Pictures combined using Neural networks - <AUTHOR> http://imgur.com/gallery/BAJ8j <comment><USER2> Here's the backend it's based on:

[https://github.com/jcjohnson/neural- style](https://github.com/jcjohnson/neural-style)

and the paper:

[http://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.06576v2.pdf](http://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.06576v2.pdf)

<comment><USER3> This actually seems to come from a new paper: [http://arxiv.org/pdf/1601.04589v1.pdf](http://arxiv.org/pdf/1601.04589v1.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> There's a fascinating animated movie "Loving Vicent" coming up that is made in the style of Vincent van Gogh. Apparently the individual frames are actual oil paintings made by hand.

[http://www.thisiscolossal.com/2016/02/loving-vincent- trailer...](http://www.thisiscolossal.com/2016/02/loving-vincent-trailer/)

When I first saw the trailer my first thought was the neural network approach shown here. I wonder how close you could get to "Loving Vincent" style by simply applying this algorithm to individual video camera frames.

<comment><USER5> > Apparently the individual frames are actual oil paintings made by hand

I don't believe it

<comment><USER5> Isn't this thread enough to proof the movie wouldn't have to be hand-painted? I'm not going to find the Van Gogh themed NN posted before.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> There's something too oddly natural in NN based images. The jpeg compression artifacts of the visual cortex.

</comment><comment><USER7> I did this album:

[http://imgur.com/a/Gliwg](http://imgur.com/a/Gliwg)

<comment><USER8> Wow, this is art, seriously. Do you have any documentation on how you made these? What were the original images you used?

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Is this the same code/algorithm as: [https://github.com/jcjohnson/neural- style](https://github.com/jcjohnson/neural-style)?

<comment><USER10> The authors of the paper have their own website providing similar service [http://deepart.io/page/about/](http://deepart.io/page/about/) (which claims a patent over this, unfortunately).

<comment><USER11> Now we just need another neural network to remove the watermark from the free version :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> That is a Billion dollar photo app waiting to be published ;)

<comment><USER13> There is: [https://deepart.io/](https://deepart.io/)

<comment><USER14> "Estimated waiting time: 9145.0 minutes"

This is not how you are going to earn billions ;)

<comment><USER13> It's "a bit" faster if you pay them. They wouldn't earn a penny doing it for free.

<comment><USER14> Well, yeah, but if they can't even make one single sample image for me, I'd rather not give them money. It's been more than a day and the image is still not done. It'd be faster for me to just install caffe and one of the open source solutions and do it myself. For free, as many as I want.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Whelp, it looks like painting and graphic art is going the way of the dodo...

<comment><USER16> Someone still has to come up with new art styles for the machine to mix.

<comment><USER17> Before that becomes the main problem, that other problem must be solved where you give it your picture and the Mona Lisa whose style is to be copied and the way it copies the style is it paints her eyebrow atop your mouth. 'Cause it's not like this thing can really distinguish between "style" and "content". What it does is it pastes patches from the "style" image onto the "content" image. Sometimes the result is interesting, much of the time it's between boring and terrifying. It's cool and all, but it's not much more intelligent than your favorite Photoshop filter.

"Going the way of the dodo..."

<comment><USER18> > Cause it's not like this thing can really distinguish between "style" and > "content

So it's going to be perfect for modern art? :D

<comment><USER5> No, it can't distinguish because it doesn't know either.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Found this while browsing /r/MachineLearning: [https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/47zxox/pic...](https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/47zxox/pictures_combined_using_convolutional_neural/)

</comment><comment><USER19> Reminds me about this music video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgPaCWJL7XI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgPaCWJL7XI) I guess they've used similar tech.

<comment><USER20> Looks like standard DeepDream to me so not really the same thing. In OP they combine pictures while this just apply DeepDream over and over until it looks like that.

<comment><USER21> Do you know how they get stable videos from DeepDream? I've seen it elsewhere too, but my initial guess would have been that DeepDream would give ridiculous results if you ran it on each frame individually. I expect it's sensitive to tiny differences between frames.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Awesome, would be even cooler if it could pick up specific features like faces and replicate the style. Now it kind of brushes over most faces unless it dominates the picture.

</comment><comment><USER23> If I wanted to get into generating this kind of image, as an art project, where would I start, assuming I'm a component programmer?

<comment><USER24> Checkout [http://deepart.io/](http://deepart.io/). You'll have to pay a little bit but they provide a very convenient interface for doing this.

<comment><USER25> I'm interested in the question too and, if he's of similar mind to me, that's not what he meant.

I'm curious what it takes to make a piece of software like this. People say "Using NN" and stuff. But if I make an app with a way to load a picture and then add NN to it, this won't come out. I'm wondering what the specific function of the networks are here.

<comment><USER23> Definitely. I want to understand what's going on here and be able to apply some creativity to the process, not just use existing tools without understanding.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Is the combination symmetrical? I.e. would we get the same result combining A with B than combining B with A?

<comment><USER27> It would appear that in each of the examples, the result uses the top source image for "content" and the bottom one for "style". So no, it's not commutative.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> See [http://dreamscopeapp.com](http://dreamscopeapp.com)

<comment><USER29> Does this actually use the same technique, or is it just a clever filter?

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> is this different from neural-style? it seems to be. here is neural-style with an api: [http://www.somatic.io/models/somatic/neural-style- demo](http://www.somatic.io/models/somatic/neural-style-demo)

<comment><USER31> It it based on it

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Beautiful :)</comment>


Tradition Is Smarter (2018) - <AUTHOR> http://scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2018/08/tradition-is-smarter-than-you-are.html <comment><USER2> > I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away.

BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit, an urban rail system) uses non-standard rail gauge, 5 feet 6 inches. US standard rail gauge, 4 feet, 8.5 inches, would be much cheaper to use as there is a large market in standard equipment. Non standard BART equipment must instead be built custom, greatly increasing its cost.

With that example in mind, the reformer wants to clear away this dumb design decision and indeed the East Bay Antioch extension uses standard gauge. The _more intelligent type of reformer_ may ask _If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away._

The trouble is that no one can remember _why_ the non-standard gauge was chosen. Sometimes design decisions aren't smarter. They're just old.

<comment><USER3> I seem to recall that it was _deliberately_ chosen for incompatibility, so that a BART train could _never_ be run on a regular railroad track.

Why? Partly politics. Southern Pacific Railroad was the existing railroad in San Francisco. They had an existing commuter rail operation (which, if I understand correctly, later became Caltrain), and they didn't want the headaches of BART trains on their tracks. They were already losing money on their existing commuter operation. Their money came from hauling freight.

But the other reason was safety. If two trains collide, and they're both passenger trains, they'd better be built to similar collision standards. Otherwise the stronger train will destroy the weaker, and there are people in the weaker train. And if there are freight trains on the same tracks, then the passenger trains have to be built to standards such that a collision with a freight train isn't a massacre. (By the way, this is part of the distinction between "light rail" and regular rail. They should _never_ be on the same tracks.)

<comment><USER4> > If two trains collide, and they're both passenger trains, they'd better be > built to similar collision standards.

Is this _really_ a concern? This sounds crazy to me, how likely are trains to actually collide? Are they not monitored and tracked? Do they not have safety systems?

<comment><USER5> Romania, December 2019: two trains collide almost 50 injured.

And what is more monitored and tracked than airplanes? December 2019: "Wizz Air A320 within seconds of head on collision with an Air Europa Express flight over Spain"

<comment><USER4> Airplanes are not tracked( as in, they run on tracks) so they have more options as to where they might be. With trains it's far far simpler to position. Being on a collision course should be obvious.

Funny, I'm form Romania too, and CFR is a shining example of mismanagement. I really doubt we can extrapolate a general rule from what is happening with CFR. Precautions and some automated safety systems could surely avoid this.

<comment><USER6> Trains are tracked, which means they can't get _off_ a collision course. A plane can turn in 2 directions in each of 2 dimensions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Did anyone ever bother asking the Tukanoans why they process the manioc like that?

I wash my hands, I can't see bacteria or germs, I've certainly never seen a anyone die directly because of unwashed hands, and it's just a slow statistical increase in sickness if a whole bunch of people stop...

but I don't wash my hands because I observed my elders, or because some cultural figure told me it was merely the way of our people. Some just told at some point to wash my hands cause otherwise people get sick, and if I had had questions they'd have mentioned germs and stuff.

Like did any one check if the Tukanoans know manioc will slowly poison them otherwise? I know it's a bit of a fuzzy line but is that process "tradition" or is it "technology"

<comment><USER8> I think part of the why to your question is that Its deceiving to view the human as a singular entity.

There isnt a you, practically, there is infact an Us, and as an organism, the rule of large numbers wins everytime, we select for what we think is right as a social collective/organism.

That kind of thinking is accepted in science, but not wide spread amongst the singular individuals.

Older cultures didnt need to check for anything, decisions probably evolved through intra generational symbolism and stories about ghosts and evil spirits. Life wont answer the why, it just is, and if we push itll just eat us.

In the same breadth, science is nature too. So whatever works, really.

<comment><USER9> Woah, this sentiment nails it. Please recommend reading.

<comment><USER10> You didn't ask me but I have a similar outlook and would appreciate reading suggestions.

Jordan Peterson talks about the diversity of opinion being important because there is no single or constant fitness function. His lectures on personality get into this a bit. His 12 rules book does not.

I believe he's informed a lot by the work of Jonathan Haidt. His book The Righteous Mind is good.

<comment><USER8> It's actually a lot of child development literature by w.d winicot and r.d laing, and the developmental psychology cult, also my own experience as a meditator, some nietzsche, existential theory (sartre, nausea). I surprisingly didnt read Haidth but ill check him out.

Carl Jung's theory of the collective unconscious influenced me alot too, and i find alot of sense / approval in Peterson's lectures.

I generally think the fact that we can generalize our behavior (childrens psych lit, behavioral psych lit.) is so astounding ... the fact we can agree on a minimum set of things we can agree we dont like happening to us (note: smart way of asserting universality of morals, you dont want to be murdered can be a good minimim example here) blows my mind.

In the end its what i choose to believe, i dont think im unique in thinking this way either.

I think even my thinking's rightness is the result of that same intra generational process, im not unique, nor do i think i am in control (beyond the local control i exercise by trying not to die or be eaten).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> If divination by bird augury is so wise, why don't we still use that to plan agricultural layouts?

/s

But that sort of underscores the main argument against this stuff. Is it possible that many traditions, while once adaptive and beneficial, are no longer so? In other words, has the human situation departed so significantly from ancestral conditions that much of tradition is somewhere between irrelevant and harmful?

Of course not all tradition should be thrown out just for being old. But the tools of rationality have come a long way.

<comment><USER12> My favorite example is some religions still forbidding pork even though our understanding of food safety has changed so dramatically.

<comment><USER13> You're rationalizing religion.

The prohibition of pork has nothing to do with disease. We've rationalized it by telling ourselves, since there is no God that could make such a silly request, that maybe they did it to cement food safety. Theres as much evidence that it's all just a fortuitous coincidence.

If you think long and hard enough you can come up with a rationalization for anything in the Torah (or anything, really).

Instead religion is to be enjoyed like Love is. You don't talk about pheromones and dopamine levels when you embrace you wife. You talk about mountains, and blue skies, and soaring views. If, on a whim, your wife were to ask you to pretend you're a hare, would you not entertain her?

If you're a Christian you could rationalize the pork thing by saying: "the purpose of the prohibition was to set up a teaching moment for Peter about Universalism and humility 1000 years later".

But that's silly. Instead, for a believer, it's a insignificant request for an opportunity to make a physical demonstration of Love to the Devine.

The Sufis aren't dancing because they're free of tape worms.

<comment><USER14> This is getting back to metis and episteme. I liked how this concept was explored in the Uruk Machine series if you want to read more.

Metis is "local accumulated knowledge" and episteme is "abstract, generalized, theoretical knowledge".

Metis, tradition, is barely knowledge. It is more of a practice without any of the justification needed for knowledge. So if your community knows that it is best to plant seeds during a specific holiday, they might think a supernatural blessing is the reason. Knowing something for the wrong reason isn't knowledge.

Non-knowledge loses arguments to knowledge. When an agricultural scientist comes with theories and results it won't be difficult to say that the farming community actually doesn't know anything. That's fine. But we are too quick to throw out tradition vs knowledge because unless it is specifically measured against it, the practice of tradition may be superior to the practice of current knowledge. Their traditional planting date may be superior to all models. After all, they've successfully farmed here centuries or millennia.

The Sufis might be dancing because having community gatherings allows communities to survive. The dancing and rationalization is incidental but the actual gathering is a crucial matter of survival.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This issue should be talked about more, because I believe it lies at the foundation of so many issues; not only do we face this daily in tech, but daily in politics with respect to 'progress'.

Though 'tradition' can often be wrong, we definitely do not consider the value of 'what is' because often there are no advocates for it.

 _Change_ has tons of creative, intellectual advocation. We all want to think, create, adapt, and it's always this are that is the most creatively dynamic.

Advocates for consistency often don't have the same degree of dynamism, rather, the arguments are often indirect i.e. 'the rules are there for a reason' instead of advocating the reasoning rules themselves.

</comment><comment><USER16> This is one of the favorites subjects of Nassim Taleb.

> _Survival comes first, truth, understanding, and science later_

> _Judging people on their beliefs is not scientific. There is no such thing > as "rationality" of a belief, there is rationality of action. The > rationality of an action can only be judged by evolutionary considerations._

[https://medium.com/incerto/how-to-be-rational-about- rational...](https://medium.com/incerto/how-to-be-rational-about- rationality-432e96dd4d1a)

</comment><comment><USER17> Until it isn't... and there are many, many cases of that too.

That being said, the funniest example aligning with the article to me personally, is how nearly all atheists "believe" in natural selection, but almost no atheists have more than 2-3 children. In fact, most seem to have zero or one. And many Conservative Christians don't "believe" in evolution, but yet trend towards having many more children / larger families.

It's just such a clear example of how a likely incorrect belief (AKA, "God wants me to have as many children as possible") can still result in a massive evolutionary advantage.

<comment><USER18> Or maybe atheists want to concentrate more resources on the upbringing of the child so that they have a competitive advantage.

Then also consider that in 3,000 years I'll probably be ancestor to all (this holds true for others, I am by no means special). Don't really need to go through the hassle of rearing 6 more kids to secure my genetic future.

<comment><USER19> > Or maybe atheists want to concentrate more resources on the upbringing of > the child so that they have a competitive advantage.

If you have less than 3 children, investing more resources in each child doesn't matter. 2 children is break even from the standpoint of procreation. So purposefully limiting yourself to that many or fewer children is a losing procreation strategy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> One problem of radical ideas is selection bias. The radical ideas that were true and useful are widely known. However, there are a lot of radical ideas that did not work out.

One example, I see is in psychology. Pretty much every time I see an article published that goes against "conventional wisdom", I find that some time later that there is an issue with statistics or sample or the article is otherwise not reproducible.

Basically, humans are generally smart and over time figure out what works.

<comment><USER14> If you assume humans have not evolved significantly over the past 20,000 years, you have to wonder what all the geniuses were doing.

Perhaps genius is a function of childhood nutrition and medicine, but if a genius is 1 in 1000, then every village must have had one at some point.

What did people just as intelligent as us but without knowledge do for their entire lives? They build on tradition.

<comment><USER20> >If you assume humans have not evolved significantly over the past 20,000 years, you have to wonder what all the geniuses were doing.

They were mostly preoccupied trying to stay alive. Also, any physical defect could be a death sentence. Have poor vision, you get eaten by a lion that you didn't see. Unable to keep up with the tribe, you get left behind.

<comment><USER14> That's true, but it only redeuces the probability some. There existed well-fed healthy populations at many points in history and geography.

Even if the probability is much lower, there is estimated to be over 100 billions humans that have lived.

I think we intuitively underestimate ancient peoples' individual abilities because we have so much knowledge and wisdom that's been built up over millennia easily available to us. But someone had to figure out how to farm using primitive tools and develop the tradition for the community.

What was medieval Von Neumann doing?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> See also [https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/eating-way-too- much-r...](https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/eating-way-too-much-rice- almost-doomed-japans-imperial-navy-59542) and [https://idlewords.com/2010/03/scott_and_scurvy.htm](https://idlewords.com/2010/03/scott_and_scurvy.htm) . Science Is Hard™.

</comment><comment><USER22> In southern India, the "pongal" harvest festival (14/15/16 of Jan) has a component called "bhogi" that had traditionally involved burning old stuff .. which some have implied had the metaphorical role of pointing to dropping old baggage to welcome a new year.

Ironically, this is itself old baggage today (in Chennai) where the air quality _just today_ is horrible due to the practice of "bhogi" burning.

</comment><comment><USER23> I love the idea of divination as a random number generator. That's something that's going to stick with me for a long time.

<comment><USER24> It's something that astounded me as cultural technology.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I think the problem with this perspective and the examples picked is that tradition is particularly beneficial when the environment is largely stable. Two of the examples being given are explorers in the desert or ice who die when indigenous people's survive, or the processing of poisonous fruit.

The long term cultural adaptation really does provide benefits for these problems because they never change, so you have a long time to work and improve on them. The desert is more or less the same as is the ice, as is the fruit.

But it's very easy to come up with counter-examples. The so-called cargo-cult was a group of indigenous people conflating modern planes with deities because they were still guided by their religious worldview. The middle-east faced a very rude awakening when confronted with the military and technological superiority of modern European states.

In a static environment, tradition can produce long term benefits, but in a dynamic, novel environment tradition imposes costs by slowing down the speed at which reforms can be executed.

Arguably the world is becoming more and more dynamic and complex with large scale problems that are entirely novel propping up every other decade. It's hard to think of the slowness of tradition as a virtue in this case.

</comment><comment><USER26> Scott Alexander reviewed the same book a year later:

[https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/06/04/book-review-the- secret...](https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/06/04/book-review-the-secret-of- our-success/)

<comment><USER27> Fascinating.

> Historically, Reason has been the villain of the human narrative, a > corrosive force that tempts people away from adaptive behavior towards > choices that "sounded good at the time".

Reason and the desire to question things is part of cultural evolution as well, perhaps adapted for an age when things change incredibly quickly.</comment></comment>


Banking.js - The Missing API for Banks. Built with node.js - <AUTHOR> http://euforic.co/banking.js/ <comment><USER2> Couple of points here:

You need to add some information as to exactly _what_ this is doing. By clicking around I finally get to this page, <http://www.ofx.net/>. What, exactly, is OFX? This is something I've never even heard of.

How do I know what my bank's "BanksOfxApiURL" is? Am I submitting my banking credentials to your 3rd party API and you're somehow logging into my bank account and returning some XML or JSON data?

Please provide a _lot_ more information.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the input I updated the readme with more info so people will have more background and understanding of how and what the module does.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> This is a node.js module that allows you to make a xhr call via your computer/server to your bank. The bank will then respond with your bank transactions from the dates you specified. You can also download your transactions from your banking site (qfx quickbooks file) and then convert it to xml or json</comment>


EKS Kubernetes CNI Component is messed up. - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/elotl-blog/kubernetes-networking-on-aws-part-ii-47906de2921d <comment><USER2> Why retitle? I don't follow where it says this.

<comment><AUTHOR> In the emotions behind the facade.</comment></comment>


Make Love Not Porn (2009) - <AUTHOR> http://thetyee.ca/Life/2009/12/16/MakeLove/

<comment><USER2> Single page version: <http://thetyee.ca/Life/2009/12/16/MakeLove/print.html>

So, the author starts with an academic study of the sex lives of modern young people, which drew some conclusions that porn is not the devil: "pretty conventional, almost identical to their parents," and "pornography has been demonized and that its effects are negligible." Then, she spends more than a thousand words trying to refute that entirely by anecdotal evidence, capping it off with "porn is having a profound impact on our culture."

I know asking everyone to act like good scientists is too much. But I would like it if people would at least try to act like _bad_ scientists, and selectively use studies that _support_ their predetermined conclusions. What a world, where you strengthen your point by citing only studies that refute it.

<comment><USER3> I think you've misunderstood. Sure, the author agrees that porn is not the devil, i.e. it doesn't lead to violent crime and it's not going to lead to the collapse of civilization, but nonetheless wants us to knows there are serious negative consequences that we should be aware of.

<comment><USER2> You see, that's my point. How do we know there are serious negative consequences at all? Because of the anecdotes she mentions? She didn't cite any rigorous study that concludes pornography is harmful, but simply appealed to our gut feeling that it's got to be hurting us _somehow_. While I may agree or disagree, my complaint is that her anecdotal evidence is somehow supposed to sweep away the presumably well-designed study cited at the start. That's the opposite of science.

Edit: My tone here is a little combative. Sorry, it's not intended as an attack on you.

<comment><USER4> I was thinking reading the article: the guys who mindlessly copy porn moves and replies, how do we know it they would have been any better without porn? A pretty good hypothesis is that they wouldn't, they'd have been either woefully inexperienced or unimaginative. That's why gut feelings are bad and studies are good.

<comment><USER5> But studies don't come into existence out of thin air. You need to put things into conversation for someone to put the effort in to go out and do a study.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The quote "I wasn't just having bad sex. I was having bad porn sex." from Mary Elizabeth Williams pissed me off.

Sex isn't something that is happening to you, it is something you participate in. So it is your damn fault if it is bad sex. Speak up about what you like, porn related or not.

<comment><USER7> Totally. I mean, he's begging for feedback. It's not like "You like that, baby?" has a subtext of "of course you do, because I'm awesome" or "of course you do, because my power to treat you like this turns you on." It's an honest question.

<comment><USER8> As much as I think that the article is problematic, I can totally imagine someone saying "you like that, baby?" in a rhetorical sense, rather than meaning it as an honest question. If that is the case, however, then it is a real problem that needs to be addressed rather than being blamed on porn.

<comment><USER3> I think dkarl was being sarcastic.

<comment><USER8> Perhaps. On the Internet, it can be hard to tell sometimes. If so, then my bad.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think that a lot of the complaints brought up in the article aren't really complains about porn so much as they are complaints about how impressionable we are as individuals. We let so many of our tastes, preferences and behaviors be dictated by mass media, so why are we then surprised to find that we let our sexual behaviors be dictated by mass media as well?

On a related note, I think that a lot of the complaints can be attributed to a kind of pluralistic ignorance (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralistic_ignorance>), where individuals are under mistaken impressions about the preferences and comfort level of their partners. In a sense, this is the flip side of impressionability, where we expect that other people are similarly impressionable.

</comment><comment><USER9> TL;DR summary: A writer compares a proper peer-reviewed scientific study vs. asking her friends what they thought.

</comment><comment><USER10> Sensitivity to something is invariably decreased by exposure. In my life, I've gone from a picture of bare breasts being a big deal and a huge turnon, to seeing graphic movies of any kind of sex imaginable free 24/7 on the internet. I don't think there is any question that this has made the average male expect their partners to do things that their partners mothers would never have considered doing. Whether this is bad or not is a separate question.

</comment><comment><USER11> Everyone I know prefers amateur porn. I probably wouldn't be interested in a woman who was uncomfortable with what goes in in most amateur porn.

Of course, everyone I know is reasonably intelligent. In my humble opinion, you'd have to be an incredibly silly person to think commercial porn represents a model to aspire to. Frankly, if she's sleeping with guys in their 20s who act like commercial porn actors, I bet she has pretty poor taste in men.

</comment><comment><USER8> Because articles about sites should have links to the sites being discussed: <http://makelovenotporn.com/>

</comment><comment><USER12> I think this is more a product of some aspects of society than just porn.

Sex in porn is reall incredibly different to real life - it takes a level of naievity and, probably, peer pressure to form that sort of impression.

I think it's disingenuous to suggest it's causing these issues for everyone.

Most of the described relationships just sound tucked up generally. The girl who dreads her boyfriends birthday seems as much the victim of her own silence as anything else!

</comment><comment><USER13> Look at this from another angle, it is equally valid to say that the sexual oppression that exists in our society has skewed many women and men in to thinking that there is such thing has a normal set of sexual behaviors.

That's why this "porn request" thing is blown to such ridiculous proportion. If the main stream perception of sex was not skewed but rather much more open- minded, this discussion would have been as casual as a discussion about ice cream flavors.

</comment><comment><USER14> The focus of these kinds of articles always seems to rest much to heavily on _there's too much evil porn_ and not on _there's not enough good sex education_ , which I think is the real issue.

</comment><comment><USER15> This feels weirdly old, despite being published in 2009. These are almost verbatim the kinds of criticisms old-school feminists were levying against porn prior to the advent of sex-positive feminism in the 1980s.

</comment><comment><USER16> I find this article somewhat related: <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/14/techno_toys/>

</comment><comment><USER17> _It was the happiest moment of my young life. There is just something about blowing a load in a chick's face that makes you feel like a man._

Any boy who thinks like that is a jerk.

 _especially on behalf of younger women who might mistakenly think they have to put up with the new status quo if they want their guy to put out._

And any girl who thinks like that would be described as an idiot.

Seriously folks anyone who thinks being superior to your own sex partner is manlike and anyone who thinks they should just accept what ever is coming from there's is seriously a wimp.

<comment><USER18> Any boy who has a hormonal response to a certain sexual act is a jerk?

I hate to tell you this, but people have very little control over what turns them on and what makes them feel good. A boy isn't a jerk for wanting to give a girl a facial, just as a girl isn't a jerk for enjoying wearing leather and whipping her boyfriend (or vice versa).

What determines if you are a jerk is not what you want, but how you behave in the pursuit of it.

<comment><USER19> I'd hate to break this to you also, but being "turned on" is just another emotional state that is subject to the mind's interpretation and perception.

It's long been known (as the root of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy) that the order of neurological operations is

 _Event --leads-to-- > Perception of Event --which-leads-to--> Emotion_

Some of these neurological responses may have become so ingrained and automatic that they seem "uncontrollable", but they are the results of many smaller controllable choices as to how to perceive a specific event.

It's the same reason why I find something enjoyable that you do not, and you find something attractive while I do not... we've made different choices along the way. It is a clear sign of emotional immaturity to believe that you are not in control of how you perceive events (which in turn creates the emotions you experience)

You are certainly not in control of the events that happen, nor the emotional release, but you _can_ control how you perceive and choose to interpret things.</comment></comment></comment>


The CIA Didn't Just Torture, It Experimented on Human Beings – The Nation - <AUTHOR> http://www.thenation.com/article/193185/cia-didnt-just-torture-it-experimented-human-beings <comment><USER2> I've often thought that the first people to be prosecuted for this whole thing should be the the psychologists. At the very least they should be permanently barred from practicing medicine or providing any sort of therapy. It give me a queasy, almost sick feeling in my stomach when I think how these people distorted a profession that's supposed to be dedicated to helping others.

Don't get me wrong -- I think that it's important that they be given their day in a fair court, which more than a lot of their victims got. And there is a lot of blame to go around -- they psychologists didn't start or fund the program, and lot's of people contributed to it. But it's important that the people who were in charge of this destructive train-wreck of a program be prosecuted.</comment>


7 products Steve Jobs got wrong - <AUTHOR> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/08/24/national/a175319D29.DTL&tsp=1 <comment><USER2> I'll say only 3-4 of them were "wrong".

The NeXT didn't sell well, but if Steve didn't started it, I'm not sure if he would even be offered a chance to lead Apple. By the time the board realized they needed Steve back, either Apple would have been bankrupted already, or Steve would be doing something else instead of NeXT, which means he may not want to drop that to go back to Apple.

The ROKR was one of the most successful business plan executed by Steve. Apple got to know the phone biz and people get to taste how bad a non-Apple iTunes phone can be. Calling it a Apple product is absurd, it is 20% Apple at best.

The AppleTV may be a small pie in Apple's revenue today. But it won't stay that way for long. And is probably one of the most (if not the most) successful non-subscription TV box on the market even today.

Yea, the hockey puck was really bad, but is such a small product even worth mentioning?

So pretty much only the Cube and the puck were bad products since the 2nd phase of Steve. And both were in the early days before he became the "official" CEO.

</comment><comment><USER3> If I remember correctly, the Lisa was someone else's project and Steve Jobs stole developers away from the Lisa project to build the Macintosh. NeXTSTEP might have been a commercial failure at the time, but it's the foundation of OS X (in case you were wondering why all of the foundation Cocoa classes start with NS).

Let's not forget the iPod Hi-Fi though.

</comment><comment><USER4> I think it's a pretty good sign of consisten industrial design that, after 35 years, the writer needed to include a mouse that was too small in order to get this list to seven.</comment>


Extracting Topics from Documents Using LDA Gibbs Sampling - <AUTHOR> http://www.deepminds.co/lda.php?utm_source=hackernews&utm_medium=cpc&utm_content=lda&utm_campaign=pagepromotion

<comment><AUTHOR> In this post, we explain the mathematics behind Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) model. We also demo a Java implementation of the LDA model using collapsed Gibbs sampling technique.</comment>


Prices for starter homes are crowding out millennials - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-20/prices-for-starter-homes-are-crowding-out-millennials <comment><USER2> I wish we were back in the days of 20% down. Seems like that would ground the market properly and make people more price sensitive, but I am not an economist. Turning the spigot off is harder than turning it on.

My beef is that easy credit isn't just driving up the price of housing it's driving up the size of housing which is connected to the price.

<comment><USER3> 20% down would mean even fewer millennials would be able to buy a house. I don't know anyone that has 40k sitting around in their bank accounts for a 20% down payment on 200k starter home.

<comment><USER4> I can save 40k, finding a home for only 200k is a laugh though.

<comment><USER5> Minneapolis reporting in, 200k houses abound.

But hey fuck us flyover states-- what with our high paying jobs and affordable housing

<comment><USER6> Flyover states? Like... Virginia? [http://www.businessinsider.com/which- states-are-flown-over-t...](http://www.businessinsider.com/which-states-are- flown-over-the-most-2014-10)

Just kidding, I'm in flyover country as well (Colorado), though our real estate is much less affordable than yours, it sounds like.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Where I live the choice is renting for 1600/month or 'buying' a similar play for 300k + Appliances with a 800$/mo amenity fee AND property taxes AND Maintenance.

The only way buying works out is if there is some greater fool out there willing to play the sucker in a few years.

PS: Looks like 150$ of that amenity fee is a special assessment for the next 8 years. But, new condo's are notorious for artificially lowering condo fees for a few years and then bumping things when they need to fix something major.

<comment><USER8> 800 bucks a month or a year?

300k place with 20% down should be about $1500 a month ($1600 a month at 10%) for mortgage + property taxes.

Am I missing something?

<comment><USER9> $800/mo for an HOA fee is crazy. I recently purchased a condo for $330k at 20% down and I'm saving $200/mo over renting a smaller place.

<comment><USER10> I can easily make 10-15% a year on my money investing, so that $66k downpayment actually means I would lose $6.6k-9.9k in annual income.

<comment><USER11> "Easily make 10-15% a year" .... until the market corrects and you lose 50%.

<comment><USER10> I said easily, I didn't say risk free. I also didn't say put everything in stocks. Stocks are extremely overpriced at the moment, and only a small of my portfolio are in them. Investing is a hobby I spend some time on each week.

I'm just pointing out that you should calculate the gain you could personally make from your capital and account for that in your decision.

<comment><USER9> Part of that equation is the time and knowledge required to invest that successfully, which not everyone has whether the time, the knowledge, or the time to acquire the knowledge.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is a temporary consequence of the 2008-2009 housing crash.

Housing construction is a lagging indicator because of the regulatory and capital requirements to build a whole bunch of homes. So what we see right now is that demand is growing because the economy is growing again, but supply has not yet caught up. Result: fewer affordable houses.

In my neighborhood a new row house development was just breaking ground when the shit hit the fan in 2008, and of course they stopped. Well, they're building fast today, and selling every unit, but they're still not done. It just takes a while to build houses.

The only connection is Millenials is that they are the youngest generation currently looking to buy a home, so they are more price-sensitive than Gen Xers or Boomers.

<comment><USER13> I'm curious if we're going to see a glut in housing with so many Boomers entering retirement, wanting to downsize or needing to extract their equity to live on.

Also, economics for Millennials have been terrible. They're of course going to have a terrible time trying to get a down payment together as well as afford a reasonable mortgage payment. Even assuming they use a 3% down mortgage program, they then have no equity, and are locked to the property if they need to move/relocate unless they're willing to default on the property (which then keeps them out of buying again for 3 years).

EDIT: As someone who has seen deep into the real estate market, the game is rigged.

<comment><USER14> Hasn't happened in Sydney yet. I think we're still beating out SF in real estate prices.

<comment><USER13> It'll happen first in the US. We're not known for a big influx of foreign money except in SF, NY, and parts of Texas. I could see Chinese money picking Australian cities over second-tier US cities.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> It's even more depressing in the larger Canadian cities. In Greater Vancouver the average price is 1.47M, in Calgary (which is in the midst of a recession) the average price is still 457000 (and good luck finding a decent job), in the GTA it's 602000 and over a million in Toronto proper. The only affordable 'big' city is Montreal, and even smaller markets with few jobs are far more expensive than an equivalent sized market in the US.

</comment><comment><USER16> I can't stand this term - "Starter Home". Not everyone, even those who can afford it, wants a McMansion.

<comment><USER17> I would like a small, maybe 2-bedroom house, in a cool neighborhood in a cool medium-sized city. That's my dream.

<comment><USER18> You basically described Baltimore. Just be careful, 2 blocks outside of that 'cool neighborhood' is a very 'un-cool' area.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Real estate ownership for the young is obsolete.

Total deja vous its just like people lecturing my parents generation about why they don't get a job for life which would be easy if they really wanted one, ditto pension and gold watch.

Its not coming back any more likely than I'm buying a horse or a record player.

</comment><comment><USER20> Really? Since millenials are going to be buying most of the houses over the next 15 years this suggests that housing starts will go up dramatically. Look at previous housing shortages, people returning from WWII, baby boomers entering the market, and now millenials. So demand goes up, clearly a lot of them are unserved by current prices, so developers figure out how to make houses they can afford to capture that demand.

A more interesting question is whether or not they _want_ houses. It seems that with work mobility its simpler to just rent for a lot of folks. That drives interesting price inversions where it becomes cheaper to buy than to rent because people don't want to be "tied down" to a particular place.

</comment><comment><USER21> I don't understand how present housing prices are possible. Don't markets require buyers? Look at prices in most cities vs. the average family income and it's beyond insane. Who is actually able to buy at these prices and where are they coming from?

IMHO it's much crazier than the "unicorn" phenomenon, since that can be explained by crazy term sheets and a lot of private investor cash sloshing around. I can't understand how present housing prices are even possible.

<comment><USER22> In my neighborhood all the houses going up for sale are being bought sight unseen, over asking price, by investors who replace the carpet, paint the walls, then rent them out.

<comment><USER21> Yes, I've seen this too, and in Orange County (SoCal) there are houses being bought like this and then nothing is done with them at all. They just sit there. I guess you can get away with it in a climate that never freezes so no issues with the pipes bursting, etc. The owners are foreign corporations, off- shore funds, etc., and a lot of Chinese.

I think the only solution is some kind of state or national tariff on foreign purchases of property or a tax on property owners that do not reside in the state. Of course then they'd incorporate shell corps but it would at least reduce the phenomenon a bit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Pretty sure this is because many people, with the economic instability of the last five years, are deciding not to by the big McMansions anymore and don't want to take care of them... unfortunately, this means that those with more money that millennials also want the same "starter" houses. The real problem: too many builders built big-ass houses no one wants to pay for and take care of anymore.

</comment><comment><USER24> I'm thirty four and nobody has ever suggested to me that I am supposed to buy a home. How on earth are we supposed to figure out what is going on in the world when everyone lies to us about society?

<comment><USER25> I'm very confused by your comment. Is there some context that I'm missing?

What does

> How on earth are we supposed to figure out what is going on in the world > when everyone lies to us about society?

have to do with

> I'm thirty four and nobody has ever suggested to me that I am supposed to > buy a home

???

<comment><USER26> I think they are snarkily trying to suggest that home ownership isn't something everyone must aspire to.</comment></comment></comment>


Chrome's WebRTC roadmap - <AUTHOR> http://blog.chromium.org/2012/04/chromes-webrtc-roadmap.html <comment><USER2> The single most important feature of Chrome that changed the Internet? The silent update every 6 weeks!

<comment><USER3> It's too bad Firefox gets a lot of flack for it, though. I think it's because of 2 reasons:

1) Firefox users are used to a certain way of having their favorite browser work

2) Firefox still "promotes" version numbers, and this makes them a good target for jokes about moving so fast from version 11 to version 12, or whatever, while at this point Chrome users don't even care so much about the version anymore

<comment><USER4> FireFox gets a lot of flack for it because of plugin support. We use GWT for an internal webapp and the developer plugin is not compatible every time they do a release of FireFox (it really is, but packaging makes it not). New machine? Grab off of a mailing list. Tired of daily prompts to upgrade? Hit cancel when it isn't listed as compatible. This happens often enough and is annoying enough that the GWT developer plugin is the only one I use now. Chrome, on the otherhand, really does have seamless upgrades.

I know FireFox has a more robust plugin architecture and half the time is the plugin developers' fault and FireFox has been working on a new plugin system for a while, but it's the same problems FireFox had with upgrades for years, they just happen more frequently, exacerbating the problems.

<comment><USER5> I assume you mean "extension" everywhere you've written "plugin".

<comment><USER4> Potentially, I just remember from having fought with this late last week with the GWT Developer one, which was called the "GWT Developer Tools Plugin", and I can't ever remember what Firefox calls a Plugin vs. Extension vs. Add-On.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I can't wait for all the applications that are going to be possible with this technology. I haven't been that excited for a particular browser feature in a long time!

<comment><USER7> What if I told you the same technology is already available and widely deployed? <http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/cirrus/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> So excuse my ignorance, but does the multiple independent streams mean that multi-party chat support is going to be available right away, not just 1 to 1?

<comment><USER9> I think "multiple independent PeerConnection" will enable, in some way, multi- party chat. And over each PeerConnection you can have multiple streams (e.g. audio/video and data stream for something else).</comment></comment>


Show HN: Secure Cloud - <AUTHOR> http://airlock.io

<comment><USER2> Seems like an expensive version of digitalocean.com Tier1 offers similar features to digitalocean but is 159$ vs 10$</comment>


Various cryptocurrency is falling very badly today - <AUTHOR> https://coinmarketcap.com/ <comment><USER2> Oh look, the natural course of bubbles.</comment>


Theorists Debate How 'Neutral' Evolution Really Is - <AUTHOR> https://www.quantamagazine.org/neutral-theory-of-evolution-challenged-by-evidence-for-dna-selection-20181108/ <comment></comment>


Health Care suggestions in SF? - <AUTHOR> I'm quitting my job to start a company! Yay!<p>Any suggestions for a healthy 30-something US citizen on buying health care for himself in SF?  Any horror stories with Kaiser?  Is keeping a PPO (so I can stick with 1Medical) worth it? <comment><USER2> Make sure keeping your old insurance via COBRA isn't the right choice. That's what I did. Comparable plan on my own would be much more expensive.</comment>


The New York Times reaches 1M digital only subscribers - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/05/business/the-new-york-times-reaches-a-milestone-thanks-to-our-readers.html <comment><USER2> A bit of advice for anybody who wants to subscribe to the NYT (I'm a very happy subscriber) but might not be in the position to pay the full subscription rate - Wait for a discount offering, subscribe for the introductory period, then, when your subscription switches over to the regular rate, call and cancel, just let them know you can't afford the full price, and they'll give you a 50% discount.

<comment><USER3> Just be ready for them to hike your rate without any type of alert after the initial period expires. This applies even to gifted subscriptions like the one I was given for Christmas. The customer service was...unsympathetic.

<comment><USER4> I don't have the time to jump through hoops to maintain promotional pricing for a NYT subscription. Maybe a sufficient long term discount would be attractive, or unbundling content. The NY Times just doesn't offer enough value to warrant the asking price for my tastes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I cannot begin to explain how terrible their pricing model has been.

My #1 gripe, which caused me to utterly refuse to pay for their subscriptions at any cost, was the fact that they double-charge you for web content. It goes like this, verified prices today:

* Web + smartphone = $3.75

* Web + tablet = $5

* "All Digital Access" (web+smartphone+tablet) = $3.75 + $5 = $8.75

That's right. Not only do they not provide an incentive (a per-unit discount) for buying multiple products, they actually charge you _more money_ for buying all of their stuff. Obviously, it makes little sense to the average consumer to have to pay >$0 in order to add a smartphone to their web+tablet subscription, but the insistence that you pay again for the FULL web + smartphone cost just to add a smaller screen is asinine.

Second gripe has been they devalue their content so much by these stupid 99 cent teaser rates, which automatically tell me I don't want to do business with them.

Third gripe is that they are so dependent on dead-tree revenue that it's often cheaper to buy a print subscription and get free "free" internet content. I don't want to provide a nonstop stream of paper to the recycling bin just to get cheaper digital access.

In the past few months, they experimented with their pricing model, and I ended up as a subscriber because they got rid of their double-charging system, and provided a fair, low, consistent rate.

Unfortunately, upon posting a screenshot on Facebook, I found out that nobody was able to replicate my success -- they seemed to be arbitrarily handing out different pricing models as a test when different people clicked on the same link. Many others were able to verify the non-double-charging pricing model, but nobody got as low a rate as I could manage.

Turns out they're back to their same old tricks -- I validated the above pricing today with a fresh browser.

I apologize for how vague I am about the exact "new" model I ended up with a couple of months ago, but I can't track down the screenshots of the different schemes I was offered.

Also, my apologies about the poor formatting. HN's help is not particularly helpful as it is grammatically vague about how to get newlines without a new paragraph.

<comment><USER6> And at least a couple months ago you couldn't cancel subscription online. I had to call them to cancel and go through multiple rounds of "yes I really want to cancel"...

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> If they make an average of $15 per month from digital only subscribers, then that's $180,000,000 a year in revenues. Total subscription revenue for the NYTimes is around $800,000,000, so it's around 20% of total subscription revenue. Total advertising revenue was $700,000,000 ish, not sure how much of that is Digital but I imagine around 10%. So probably 12.5% of NYTimes revenue is from digital only - that's tough.

<comment><USER8> But if you split digital and physical subscriptions and look at profit compared to revenue, I imagine those digital subscriptions look pretty good. I imagine not having to print and deliver a physical product on a specific deadline makes a world of difference.

<comment><USER9> That conclusion is not justified. Advertisers continue to pay a lot more for print. Nobody is willing to spend much for online advertising. So profits can still be higher for the print version. Indeed, that is the whole problem that the newspaper/magazine industry is facing.

<comment><USER8> What conclusion? That digital subscriptions look good because they have lower overhead? I don't imagine they come all that close to supporting the company yet, but I _do_ imagine their profit to expenditure ratio is pretty good.

> Nobody is willing to spend much for online advertising.

nytimes.com is actually in a good position to institute change in this are. I imagine if they rolled their own ad solution that was both not obtrusive and did not source the ads from third party servers (thus being much harder to block), they could possible leverage their name and the fact the ads weren't being blocked to charge a premium for ad-space.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> As a subscriber it's pretty irritating that ads aren't turned off, particularly the take over the page modal/interstitial ones.

<comment><USER11> Wait, you pay and still have to look at ads?

<comment><USER12> Y'know, that's also the case in the print edition.

<comment><USER13> The ads are in the paper and not hosted on some third party paper that's doing God knows what to my paper, and that's a big difference.

<comment><USER14> Well, I think it's a bit naive to say that a reliance on ad revenue doesn't impact the editorial line at all... but I take it you mean the print edition doesn't come with a spy camera that watches you while you read, or mix contact poison/spores in the ink, so that you get sick from reading.

There are absolutely many issues that are unique to digital advertising.

<comment><USER13> Yep, exactly. I am not opposed to advertising that is clearly marked as such and is hosted form the server that I intended to connect to as long as it's not doing anything shady with my computer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I had a terrible experience with a NYT digital-only subscription, and I'll likely never subscribe again.

I had a subscription for a while that I hadn't been using. I only used their site when linked to it from another (like HN). I tried to cancel online, but there's no way to—you need to cancel over the phone. So, I did, sitting on hold for close to a half hour. Bad experience, but I wish it had ended there.

Fast-forward two months, and I started getting emails that my subscription was past-due. Then I come to realize that they had continued to bill me every 2 weeks, but the payments had just started failing because my card expired.

I emailed CS, mentioning that I had cancelled my subscription and I was being billed by mistake, and to make sure my account got cancelled this time. They "couldn't do anything about it" because my account was in their "grace period", and that I would continue to get the past due emails until the grace period ended.

I ended up filing chargebacks for each charge after I had originally cancelled. To my knowledge, they never replied to or contested the chargebacks (does the customer usually get this info, if they do? it's the first and only chargeback I'd ever filed).

<comment><USER16> My experience is that the credit card company will contact you if the merchant contests your side of the story or if they are going to give you your money back. I've been on both sides of a chargeback. Though, it may depend on the specific bank.

1) When a customer lied and tried to charge back a ~$250 software purchase where we had emailed each other a few times about it, I simply forwarded the emails to the card issuer and the case was dropped. My company got the money.

2) When I found someone locally had stolen my card number and booked a hotel and tickets to Disneyland, I told my card issuer that I had no idea what those charges were. The hotel and ticket seller wrote back contesting it, so my card issuer contacted me and I signed an affidavit saying that, "No, really, I wasn't at Disneyland 50 miles away and also buying gas by my house at the same time". I eventually got a letter saying the charges had been reversed.

<comment><USER17> I was pretty amazed at what the card issuers have to put up in chargeback contests. I had to file an affidavit after someone charged my card with the wrong name and wrong zip code; the retailer accepted the charges anyway, perhaps because they were in on the fraud. What an amazingly out of date system.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I pay for the website and phone subscription. I'm probably going to get a tablet soon and it's annoying to me that I have to pay additionally for a tablet subscription. I have not seen this model anywhere else. Is it wrong that I think there should only be one digital subscription that covers everything? Is there something about he NYT tablet app that I am not aware of compared to the phone app?

<comment><USER19> This reminds me of movies and "release windows" (releasing the same movie at different times in different countries & formats in an attempt to maximize profits).

It sounds, from this, like the NYT is still stuck in 20th century thinking and just doesn't understand how modern people use technology and information. Or maybe it does, but it is just too calcified in its current business model to understand how to get from point A (old business model) to point B (new/convenient/modern business model).

Same thing with cable TV and "cord cutters" (and "cord nevers") vs. Netflix that "just works" on various devices and seamlessly remembers where you were in a movie/episode if you switch devices.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> How much is the monthly subscription? I'd gladly pay up to $10 if they provide extra features like stock tickers, sports scores, extras, alerts, and a nice mobile app.

Btw, what are the member's advantages compared to any regular web user?

<comment><USER21> Here's the link to buy a subscription: [http://www.nytimes.com/subscriptions/Multiproduct/lp3004.htm...](http://www.nytimes.com/subscriptions/Multiproduct/lp3004.html)

Digital is $8.75 /week after a the first month for $.99

<comment><USER22> Just $3.75 per week for the basic level access.

However that was a little high for me since I don't read them religiously. I'd probably go for $100/year but twice that is a bit too much.

Currently I have firefox set to open them in a private browsing tab.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> FYI, you can get all of the NYT's content for free by browsing the site, clicking on the link to any given article, and scanning the article title (still visible through the paywall, and often different from the headline listed on the main site). Enter a few of the headline's keywords into Google, add "nyt", and search [0]. The article you're looking for will be at the top of the Google results. When you click on it, you'll be able to read it in its entirety, right there on the NYT site. Same goes for all of the multimedia content, as far as I know, although I don't really delve into all the offerings there.

The Times and the Journal have this backdoor. Interestingly, the Financial Times does not; their paywall is still tripped if you come in through Google (and you only get one free article per month). I would imagine that in making their content free if it comes in from search traffic, the NYT/WSJ are optimizing for highest total combination of ad revenue (pageview-driven) and subscriber revenue. I would further surmise that their overall readership is heavily weighted toward older people who are not super technology-savvy, which is why they can still make money with such an easy-to-defeat paywall in place.

[0]: Example Google search string - "crew 33 ship sank caribbean nyt"

</comment><comment> tefo-mohapi From a different point of view, this is quite encouraging for the future of news and digital publishing.

<comment><USER24> That's like... 15% of their revenue. I imagine lower % of their profits... for the biggest publishing brand out there.

<comment> tefo-mohapi 15% and growing. From what I gather bigger than their print subscriptions revenue too so if that's the case then definetly encouraging and one of few "old" media slowly changing their business model succesfully.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> A few weeks ago, in honor of 1M digital subs, the NYT published a list of digital highlights. [http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/21/business/media...](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/21/business/media/50-of- our-best-stories-from-nytimes.html)

</comment><comment><USER25> Since this is hacker news, an easy hack is to just open an incognito browser and continue reading article because the paywall is cookie based. They are not trying very hard to force people into subscriptions. They are only suggesting.

That said, if you like the content you should support them because they are losing money.

</comment><comment><USER26> No praise for the tech division. I feel sorry for NYT Technology departmemt. They are quintessential for making this happen. I see outside of tech companies, this kind of treatment for technology folks is common nowadays.

</comment><comment><USER27> Then everyone else must be struggling.

</comment><comment><USER28> I pay for a NY Times digital subscription. Even though I don't always agree with their editorial slant, it's better quality news in on place than you can get for "free" around the web.

People hate paying so much these days that they'll deal with poor quality information. We used to all pay for newspapers--why should they be "free" now just because there's no paper?

<comment><USER29> Is there any evidence that you get better quality content from a NY Times subscription than you get for free on the web? I personally don't view the NY Times as a credible source.

<comment><USER21> Every nyt article goes through layers of editing, fact checking and copy editing by people with years, often decades of experience. Nyt is one of the few places that can afford to do this. Furthermore, if the nyt does get something wrong, unlike most blogs, etc; there is a framework in place for submitting and publishing corrections. NYT even pays someone (Margaret Sullivan, the public editor) to advocate for readers. She writes about her work here[0].

Per evidence. Here's evidence: half the 'content' you read on the web was first reported by the nyt.

Recent examples: Hilary clinton emails, VW scandal, Nail salon exploitation, etc, etc...

here are 50 more:

[http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/21/business/media...](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/21/business/media/50-of- our-best-stories-from-nytimes.html)

(disclaimer: i work for the nyt but opinions are my own)

[0] [http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/thepubliceditor/index....](http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/thepubliceditor/index.html)

<comment><USER30> If only a similar process existed to check the editorial bias that permeates purportedly non-editorial content.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I find an instance of 'New Incognito Window' is a good way to view that site.

</comment><comment><USER32> How is this impressive?</comment>


The most World Cup-crazy countries - <AUTHOR> http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/07/most-world-cup-crazy-countries.html <comment><USER2> Note that in Brazil people actually stop working to watch Brazil's matches. I wonder how common is this in Spain and other European powerhouses.

<comment><USER3> Here in the UK it's fairly common for the more enlightened* employers to make allowances for daytime England games. It's more effective than penicillin in reducing mystery illnesses. I'd like to thank modern technology for allowing me to return emails at half time from my phone in the pub.

* of course some people are FURIOUS about this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> No change in US. Expected.</comment>


Off road, but not offline: How simulation helps advance Waymo Driver - <AUTHOR> https://blog.waymo.com/2020/04/off-road-but-not-offline--simulation27.html <comment><USER2> This headline (and article) is IMHO promoting a unit-less metric.

There's no mention of the yield in quality improvement per hour of simulation. I.e., how much better does the vehicle drive using the learnings from these 876,000 sim hours?

Once a sim pipeline is set up, it's "easy" to scale up the number of hours it runs (throw it more compute resources, throw it more scenarios). But that doesn't mean the analysis scales up, or the quality of the sim results, or the application of analysis to bug fixes or feature development.

<comment><USER3> As far as I'm concerned the only number that matters is the real world mean distance between failure/incident.

<comment><USER4> As an driver, I think too much emphasis is placed on those global mean crash/fatality rate statistics. That sort of analysis is too reductive. By not being an alcoholic and choosing to always wear a seatbelt, not driving in bad weather, choosing to obey the speed limit, etc.. individuals can deliberately boost their chances well above the national mean. Insurance companies charge different people different rates because they aren't so reductive as to only consider national averages.

The response I usually get when I talk about is _" everybody thinks they're better than average, so changes are equally good you're not"_, but that too is too reductive. Loads of people drive drunk, while I know that I don't. That alone significantly stacks the odds in my favor for the likelihood that I'm correct in thinking I'm above the average.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Please don't editorialize titles. This is in the site guidelines: " _Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don 't editorialize._" ([https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)) Cherry-picking the detail you think is most important from an article is editorializing.

If you want to say what you think is important about an article, please post it as a comment to the thread. Then your view will be on a level playing field with everyone else's: [https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...](https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20%22level%20playing%20field%22&sort=byDate&type=comment)

If it's necessary to change a title, please do that by picking the most neutral and accurate phrase you can find on the actual page which represents what the article is about. More on that here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22932244](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22932244)

(Submitted title was "Waymo's simulators are doing 100 years of driving per day during WFH")

</comment><comment><USER6> I feel like HN is too skeptical of self driving. Having driven a Tesla for a road trip, I would feel safe letting it do all the work on interstates without the feedback it currently requires. That's a big step forward. Every day use cases, even if it's not every moment you're in your car, are certainly within reach.

<comment><USER7> > _I feel like HN is too skeptical of self driving. Having driven a Tesla for > a road trip, I would feel safe letting it do all the work on interstates > without the feedback it currently requires._

How many times does a Tesla have to actively accelerate and careen into a solid concrete barrier before HN's modicum of skepticism for self driving, particularly Tesla's implementation, is justified?

<comment><USER8> 1/2 as many times as a human does. I've driven about 250,000 miles in my life and had 5 accidents, none with injury. But I think a self driving car could do a lot better.

<comment><USER9> My skepticism of self driving tech is all weather based. Here in LA, I'm confident that a self driving car could do fine; slow traffic (normally), good roads, low precipitation and clear lines make for easy driving.

But back when I lived in Colorado I had multiple times when I had to drive on a highway with completely obscured lines, poor weather, and extremely dangerous consequences for failure. I recall one drive in a blizzard where all the cars driving had to negotiate their own space without any feedback of where the lines were supposed to be. If I recall correctly we all settled on 1 fewer lanes than the road "should" have. I do not believe that self driving tech is capable of doing that yet, especially on mixed human/robot roads.

<comment><USER10> Maybe lane marker tracking isn't the way to go? I've always wondered if it would be possible (in the US; through a massive initiative) to just paint lines (or embed something in or on the road) in the center of the lanes and have the cars just follow the lines. How much would that cost?

<comment><USER9> No paint will solve the problem of snow covering said paint. So you'll have to embed them. The hardware alone would cost billions of dollars to purchase, and installation would cost either trillions of dollars to rework all the roads now, or decades to install as our road network ages out.

Long story short, it's not feasible.

<comment><USER10> But isn't that what people said of the National Highway System? That it wasn't feasible? And yet here we are almost half a century later...

<comment><USER9> I doubt it.

Sure, I'm sure there were complaints about the costs, but the value of a massive road network has been known for millennia.

Spending a trillion ripping up a perfectly good road network in order to try out a new technology that'll generate profits for a small number of companies is an insane plan, and genuinely might not work.

<comment><USER10> We don't necessarily need to rip up the existing roads. We could just put some radio based markers on the road. Then when they do construction, they could be easily moved, too.

<comment><USER9> It's true that markers _on_ the pavement are cheaper to implement than markers _in_ the pavement, I agree.

I'm also not convinced it solves anything. In the scenario above the problem wasn't the fact that the lines weren't visible, the problem was _other cars_. This is particularly problematic when many of those other cars are human beings who will never have access to modified road information. In this scenario a smart car that knows where the lane should be is still forced to dynamically negotiate for space with other vehicles, sans communication protocols. That is a _very_ hard problem, one I do not believe is currently solved.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Nvidia has a similar system: [https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/self-driving- cars/drive-constel...](https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/self-driving-cars/drive- constellation/)

<comment><USER12> that was incredible...i know that video games like GTA look similar, but this whole system with hardware-in-loop is amazing

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> It's a shame that Waymo (as well as Google Streetview?) isn't operating on the road at this time, since there's probably no better chance to do mapping as when there are far fewer cars and people to obstruct the view.

<comment><USER14> Mapping isn't trivial, but I'm sure it's not what's blocking expanding operations

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm unnerved by the anthropomorphism of "driver". What would we think of a human saying "I've got 100+ years sim experience but out on the street I need safety watch." It obviously means their "driver's" sum of experience doesn't account for much.

The closest you could compare human actions to what their machine is doing is "dreaming". When we dream, we improve our reactions without having to go through the actual situation. But again, picture this human saying "I'm a safe driver because I've dreamt about driving a lot!"

Now you could say that theirs is just a product name. Surely they'd agree machines are different. And maybe I'm pedantic when I say they shouldn't use words that liken their system to a human. Still I think it's important to acknowledge that machines will refuse to drive like we do. Our driving is too probabilistic on multiple levels.

I think we wouldn't be stuck in uncanny valley if it were acknowledged that first we have to equip highways and participants on them with transponders. Then we can let the machines take over on boring, predictable highways.

</comment><comment><USER16> Waymo's simulators are doing 100 years of playing video games per day. They're not doing any driving.

<comment><USER17> Simulators can be pretty good. The FAA certifies some pretty low-end simulator setups for commercial/private pilots to get IFR training in, for example. And of course, airline pilots almost exclusively train in simulators. Very few pilots have experienced an engine fire in their 787, but I'd bet that about 100% of them would handle the situation correctly because of simulator training (and good documentation).

I don't know how good driving simulators are, but at least self-driving cars are modular enough to test components. Even if you can't test the machine vision, you can still invent data coming out of the vision to test the rest of the system. (You can probably fuzz test it, too. Generate a bunch of random scenarios, fail if an obstacle hitbox and vehicle hitbox touch. Tweak that, and then set up the scenario in the field when COVID-19 is over.)

Certainly the vision part of the equation is one of the greatest engineering challenges. That is why they are testing cars in the field. But just having a working vision system doesn't get you a working self-driving car, so quite a bit of effort has to be invested in the rest of the system. With noone allowed to go to work, now is a great time to invest in that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Can they randomly flip bits in the simulation - what happens when the stoplight is green and red? An upside down stop sign, etc.

</comment><comment><USER19> But still not human-level performance.

</comment><comment><USER20> [DELETED]

<comment><USER21> Depends on how dumb you are. Autopilots seem pretty dumb at this point.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> And it will still no drive safely on a real road for at least 5 years.

<comment><USER16> My prediction is that self-driving cars will not dominate the public roads until sometime between 40 years from now and never.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> That's great but it's 100 years a day of completely unusual inputs. It's great they can navigate fairly empty streets but what happens when the flood returns?

<comment><USER24> This article is about cars driving in simulation, not on the real streets. But I do wonder how they can introduce truly "unpredictable" events in the simulations.

I don't know anything about self driving cars, but it seems like solving self driving cars isn't far off having general artificial intelligence. How well does a car react when there is a construction flagger telling it to turn around, or when there is no signs and the traffic lights go down due to a power failure?

As an aside, my recent experience ordering a burrito from a virtual assistant over the phone did not leave me too dazzled with the state of the AI industry. Of course, Chipotle's phone robots are probably not training on 100 years of simulated burritos...

<comment><USER25> > How well does a car react when there is a construction flagger telling it to > turn around, or when there is no signs and the traffic lights go down due to > a power failure?

It tells the driver to take over when it can't interpret the situation.

Total self driving is far in the future. Realistically in a few years we can get to the point where the car can drive itself in usual situations, but the human is needed for anything unusual.

<comment><USER10> The problem in the meantime is that you have to keep the driver alert the whole time. Deaths involving Teslas almost always are because the driver had Autopilot on and was ignoring the "take control" warning.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


What is Aeternity blockchain? - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9cqkdx1Llo <comment><AUTHOR> Main highlights from the video:

1) Aeternity has lightning fast off-chain transactions. This gives more security and scalability.

2) Hybrid of PoW (consensus, mine on any devices) + PoS (governance).

3) Oracle machines - connect any real world data to smart contracts easily: elections, sports events, gold and oil prices, etc.</comment>


Worcestershire Sauce - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcestershire_sauce <comment><USER2> Why? Most everyone knows this.</comment>


THX Deep Note Trailer 2019 (4K) – Genesis [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYU8zydUqD8 <comment><AUTHOR> For comparison, here is a YouTube video compiling the different THX trailers from 1983 to 2016: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvFN- ARxvjM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvFN-ARxvjM)

And a link to the Earslap page on recreating the Deep Note: [http://earslap.com/article/recreating-the-thx-deep- note.html](http://earslap.com/article/recreating-the-thx-deep-note.html) (2009)

… which was covered here in 2014: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7537674](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7537674)

… and again, almost exactly one year ago! [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18078239](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18078239)</comment>


Ammonite: Scala Scripting - <AUTHOR> http://www.lihaoyi.com/Ammonite/ <comment><USER2> On one hand, as big Scala fan, this is great, I love the IO library!

On the other hand, I hate to be that guy, but

1\. website is not https, no guarantee it's not modified or any authenticity

2\. to install I need to download a file from a shorten URL then make it executable, then run it, no questions asked. I'm sorry but no.

3\. no checksum to validate the binary

Great start, but these small security things are going to inhibit adoption, at least in my case.

Still don't let that stop you. Better ship early than never, and it looks very polished and well thought. Good luck!

<comment><USER3> There is a github repo. Clone it and build it, after all you are a developer, right?

If you want to run Ammonite on Windows the only way is to clone the repo, patch it and build it.

You are right to be careful, even paranoid, but the security issues are not a showstopper.

<comment><USER2> Not a show stopper, but will make it less likely people will spend the time trying it out. If things like "brew install x" were not important, it wouldn't had 7000 stars on github and used by almost any Mac developer. Yes, we can build all from source... but how many of us prefer doing it over using a trusted package manager? Ammonite is about developer productivity, or so I believe, so having to clone and build it from source is not going to increase the amount of people trying it out... part of shipping is security, and security should be there from the get go, it's not something you just add later.

<comment><AUTHOR> You can `brew install ammonite` too [https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew- core/blob/master/Formul...](https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew- core/blob/master/Formula/ammonite-repl.rb)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I believe in the value of this project, OP (lihaoyi). Your example of [https://github.com/valvesoftware/steam-for- linux/issues/3671](https://github.com/valvesoftware/steam-for- linux/issues/3671) and rm -rf "$STEAMROOT/"* erasing everything when $STEAMROOT is a blank string are spot on.

I remember spending a couple of hours one weekend getting this to work in Cygwin. I lost energy to pursue it further after getting it to work, which is typical with me :-) (Then I revisit things after 6 months or so, with some luck and free time).

Anyway, here are my notes from that attempt, in case someone else runs into the same issues:

a) I fixed the height and width in ammonite/repl/FrontEndUtils.scala so that it doesn't go down the hell hole of Cygwin tput and tty issues

b) hard-coded repl.frontEnd() = ammonite.repl.FrontEnd.JLineUnix in ammonite/shell/Configure.scala

c) sbt '~shell/test:run' to run the fully-loaded REPL

<comment><USER5> I like scala too but I have to say, it is a bit on a heavy side when it comes to scripting.

re: the rm -rf "$STEAMROOT/"* there is much simpler way to avoid it:

        set -euo pipefail
        IFS=$'\n\t'

This would prevent this bug and many others. For whole overview on that see: [http://redsymbol.net/articles/unofficial-bash-strict- mode/](http://redsymbol.net/articles/unofficial-bash-strict-mode/)

<comment><USER4> Thanks, that's a good one!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I use this tool a lot ! When I want to test a new library, I download it from maven using :

import $ivy.`org.typelevel::cats:0.9.0`

And then I play with it. Or when I read a scala book and copy past example/exercise to benefit from the syntax coloration and don't want to recompile everything every time I change something.

The only question I want to ask to @lihaoyi : why does ivy import has such an ugly syntax ? (import $ivy2.`com::lib:version`) rather than the more sbt like (import $ivy2 "org.scalatest" %% "scalatest" % "2.2.6") ?

</comment><comment><USER7> I'm not a scala dev but I'm curious, what makes scala a good _scripting_ language? Bash has its faults but it's still great for adhoc stuff and when it stops being great you can just move to a more specialized build config tool. Scala seems a bit more verbose and it's unclear what you gain from it.

Is it similar to what's going on the JS world where people just want to use one language for client, server, and build tools? (and for this case, even the terminal shell?)

<comment><USER8> I really enjoy using chains of map.filter.foreach.map in scala, it feels powerful but also simple

I imagine piping in bash feels similar, so there's at least a common problem/solution between them

<comment><USER9> > I imagine piping in bash feels similar...

It is. Piping is akin to an untyped subset of working with Scala's collections, and there's a similar workflow between the two, e.g.:

In bash, you build up a command line with something like (as a stupid example, the number of unique file sizes in a directory):

        Step 1) $ ls -l
        Step 2) $ ls -l | awk '{print $5}'
        Step 3) $ ls -l | awk '/\d+/ {print $5}'
        Step 4) $ ls -l | awk '/\d+/ {print $5}' | sort -n
        Step 5) $ ls -l | awk '/\d+/ {print $5}' | sort -n | uniq

You can see the correspondence with collections--typically building up in the editor in a similar staged manner ending with something like:

        Process("ls -l").lines   // ls -l part
          .map(_.split("\\s+"))  // awk part {
          .filter(_.length > 4)  //   ...
          .map(_.apply(4).toInt) // }
          .sorted                // sort -n part
          .distinct              // uniq part

The tradeoffs between the two are essentially verbosity versus data safety (perhaps not important with a throwaway inspection, but more important when working on larger programs...).

However, the building process is the same--you don't write the latter all at once, you gradually mold the pipeline until you get the output you want.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Love this. The mess of using Java standard library for filesystem IO always left a bad taste in my mouth. This looks amazing for the filesystem stuff alone.

</comment><comment><USER11> We use ammonite everyday! Its a great tool!

Li has a patreon I advise anyone using ammonite to checkout!

[https://www.patreon.com/lihaoyi](https://www.patreon.com/lihaoyi)

</comment><comment><USER12> This isn't too far away from "Powershell on the JVM," which is not a bad thing.

      ls.rec! cwd |? (_.ext == "class") |? (_.size > 1024) | (_.last) | println

Compare to (I think this is roughly equivalent Powershell)

      ls -rec |? {$_.Extension -eq ".dll"} |? {$_.Length -gt 1024}

<comment><USER13> ls with filter flag can be used to get particular extension.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> > Create scripts that you can run easily from the command line, without the > overhead of setting up a "project" _or waiting for SBT 's slow startup > times_.

This is the one thing keeping me away from Scala programming in general, by the way, to be honest.

</comment><comment><USER15> This looks very nice, but it wont be very usable without vim bindings</comment>


Google Plus's Circles System May Not be Sustainable - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/google_plus_circle_system_may_not_be_sustainable.php

<comment><AUTHOR> Maybe they could implement some sort of "Smart Circles" or "Nested Circles". That could solve the author's "Work Friends" issue.

<comment><USER2> I noticed I started treating circles like iTunes playlists - I have a master "All Friends" (akin to my Music Library) circle, which is a dump for everyone who are friends (not family), then "RL Friends" and "Internet Friends".

Thinking about it, I can dump the All Friends circle because its a catch-all, and if I wanted to post something to all my friends, I can just add RL Friends and Internet Friends. There are certainly places I want to have people in multiple circles (interest groups, etc) but catch-alls aren't it.

Nested Circles seem like catch-all meta-groupings that create a more rigid structure (unless you could add a circle to more than one Circle Group, but this seems to be over-thinking the problem and could present an unwieldily UI).

For Smart Circles, they use the example of a work relationship changing. It seems that renaming that circle to something else would work just as well, and creating a new Work circle with your new coworkers in it. Having G+ try and manage something that can be fluid and sometimes pretty arbitrary seems it could be messy and potentially embarrassing (someone ending up in a circle they shouldn't be in).

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> this is where i see a good developer ecosystem being valuable. i can well imagine third party circle-organisation tools springing up and exploring the ux space between them till a good, usable method evolves.</comment>


If You Haven't Sold Ten Product Sales Yet - <AUTHOR> http://www.marketlocomotion.com/if-you-havent-sold-ten-paid-products-yet/

<comment><USER2> Good suggestions. But maybe the headline should be about whether you've 'sold ten units' or 'made ten sales' - 'sold ten products' sounds like ten _different_ products, whereas you seem to be talking about the first sales of a single new product.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the suggestion, I changed the title</comment></comment>


Computational lambda-calculus and monads [pdf] (1988) - <AUTHOR> http://www.disi.unige.it/person/MoggiE/ftp/lics89.pdf <comment><AUTHOR> I wanted to point out, though somebody changed the title, this is the first paper written on using Monads in programming. It's by Eugenio Moggi. This paper goes on to influence Philip Wadler and SPJ's work on Haskell in the early nineties. The paper clearly shows that monads come from category theory.</comment>


The mystery of the missing millionaire Ambrose Small - <AUTHOR> https://nationalpost.com/opinion/robert-fulford-the-mystery-of-the-missing-millionaire-continues-to-enthrall <comment><USER2> The search for Ambrose Small was part of the plot of Michael Ondaatje's novel "In the Skin of a Lion". The main character Patrick is a "searcher" looking for Small. Patrick's daughter Hana and his close friend Caravaggio are main characters in Ondaatje's subsequent novel "The English Patient".</comment>


Tell HN: What I like about HN - <AUTHOR>

Whenever a link is submitted and makes it to the top page, there often is a "follow-up" within a few hours that tells the other side of the story.
For example: http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~nd/surprise_97/journal/vol2/pjm2/ vs http://pchiusano.blogspot.com/2010/01/actors-are-not-good-concurrency-model.html
There are many more examples, but I'm too lazy to retrace them :D Did anyone else notice the same pattern ? <comment><USER2> Didn't the same thing happen with the issue of leaving one's laptop plugged in?</comment>