like using a directed acyclic graph, presented as an outline. E.g., Leo: <http://webpages.charter.net/edreamleo/front.html>

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Interesting! Do any of you use criteria and categories to organize ideas? Ie usefulness, time required, etc.

</comment><comment><USER6> A text file. Well, a bunch of them. Lets me edit/append to them quickly, from almost anywhere on my system.</comment>


Dart in Progress of Switching TLS Support from Mozilla NSS to Boring SSL - <AUTHOR> https://code.google.com/p/dart/issues/detail?id=10260#c13

<comment><AUTHOR> Thought more people would find it interesting. See comment #13 in the linked issue.</comment>