No Ghost in the Machine - <AUTHOR> https://theamericanscholar.org/no-ghost-in-the-machine/ <comment><USER2> People reading this on Hackers News will of course agree with his main point - Our computers can't 'Think' as such and when we talk about them as if they can, we're setting up for misunderstandings. But he seems to also be saying that we'll never get there because computers just run algorithms. Arguments like that always remind me of this bit from Iain Bank's 'A Few Notes On The Culture'

 _Certainly there are arguments against the possibility of [strong] Artificial Intelligence, but they tend to boil down to one of three assertions: one, that there is some vital field or other presently intangible influence exclusive to biological life - perhaps even carbon-based biological life - which may eventually fall within the remit of scientific understanding but which cannot be emulated in any other form (all of which is neither impossible nor likely); two, that self-awareness resides in a supernatural soul - presumably linked to a broad-based occult system involving gods or a god, reincarnation or whatever - and which one assumes can never be understood scientifically (equally improbable, though I do write as an atheist); and, three, that matter cannot become self-aware (or more precisely that it cannot support any informational formulation which might be said to be self-aware or taken together with its material substrate exhibit the signs of self-awareness). ...I leave all the more than nominally self-aware readers to spot the logical problem with that argument._

<comment><USER3> People in this debate miss a subtle issue, and it causes no end of confusion. The subtle issue is this. There is a difference between (1) accidentally building a computer which happens to think, and (2) intentionally building a computer which thinks, and knowing that it thinks.

Obviously (1) is possible, because for any particular configuration of atoms, it is theoretically possible for someone to assemble atoms together in that configuration. I could randomly put atoms together and, by sheer luck, assemble a living, breathing Abraham Lincoln. But since it happened by random chance, I wouldn't _know for sure_ that this was really a living, breathing Abraham Lincoln. I might observe it for awhile and notice that, golly, it sure does seem to be a living, breathing Abraham Lincoln. But I could never rule out the possibility that it only looks like that initially and that it'll eventually collapse or fall into some infinite loop or something.

Intentionally building a machine and KNOWING that it has such-and-such properties of a thinking machine, is much more interesting. Such KNOWING is, itself, an act of thinking, and so there arises an interplay between the thinking of the created machine, and the thinking of the creator. Then you can start asking questions about whether the created machine, being a thinker, could also itself intentionally create another thinking machine, and so on.

If you're tired of the endless non-productive debate about whether thinking machines are possible, and you'd like to go to the next level, and take steps toward actually quantifying things, I'd invite you to read some papers I've written on the subject. To lessen the learning curve, here are some very approachable slides, and if you like those slides, you can click through to one of the papers. [https://semitrivial.github.io/MeasuringIntelligence2019.pdf](https://semitrivial.github.io/MeasuringIntelligence2019.pdf)

<comment><USER4> Isn't this the same as the "problem of other minds"? How do I know that YOU mr xamuel are actually sentient?!

If we get to the point where a machine demonstrates "sufficiently" complex behavior, society will quickly accept them as sentient. This is something we are primed to do. Hell, people ascribe all sorts of intentionality to their dog.

After a few years, society at large will accept these machines as sentient, and it'll be the same philosophers arguing about "but are they REALLY sentient" that have been arguing the problem of other minds since ... Gorgias in 4th century BC?

You raise a really interesting point / distinction. I'm just arguing that society will race past this question without hesitation.

<comment><USER3> Bonus points for mentioning Gorgias :)

Re: wouldn't society race past this question without hesitation [if someone got lucky and produced what appears to be strong AI by just randomly throwing atoms together]?

Yes, and in fact some people would argue that is precisely what has in fact happened, the random atom-throwing-together process being called "evolution". And as you point out, philosophers would continue to debate about "is it REALLY strong AI?", just as nowadays philosophers debate about whether humans are machines or not.

These hypothetical debates will always exist, nothing will ever change that, not even if someone randomly creates a true strong AI by sheer luck.

My point is that there's a whole other half of the field, which ISN'T doomed to perpetual fruitless philosophical debating. The question of whether intelligent machines can exist is one that is doomed to fruitless debates forever. But the question of whether we can build specific machines and know with mathematical certainty how quantitatively intelligent they are--- _that_ is a much more fruitful area where progress can be made, theorems can be proved, mathematics can be applied, etc.

<comment><USER5> Unfortunately there's no agreement that we can actually quantify intelligence in a useful way, and believing that "ability to reason" and intelligence are synonymous, never mind evidence of sentience, is clearly incorrect.

Whatever human intelligence is, it has multiple dimensions, and being "able to reason" \- whatever you assume that means - is a tiny element of a bigger picture.

It's practically a universal law of AI that proponents of AI inevitably understand AI in terms of their own niche interests - whether those are chess, go, e-sports, music, or driving. Only a field like CS could conceive of a test where the ability to _emulate a conversation by typing lines of text on a terminal_ might be considered an indicator of operational sentience.

In reality all but the absolutely dumbest humans can operate a body fairly effortlessly, feed themselves and keep themselves clean, express characteristic preferences and act on them with agency, read and respond to human expressions and emotional cues, communicate internal emotional and psychological states verbally and non-verbally, improvise solutions to simple problems, maintain a fairly consistent emotional and psychological outlook that nonetheless develops over time, and make occasional surprising and unexpected - but not inhumanly weird - statements, observations, and actions.

How much of that is considered "being able to reason"?

If there's a way to quantify ability in all of the above, I'm not aware of it.

<comment><USER3> As a whole, an AGI is so general that we'll probably never be able to quantify its intelligence level. But we can quantify the intelligence of various "cross sections" of an AGI. As an extremely simple example, whatever the heck an AGI is, presumably an AGI can play chess. Therefore, we could instruct an AGI to compete in chess games and we could compute its Elo rating. This wouldn't be a measure of the AGI as a whole, but it would be a measure of the AGI as a chess-player.

More generally, we can consider the AGI to be a reinforcement learning agent: not that the AGI reduces to nothing but a reinforcement learning agent (that would be ridiculous), but rather, whatever the heck an AGI is, an AGI would certainly be capable of performing in reinforcement learning environments. Various methods have been proposed to measure RL agent intelligence, ranging from more practical to more philosophical.

Again, an AGI can be considered as a knowing agent, and identified with the formal set of mathematical theorems it knows in some language. Again, this isn't to say that's ALL the AGI is---that would be absurd. But it is one facet of the AGI. Whatever the heck the AGI is, it presumably knows some set of mathematical theorems in any given language (possibly the empty set, possibly a non-consistent set, etc.) There are various ways of classifying and even quantifying sets of mathematical theorems in a given language. See the slides I linked above for some details on this particular cross section.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> All these articles make the same basic argument, which is "Non-intelligent processes cannot give rise to intelligence."

Which is about as true as non-hurricane particles cannot give rise to a hurricane.

We already know that the human mind is full of non-intelligent atoms, and perhaps non-intelligent neurons, and yet here we are.

Any argument that makes the case that computers cannot be intelligent is also making the case that humans can't, either.

<comment><USER7> Well, speaking as an atheist who would like to think that the brain is purely cause and effect, what this boils down to is whether or not you believe that, or if you believe that somehow there are souls, and "something" interacts with a brain and imbues it with something we can't simulate that causes consciousness.

It's tempting to call that bullshit, but we don't know what consciousness _is_ , and it's proving very elusive to find a physical way to explain it. And, hey, maybe we're all in a simulation and our minds are simulated outside the main simulation and so the only "conscious" entities are those with an external simulation feeding data into our universe. I'd tend to to think that rather than "ancestor simulations" like in the simulation argument, it's more likely we're in some game in that case.

Even a purely physical explanation does not preclude some physical process we're unaware of that involves some interaction with something physical that is in effect a black box from our point of view, and something we may not be able to replicate from "inside" the observable universe. E.g. imagine we're constrained to however many dimensions, but consciousness involves a process partially outside "our" dimensions.

Ultimately I'd like to think we find a purely physical/mechanistic model of consciousness that allows us to replicate it in software; the slightly less optimistic view is that we'll need some specialized hardware. The pessimistic view is that there's something involved that means it takes something very similar to a squishy biological brain to tap into whatever gives rise to consciousness. But we could also hit a wall.

<comment><USER8> > Well, speaking as an atheist who would like to think that the brain is > purely cause and effect,

Even if you believe there are souls created by God, you _also_ believe that you can reliably cause (provoke? induce?) God to create a soul and attach it to a specific bit of matter, by merely engaging in a certain pleasurable activity.

Supposing that we could create an artificial life form with the same brain structures as a human, God could certainly create and attach a soul if he chose. Given his general willingness to create souls in response to our actions, is there a strong reason to believe he wouldn't imbue a machine capable of human-like thought with a soul?

And, how would we know whether this had happened or not? If we can't create a test capable of distinguishing a group of atoms with a soul from a group of atoms without a soul, isn't it safer to treat them both the same?

<comment><USER7> > Supposing that we could create an artificial life form with the same brain > structures as a human, God could certainly create and attach a soul if he > chose. Given his general willingness to create souls in response to our > actions, is there a strong reason to believe he wouldn't imbue a machine > capable of human-like thought with a soul?

I'd say we have no way of telling. "God" or a game engine or whatever is creating those "souls" might be someone looking on with bemusement and enjoying adding souls to anything we want to see what we come up with, or might be someone who takes great offense we're meddling in their business, or might be a dumb rules engine that insists on a specific biological interaction to happen just so before it instantiates another object. Or there might be some weird quantum mechanical interaction we don't understand that gets triggered that happens to interact with another dimension. Or a bored teenager needs to go out and get another USB dongle to upgrade the number of "soul simulators" their game allows. Or an endless number of other possibilities.

> And, how would we know whether this had happened or not? If we can't create > a test capable of distinguishing a group of atoms with a soul from a group > of atoms without a soul, isn't it safer to treat them both the same?

Currently we don't. I don't even know if you're conscious. We don't understand intelligence well enough to reliably test for intelligence, and we don't understand well enough how intelligence relates to consciousness or whether there is a meaningful distinction.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I agree with the main point of the article, but I think that it misses the bigger picture.

> The computer can't think

I completely agree that our current software cannot think, at least in a complex way like humans do. But, our computers can execute Turing Complete programs. Is human logic beyond that? That will be an incredible discovery if we could assure that 'Human intelligence' > 'Turing Complete'. My bet is that such a thing does not exist.

If you take all computers, phones, etc. and you were able to run on them just one shared program. Is that not enough computing power to be able to think? My bet is that probably it is. Human brains are NOT infinitely complex.

> When they succeed, we will be back in the situation so lamented by Pollack: > that of seeing an AI "breakthrough" or "major advance" as just more > software, which is what it will be.

Or, we are going to discover that humans can't "think" either. That you can print, in a very big book, all the logic that makes us tick. And this makes sense. We have already discovered quite a lot of tricks that our visual system uses to identify images. And it is full of shortcuts and assumptions. And we cannot change that, if the illusion makes you think that a line is longer than the other, there is no mental power that allows us to see the truth even when we have the knowledge.

Machines are not magical, I agree with the main point of the article. It is just that humans are either. We are matter that can think, and that is a great thing but not magical.

I think therefore matter can think. I always liked this truism, as it removes quite a lot of magic from the idea of "thinking".

<comment><USER10> A raspberry pi, in being turing complete, has the ability to simulate the fastest supercomputer ever built (just give it a big enough harddrive to capture the RAM). More speed does not give you any extra ability in causing a computer to be able to thing. If that was possible (it isnt) then it would be the software doing all the job, not the speed of the hardware.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> " This was the very question that consumed Arnold, filled him with guilt, eventually drove him mad. The answer always seemed obvious to me. There is no threshold that makes us greater than the sum of our parts, no inflection point at which we become fully alive. We can't define consciousness because consciousness does not exist. Humans fancy that there's something special about the way we perceive the world, and yet we live in loops as tight and as closed as the hosts do." \- Robert Ford (Anthony Hopkins)

<comment><USER12> It's conflating conscious awareness with the existence or non-existence of free will. It's conscious awareness that is the ineffable mystery, unless you believe the chair you're sitting on actually feels you sitting on it. I mean, it has to if you believe the mind is nothing but atoms, because the chair is also nothing but atoms. There isn't such a thing as emergent properties, or neurons, those are just models we use to understand bunches of atoms.

<comment><USER13> In the same way I accept that I can eat some leaves, but not rocks, that mercury is a liquid at room temperature while steel is a solid, and that the latter can be configured into a car I can drive around in, I accept that some collections of atoms may posess the property of awareness without necessitating that all do.

<comment><USER12> The brain, like the objects you described, poses no mystery to physics. There isn't anything about the atoms in the brain that suggests there would be consciousness, or indeed, anything in physics that predicts consciousness arising, the way that the properties of any other macro object can be understood in terms of physics.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Common fallacies about computing and agency aside I personally believe intelligence is a spectrum and an emergent phenomenon is the most convincing hypothesis. We have already seen grizzly brain damage or defect cases that result in "missing" aspects. We don't even know all subparts and interactions of our own let alone what hypothetical alternative arrangements could be made - even before its processes engage in repurposing.

That however doesn't tell us much until/unless we find a hypothetical threshold and refine it.

</comment><comment><USER15> So various physical and chemical elements can form ever more complex pattern- recognizing feedback loops and end up like the conscious beings that we are, but it's not possible for us to further evolve via/with technology?

That doesn't make much sense.

This all depends on the lenses on see this through.

If one takes the perspective that evolution is a way for our genes to "find ever better vessels for the information carried in our DNA" then it seems like the meatvessel we are isn't the most optimal for the future.

<comment><USER16> An interesting question is perhaps to ask when did our species become "conscious"? Neanderthal? Erectus? Habilis? Our last common ancestor with chimpanzee?

It would seem to me that these were all "conscious" in some way and that there is a continuum of this "consciousness" thing whatever it is.

My current thinking is that higher level "consciousness" is about levels of self-awareness. I can be self-aware, but am I aware that I am self-aware?

This implies to me that there must be some mechanisms that provide the ability to get input from ones own processes to begin to form consciousness. Feedback loops of some sort. I have a sense that given the right quantity and nature of feedback sensing abilities combined with a neural network, appropriately biased to some goal like self preservation, a form of consciousness could emerge. (?)

Pure speculation...

<comment><USER17> It's not pure speculation at all - it's a very active field of research that currently points to the fact that consciousness is a spectrum. There are animals that recognise themselves in the mirror and have a clear concept of self versus other. There is evidence for plants communicating with each other by various means. So asking "when did our species become conscious?" is akin to asking "when did you become an adult?" and expecting a specific date or event as a reply...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I think for me the article hit peak "oh come on" when it said this:

> _In fact, the computer does not play chess at all, let alone championship > chess. Chess is a game that has evolved over centuries to pose a tough but > not utterly discouraging challenge to humans, with regard to specifically > human strengths and weaknesses. One human capacity it challenges is the > ability to concentrate; another is memory; a third is what chess players > call sitzfleisch—the ability to resist the fatigue of sitting still for > hours. The computer knows nothing of any of these._

The author is complaining that airplanes don't flap their wings and submarines don't swim. Sure, it's technically correct, but it doesn't change the fact that airplanes are useful and distinguishing "flying [airplane style]" from "flying [bird style]" usually isn't.

This gets particularly egregious when the author talks about military robots:

> _"The next ethical minefield is where the intelligent machine, not the man, > makes the kill decision," it reads. But no existing or presently conceivable > robot will ever make such a decision. Whether a computer kills a man or > dispenses a candy bar, it will do so because its program_

Ah, the robot is killing me "because of its program". It's not DECIDING [HUMAN] it's only deciding [computer]. What a relief. Problem solved.

> _The "should a man or a robot decide?" debate, then, is wrongly framed. The > only correct question is whether the person making the decision will be the > designer-programmer of the robot or an operator working with the robot at > the moment of its use._

There are endless examples of human decisions to create computer systems not anticipating the computer decisions that those systems make. It's useful to then be able to say things like "the car decided to not do anything, to debounce the am-about-to-hit-something signal, which resulted in the death of the cyclist" without having to constantly qualify with "the decision was implemented by a series of hard-coded if-else statements and while loops". Wasting everyone's time with the triviality "an if-then statement isn't a DECISION [HUMAN] it's only a DECISION [COMPUTER]" is not a useful contribution to this particular debate.

Applying human thinking terms to computer systems is a useful shorthand. It's not going away.</comment>


Study of chloroquine for Covid-19 stopped early over heart rhythm problems - <AUTHOR> https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-chloroquine-study-stopped-early.html <comment><USER2> The study was not "stopped". They removed the high dose arm because of these issues and continued with the low dose arm, although at least one source (Biocentury) called the emergence of the toxic effect "stastistically insignificant trend".

Which doesn't mean that it's not bad (it is), but that you can't rule out the null hypothesis there (assuming that what Biocentury wrote was correct).

I don't know enough on the safety profile of hydroxychloroquine as opposed to chloroquine to tell if they're different on that regard (the French institution in Marseille uses the latter, IIRC).

Any pointers on that?

<comment><USER3> The study comparing the dosage was stopped, but a parallel study presumably about overall effectiveness is still ongoing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> We've known for a long time that CQ and HCQ are generally safe as they're given as antimalarials. Heart arrhythmias are certainly a concern for long term use (such as in lupus), or for people with an existing heart condition.

Based on all the papers I've consumed, I think it is likely that CQ/HCQ will reduce the length that a normal, healthy adult will be contagious and that it is probably worth giving as a prophylaxis or early on in an infection to slow down the spread of the disease (going from 14 days of contagiousness is much worse than 4 days of contagiousness). But it is highly unlikely that this is some sort of panacea for later stages of the infection or in older adults.</comment>


Criminals and the Normalization of Masks - <AUTHOR> https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2020/05/criminals_and_t.html <comment><USER2> Another distinct motive is wanting to hinder facial recognition. Previously, wearing a mask would automatically lump you in with criminals. Now it has been normalized. I look forward to wearing a mask for errands long after the pandemic necessitates, especially when I can return to using cash.

PS With a sample of 7 out of 7 wearing masks, it's nice to see that even criminals have more care for society than the population at large does!

</comment><comment><USER3> The psychological effects may be more damaging than the virus.

"Why come you don't have a tatoo?" asked Gov Inslee.</comment>


Ask HN: How do I help get my significant other a job in tech?  NYC/ATL - <AUTHOR>

My girlfriend is looking to switch careers but doesn't have any experience outside of the call center job she's held since college.  She's finding it impossible to get a job in the areas that she's interested in (librarian/archivist, executive assistant, customer service, office manager) and is emotionally drained from writing cover letters and sending résumés to job sites only to hear complete silence.
I had the idea that she could work at a startup as an intern. She'd get lots of experience doing a wide variety of things that she'd immediately be good at (customer support, office manager, receptionist) as well as get to be introduced to completely new things such as marketing, product, or design, which could be her dream job.  Plus, she'd learn about the tech scene and could network to find other opportunities instead of having to blindly submit résumés.
I think that even just three months at a startup would give her much more experience than working as a drone somewhere else, and she's really excited at the prospect of working in a small team with other young people.
Has anyone else gotten their significant other into the tech scene?  How should I approach another startup if I were to ask them in her stead (she's in Atlanta now, I'm in NYC)?  What things should I do to help prep her for her interviews? <comment><USER2> I can only speak for me personally - but I'd find it strange if someone I didn't know from Adam gave me a introduction to their girlfriend. I'd think 'what in hell's wrong with the girlfriend - why didn't she just contact me directly?' Even if she's in Atlanta, I think she should be the one reaching out, not you.

(The situation's completely different if I _do_ know you - candidate referrals from personal networks are always fine.)

You can help her by giving her the confidence that it's possible for a non- technical person to hustle their way into a startup and then learn a ton. You might also be able to help her by doing research on the startups, to identify candidates she wants to approach.

That said, the main things that are going to make the difference all have to do with her and her attitude. When I've hired people in your girlfriend's position, enthusiasm, confidence, hustle, and the ability to genuinely convey knowledge about and interest in my company and industry have gone a long way.

When entry-level jobs are publicly posted you get a deluge of people, and it's hard to stand out. Instead of applying to what's out there, I'd be approaching companies that haven't bothered to post. A personalized email that included feedback on / ideas for / questions about my company, a description of what she could do for my company now and what role she'd like to grow into, affordable salary expectations, and a request to talk further by phone would certainly get my attention. Done right, I'd think about whether I had a role for this woman, even if I didn't have an open position.

I've got an (anecdotal) impression that things _are_ a little tight in NYC right now for entry-level folks - a former intern of mine with experience at multiple startups has put together some part-time work, but she's been looking for that full-time position for months now. I wouldn't let that discourage your girlfriend, though - work hard, long, and smart enough and good things will eventually happen.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your comment; this is really helpful information.

To clarify what I meant by asking in her stead, I meant if I were at a meetup or mixer and was talking to some founders, not applying for a job in her stead (which would be really strange).

<comment><USER3> I don't think meetups are a great place to ask about entry level positions. I tried this while looking for a technical internship, and I was most successful when I could talk about/show a project that particular founder was interested in. When they weren't interested in talking about my work, one of two things would happen:

1.) If they were a well established company they'd just refer me to their jobs site and probably barely remember afterwards so it was almost starting from scratch.

2.) If they were a small company still getting started they would remember me because I said "intern" and they thought that might mean "free".

I feel like you're going to get a lot of these kinda reactions if you're just mentioning her, because there's not much to say about her if she doesn't have some solid experience you can mention. If she's really into start ups and is a good conversationist, I'd just bring her to mixers if you can. Don't mingle with her though, you two should split up and she should strike up conversation on her own, if she's with you all night she may get treated as arm candy.

Other than that she can comb the Who's Hiring thread for smaller companies that are just getting started and that she'd be interested in, research them, and email them saying she found them on Hacker News, and why she thought she as neat. Her lack of experience will be hard to get around, but showing genuine interest in start ups outside of employment is always helpful.</comment></comment></comment>


Yahoo Launches Browser Version of Messenger - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/05/02/yahoo-launches-browser-version-of-messenger/ <comment><USER2> Now who's left to buy meebo?</comment>


Mike Maples invests in Blueseed - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2012/12/13/mike-maples-gets-on-board-blueseeds-sea-platform/

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry for changing the title, but the original ("Mike Maples Gets On Board Blueseed's Sea Platform") is the kind of obnoxious pun style headline I hate, and really makes little sense out of context.

I thought SEO had saved publications from that kind of thing.</comment>


Ccv 0.7, with a sub-10% image classifier and a decent face detector - <AUTHOR> http://libccv.org/post/with-a-sub-10-image-classifier-a-decent-face-detector-here-comes-ccv-0.7/

<comment><USER2> How does libccv compare to OpenCV in terms of precision and scope?

<comment><USER3> Read the linked page. It has an accuracy comparison for the face detector.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> @liuliu, can libccv be used to make your own classifiers, like in Caffe, you can use a pre existing model and fine tune it to a new dataset? Can I use libccv to train a classifier of clouds vs birds, or can it only be used for the 1000 standard category recognition from ImageNet?

<comment><AUTHOR> It includes a training program (./bin/image-net.c), however, it requires a bit of work to get it started (you need to initialize a new convnet with the pre- trained parameters, and then fine-tuning the whole network). It is on my todo list to make a more friendly training program that for these simple tasks, you should be able to do with CPU easily.

<comment><USER5> I remember when you first announced this project some years back. You've done such an incredible job! :)

Since you mention distribution of pre-trained models by participants in ImageNet 2014, I have to wonder if there would be a market for distributing specialized classifiers like open source software. Eg, an npm-like website you might be able to find a "dog breed classifier", "car make/model classifier", etc. If so, what would it take to make it happen?

<comment><USER4> That's a really cool idea, I think that could really help the community and add involvement to the library too

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> @liuliu - in the last graph, there's quite a jump from epoch 26 to 27. I'm curious to find out what might be causing this.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's when learning rate changed to a smaller number. The graph mainly shows that with different initialization scheme, the network starts descending initially faster.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> What classification algorithm is being used?</comment>


Ask HN: Do you use creatine as a brain supplement? - <AUTHOR> It is supposed to have added functions of supplementing brain functions, do you have any personal experience with it?<p>earlier discussion (2010): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1198116 <comment><USER3> On a related note I'd like to say that you should in general be very wary of any substance that people claim to be a "nootropic" or to otherwise improve cognitive functions. A lot of the studies that these claims are based on are 1) funded by groups that would see benefit from the claims (supplement industry), 2) not reproducible / are one off studies / show statistically insignificant results given the sample size, or 3) simply based on shitty science.

For example, in the article found at the link, note that they only examined 45 people, all of whom were vegetarians (who are much more likely to be creatine deficient due to their diets). Although the subjects were consuming more creatine than the vast majority of meat eaters would consume naturally, since the authors didn't experiment with other doses (e.g. 1-2g a day, more accurately mirroring the diet of those that consistently eat meat) there's no telling whether consuming extra creatine will actually benefit your cognitive abilities if you are already regularly eating meat.

<comment><USER4> This is true, and a good warning. There's a whole industry of stuff like AlphaBrain out there that's dubiously effective, understudied, under-tested for purity, and generally scary. But I also think there's an awful lot of literature about most single-substance nootropics. It's the complex stacks that are totally unstudied.

Creatine, for instance, has been studied for mental effects a bunch of times - the answers all seem to line up on "can definitely help some people, but probably insignificant to most". Other substances shake out similarly - <USER2> data on bacopa is inconclusive, but the studies are numerous enough to suggest that the inconclusiveness is about a very weak or situational effect, not a lack of literature.

The vegetarian point does touch on my larger concern, though: people talk like studies finding weak 'average effects' mean the drug is universally effective, but low-powered. That's possible, but it seems more likely that there are lots of drugs which are situationally powerful (e.g. based on diet or genetics) and hardly any that are good for everyone. Creatine is obvious, and I kind of suspect cholinergics and bacopa for this also. Gwern is really good about acknowledging that his studies (of n=1) aren't being designed to apply to anyone else, but most people don't offer that caveat.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> As with most nootropics, Gwern has done the research.[1] Summary: creatine probably doesn't do anything for cognition. It might help some vegetarians.

1\. [https://www.gwern.net/Creatine](https://www.gwern.net/Creatine)

</comment><comment><USER6> Most of the studies that show an intelligence improvement were done on vegetarians (look it up at examine.org), which I am so YMMV. When I'm already feeling sluggish it seems to help with "brain fog." But I think I could improve this by eating a more balanced diet, no creatine needed.

</comment><comment><USER7> My current nootropic stack is:

* Pramiracetam 500mg * Alpha GPC 50% 600mg * Noopept 10mg * Agmatine Sulfate 500mg

I am convinced that these chemicals work, improve mental ability, memory/recall and focus. Ive found myself able to handle more task simultaneously, even able to understand to multiple conflicting conversations.

If you can handle the awful taste of Pramiracetam (its bad... probably the worst thing ive ever tasted) you may find quite the boost in awareness. Some may find it too intense. In general nootropics are non-addictive, especially with the awful taste of Pram, you might need to force yourself to take them...

<comment><USER8> Thanks for this! Didn't know about Pramiracetam, and it seems I can get it online.

I'm already taking Modafinil, so I might experiment with taking Pramiracetam as well, see if I can get an extra boost.

<comment><USER7> Give it a try! Do stack it with Alpha GPC, you will need a cholinergic compound with the racetam family or else you will get headaches.

<comment><USER9> Wow, I'm honestly impressed with the level of experimentation you are willing to do on yourself. Do you have good enough confidence/knowledge to be sure you will not damage yourself for the long term?

<comment><USER10> As far as nootropics go, his choices are on the conservative side. Racetams have a relatively good safety profile, and Choline is naturally found in common food.

<comment><USER11> > naturally found in common food

Yes, but that doesn't mean the form found in supplements is the same. Also, "the dose makes the poison."

In the Nineties, Wired and Mondo 2000 were good for piquing interest in nootropics but as they didn't seem to catch on (aside from off-label use of pharmaceuticals like Adderall), I put them in the same mental bin as all supplements; not worth one's time except for individuals who have documented deficiencies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I very much doubt you'll see any fugitive enhancement and in the two decades I've been cycling on and off supplemental Creatine for my workout regime, I can't speak for any such gains.

Creatine is both synthesized by the body and consumed in meat. The vast majority of it goes into skeletal muscles where it functions as an ATP recycling compound, something these cells consume a lot of. Small amounts are found inn the blood and brain add well but not nearly as much.

It may provide a small boost if you're low on blood sugar simply from providing some extra energy and drawing water into the cell - but it's not much more than you would get from simply consuming energy rich compounds like sugars or carbohydrates. It does certainly provide significant physical performance enhancement by increasing endurance, reducing muscle fatigue and generally providing greater muscle "pump" from it's cell volumizing qualities. Thus I'd say that the only cognitive gains one would experience would be from the added satisfaction coming from better performance and improved physique - ie. A placebo effect of sorts. However, depending on the importance of physical fitness to an individual, this can be substantial. My improved workouts and increased strength definitely put me in a much better mood and provide greater motivation for my intellectual endeavors. Ironically, because it can supercharge workouts, it can leave one with substantial mental fatigue immediately after such workouts at which point you're better off taking a break to recover before doing any mentally intense stuff

</comment><comment><USER13> So it is supposed to be a brain supplement now? Back in the mid to late 90s I knew people that took it to try to get bigger muscles.

<comment><USER4> It definitely does that, and it's the reason creatine is cheap and common. But there's a long-standing question about whether creatine supplements are also psychoactive - the best data seems to suggest "yes if you're deficient, but if you're not then supplementing primarily affects your body".

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I do not. Nor any other "brain supplement."

</comment><comment><USER15> AFAIK, there's nothing conclusive about supplementing brain functions. Examine.com has a good write up on creatine [1].

I've used creatine with the goal of increasing performance in strength training. I guess I'm a non-responder, 'cause there was no noticeable gains in performance for me.

[1] [https://examine.com/supplements/creatine/](https://examine.com/supplements/creatine/)

</comment><comment><USER16> I've been using a daily dose of 5g of creatine for several months to help with climbing. Maybe I'm a non-responder, or maybe the effects are too subtle, but I haven't noticed anything. Definitely nothing in terms of brain functions or what not.

It's cheap enough to continue to do it though, so I kind of keep at it.

<comment><USER17> Have you tried creatine loading? Take 20 to 25g per day for a week, then take 5g/day for a month. Take a few weeks off and do it again. That's what I've done in the past when I was taking creatine for a recovery enhancer.

<comment><USER18> There was a research that concluded that after a month, there is no difference in creatine amount in blood if you've been loading or just taking 5g daily.

<comment><USER4> I've only ever heard of creatine loading as a way of getting an early kickstart for workouts. I didn't think it was even supposed to help in the 1+ month window, just get you better training results for a week or two up front.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Well, I didn't know that. Maybe I should expect a rise on my cog-skills now that I started taking it last week for exercise.

On a side note: As others pointed out, Modafinil is really what you want if you need a brain supplement. I've been taking it since November last year on a daily basis (100 milligrams, half a pill) and I can say that I've been able to make a lot of progress to actively stop procrastination. It's not magic, I still struggle with it a lot, but I've been able to manage it and build a routine of meditation and exercise that I hadn't been able to build before (I'm 35 y/o). There's a lot of work left to get to point where I can say I've actually won and I'm not a procrastinator anymore, but this year so far will be one of the most productive I've ever had.

<comment><USER19> But Modafinil as a brain supplement isn't an FDA approved use and doctors generally won't prescribe it.

Creatine is available at any health food or supplement store, it's legal and widely available.

<comment><USER8> Yeah, that's true.

I live in Argentina and Modafinil can't be bought without a prescription. My doctor prescribed it to me (just for the sake of getting a discount when buying it, I was going to keep getting it from a shady pharmacist anyway)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> For anyone who is considering creatine, you need to be sure to properly hydrate. I am not aware of any cognitive benefits, there are most certainly physical benefits to it. Regardless though, if you are consistently taking creatine hydration is extremely important.

</comment><comment><USER21> For the sake of sample accuracy -- I don't.

</comment><comment><USER22> No creatine, but I'd like to profit of this occasion to tell people that suffer from allergies to try high doses (several grams 1) of vitamin C. This has been a life changer, I can now mow the lawn without symptoms where even with antihistamines it wasn't possible (last year my father had to do it for me).

I'm sharing it here because I wish I knew about vitamin C 30 years ago.

1- buy it in bulk powder form this will be much cheaper (I paid 38€ for 1 kg)

<comment><USER23> It's possible to overdose on Vit C. Please be careful.

<comment><USER24> Actually it's not. You just pee it out.

<comment><USER25> Taking large amounts (more than 1,000mg per day) of vitamin C can cause stomach pain, diarrhoea, flatulence.

Source: [http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/vitamins- minerals/Pages/Vitamin...](http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/vitamins- minerals/Pages/Vitamin-C.aspx)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I'm having good luck with caffeine + l-theanine + l-tyrosine.

I occasionally use nicergoline which I really like, however if I use it too many days and then skip, I get a headache - much like caffeine withdrawal.

At night I sometimes use rutaecarpine to deactivate any late-afternoon caffeine - though after a few days of continued use - it tends to render caffeine ineffective.

</comment><comment><USER27> I've tried a lot of nootropics and I have yet to find something that gives me any effect, at all. Either I'm a non-responder or I have too high expectations since I compare it to proper drugs. I'm used to being blown out of my mind and body when taking substances.

</comment><comment><USER28> I have found creatine gives me much more energy. not specifically a brain supplement but it seems good overall.

I should add i don't eat much meat most of the the time, and i don't get enough sleep. So it may just be bringing me back to a normal.

</comment><comment><USER29> DMAE and modafinil. Modafinil has very noticeable effects on alertness. DMAE is more subtle, but I think it improves focus, I feel like I type faster for example. Usually my fingers are very lazy otherwise.

</comment><comment><USER30> I've heard there is research that it improves cognizance in dementia patients. Here's a google dork because I can't find what study I am talking about:

site:*.edu -intitle:muscle creatine dementia study

<comment><USER31> Just a tip: if you are specifically searching for papers, you can use [https://scholar.google.com](https://scholar.google.com). this way you will find more than just American studies. Sci-hub helps with getting the papers if there isn't a source already.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Caffeine and walk breaks every hour or two work pretty well for me.

<comment><USER33> The legs help pump a lot of blood. That helps me think.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> This is interesting! I only knew it as a muscle building supplement.

It's role is to store water inside your muscles, making them larger. I don't know of any effects on the brain and I would be cautious of taking something that it wasn't made for.

In saying that there's been a number of cases where pharmaceutical products were developed for one issue but the side effects ended up being the actual product.

I was taking a high load of creatine for body building six months after a major concussion (motorbike accident). I can't say that I noticed any change in brain function.

Where did you hear that creatine affects brain function?

<comment><USER4> Creatine concentrations are highest by far in muscles, but it also distributes throughout the blood and brain.

Creatine phosphate is part of a reaction making ATP use effective (specifically: it allows rapid conversion of ADP to ATP during times of high demand). This is necessary for basic functioning - we synthesize creatine naturally and also absorb it from our diet. Supplementing it enables using muscles for a longer period without exhaustion, and helps you reach the boundaries of muscular strength before you reach energy limits.

The proposed mechanism of improved brain functioning is, interestingly, the same as the muscular mechanism. During times of high demand, creatine improves ATP regeneration rates. The ATP cycle happens the same way in the brain, so creatine can play the same role there. This claim is nothing new, it was for instance studied back in 2003 here: [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691485/pdf/1456...](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691485/pdf/14561278.pdf)).

There's no mysterious second effect here - we know for certain that creatine plays the same role in the brain and muscles. (We also know what that effect is - it wouldn't have any relationship to physical damage sustained in a concussion.) The outstanding questions are whether improving ATP cycling in the brain has a meaningful impact on performance, and whether safe creatine supplementation changes neurological PCr levels enough to cause that benefit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> If you're thinking of supplementing nootropics and haven't taken the time to seriously address sleep (quality and quantity), diet, and exercise, you're wasting your time and missing the biggest ROI variables. (After those three factors, I'd include regular meditation before even bothering with nootropics.)

That said, there are plenty of other well-documented benefits to creatine supplementation as documented on sites like examine.com (linked elsewhere in this thread).

</comment><comment><USER36> That intelligence-boosting powder that's the basis for super-findings of gym broscience?

<comment><USER20> Creatine for physical exercise is not broscience, it has been shown to provide benefits. Whether it helps with cognitive functionality is not something I am familiar with.

<comment><USER36> Indeed. But many broscience PhDs are quite big on creatine, I heard.</comment></comment></comment>


iPhone 6: Comparing InvenSense and Bosch Accelerometers - <AUTHOR> http://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?section_id=36&doc_id=1324098

<comment><USER2> INVN was my former employer (~2013), so I'm quite familiar with the details of both of these chips. I'm not sure just how much I am allowed to talk about these parts, but imo the general consensus regarding power consumption being the killer feature that got Bosch the secondary accelerometer socket win seems correct to me. The likely accel only features are screen orientation, pedometer, and activity recognition, as the articles suggest. (I personally don't think that the 1ms vs 20ms start-up time matters much though)

Also, (a) ST microelectronics parts always had quality issues so I'm not surprised that they lost the socket to Bosch, and (b) I expect Bosch to be selling the BMA280 at cost or even at a loss. Bosch was a late entrant to the consumer electronics accel/gyro world, and has always been keen on price dumping to win sockets and market share.

edit: the more I think about this, the more I think that this is a situation where ST was the only loser. They had both the accel and gyro sockets before, but essentially lost the gyro socket to INVN and accel socket to Bosch. The integrated accel in the MPU-6700 is more of an add-on feature for low power on-chip sensor fusion that was not capable with the ST solution that was previously used (the DMP in the 6700 pre-dates the Apple M7 chip that was touted for low power activity tracking usage, but given that Apple has the M7, I'm not sure how much of its capabilities are being used. My guess would be that it is only the on-chip 6-axis SF that they are using). The ST socket was simply taken by Bosch.

</comment><comment><USER3> [http://www.chipworks.com/en/technical-competitive- analysis/r...](http://www.chipworks.com/en/technical-competitive- analysis/resources/blog/comparing-the-invensense-and-bosch-accelerometers- found-in-the-iphone-6/?lang=en&Itemid=815) is the source URL, the EETimes article is a repost

</comment><comment><USER4> Civil engineering grad student here, BMA280 are much more stable and low noise than other sensor out there it features noise density of 120 μg/√Hz. Not sure about MPU-6700 but MPU-6500 is 250µg/√Hz. In my research on using consumer MEMS sensor to measure inclination, 16-bit resolution on MPU-6500 does not help a lot if the noise is much higher.

</comment><comment><USER5> The Invensense has an autonomous mode (on Android devices it can count steps without bothering the host CPU) -- does the Bosch do this too?

Apple have a separate Cortex-M3 which is branded as the "M7" or "M8" motion processor. Is this what they use for step counting when the A8 is suspended? Why not use the Invensense for that? Is the M8 + Bosch less power?

<comment><USER2> >The Invensense has an autonomous mode (on Android devices it can count steps without bothering the host CPU) -- does the Bosch do this too?

IIRC there are accels that have a built in step counter (via hardware circuitry). I do not recall if Bosch has this, but the problem is that because it is a hardcoded hardware feature of the chip, it cannot be altered for customers. Apple NEVER accepts software/algoriths from its vendors. Bosch may be willing to redesign the chip with a step counter algorithm that Apple uses, but Apple would not share this with Bosch. Thus it is likely that the step counter is run on the M8 + BMA280.

They are unlikely to use the INVN autonomous step counter algorithm either. Whether the M8 + BMA280 is lower power than the MPU-6700 is something that is (a) unknowable, because we don't know the M8 specs, and (b) moot, because Apple would never use a 3rd party activity detection algorithm.

<comment><USER5> Interesting -- I thought someone with deep enough pockets could write their own DMP code for the IMVN part.

I'm sure the Android Wear devices (which mostly use the MPU-6500) must use the DMP to detect when to power on (they can't keep a Cortex-A7 juiced up just to look at gyro/accelerometer numbers), and IMVN didn't have anything like that publicly advertised a few months ago (I haven't looked more recently, and haven't inspected the Android Wear ROMs yet).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> A pipe dream here would be to use both accelerometers at the same time and filter out much of the random noise resulting in much smoother accelerometer readings that could be used to calculate displacement.

(goes off and downloads Apple CoreMotion samples to see if they do this already)

<comment><USER7> If you mix a good quality accelerometer with a low quality one you get worse quality than the high quality alone.

The main problem that accelerometer have is that they are lineal sensors while human beings or animals use logarithmic ones.

What this means in practice is that it is very easy to saturate a sensor. You have sensors of 1, 2 or 3 maximun gs(gravity vectors of acceleration) while sudden movements could be bigger than that creating "out of range" samples.

What they probably do is use different scales for both accelerometers, giving them "HDR acceleration". E.g the low quality one at 10gs and the high quality at 2-3.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> So that 1Hz is causing rotation lag.

<comment><USER2> I highly doubt that the INVN accelerometer is being used for screen rotation. It is most likely the Bosch accel.

Furthermore, otation lag is typically intentionally added by the OEM as a usability feature is order to avoid flipping the screen orientation overly rapidly. Different OEMs will have different lag and sensitivity (ie angle detection thresholds) because their respective thoughts on ideal usability can differ dramatically.</comment></comment>


Instapaper brings beautifully simple bookmarking to the iPhone - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2008/07/13/instapaper-brings-beautifully-simple-bookmarking-to-the-iphone/ <comment><USER2> Earlier this week I was thinking about what type of iPhone app I could write to solve one of my own problems and this is basically it. Instapaper will make my commute (subway = no internet connection) much more bearable.

Did I miss something or is the registration system not at all secure? You don't set a password when you register and then you can sign in just by entering your username - or anyone else's that hasn't set a password. What is stopping someone from trying a bunch of email addresses or their friends' favorite usernames?

I understand that might be a user experience decision (especially when someone is on an iPhone), but I wouldn't mind a warning to the effect of 'hey - if you don't set a password, anyone can sign into your account by simply guessing your username'.

</comment><comment><USER3> Great job by Marco of Tumblr</comment>


Ask HN: Keeping upto date with your third-world country news - <AUTHOR> Hello,
With many third-world countries controlling media outlets, where do you folks get the information about what is happening in your third-world country?
I know the case of media being controlled is not always the case, but I am originally from India and I want to read about policy changes, tech inventions, stuff related to science rather than what a Bollywood actor said about issue XYZ. <comment><USER2> Considering my first hand experience, social media, news agencies and sources blocked by government, and personal (freelance) reports on their blogs are perfect for finding out what is happening that they don't want you to know.</comment>


How to denounce a colleague? - <AUTHOR>

A friend has a situation. A co-worker repeatedly said stuff in front of clients that are complete no-goes insulting the clients and disqualifying other colleagues the clients depend on. My friend works closely with this colleague and they normally act as a team of two so there are no other witnesses. How can he act to protect the company from damage done by this colleague without taking damage himself? <comment><USER3> I think 'denounce' might be a bit strong. Your friend should start by asking his colleague if he can provide some 1:1 feedback (guidelines here aren't bad, key is to be specific about behaviors: [http://www.dummies.com/how- to/content/giving-constructive-fe...](http://www.dummies.com/how- to/content/giving-constructive-feedback.html)), and if nothing changes he should voice his concern to his manager.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the link. It has some good tips but I guess it's indicative of how hard it can be to give direct negative feedback that even your book on the subject doesn't provide one example of how to give negative feedback. I'm not sure if talking with that person is an option. My picture of him is a narcissistic person that is not susceptible to criticism. My friend will try to get a recording ("for the minutes") of the next meeting. Without proof, talking to the manager could also back-fire.

<comment><USER4> The problem does not lie in "giving negative feedback", the problem lies in your friend's feelings about their self-worth and self-esteem, which are apparently impaired, given their inability to respond to a relatively common interpersonal situation. The recording and "proof" are likely to be useless, or to be used against your friend as evidence of some sort of personal grudge.

Chances are, "that person" will be your friend's supervisor pretty soon - <USER2> perhaps your friend should buy them some nice Christmas gifts and practice sucking up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Your friend shouldn't be looking at denouncing the issue, but at changing the behavior. He should be looking at how to present changing behavior in a way that will appeal to his co-worker. You can have him read Getting to Yes or How to Win Friends and Influence People</comment>


Antarctica is teeming with microbes - <AUTHOR> https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/what-lives-in-antarctica <comment><USER2> I love Atlas Obscura, but this entry is kind of missing the point. _Every_ place on earth is teeming with microbes. Five thousand feet under the floor of the Challenger deep, it's teeming with microbes. In sulfur hot springs where the water is 20 degrees above boiling, it's teeming with microbes. Lakes so salty they're literally painful to drink: microbes. Inside every single specimen of multicellular life: thousands of species of microbes that live nowhere else, each one doing something vital to help keep the host alive.

Microbes are the dominant variety of life on this planet. They take up more than half the biomass. In terms of things like the oxygen, carbon and nitrogen cycles, we're just passengers on planet Earth. The bugs are in charge [1].

[1]. Except the bugs are vastly outnumbered by the viruses (which aren't alive). For every gram of live cells there are almost ten grams of viruses.

<comment><USER3> > [1]. Except the bugs are vastly outnumbered by the viruses (which aren't > alive). For every gram of live cells there are almost ten grams of viruses.

Just like microbs, viruses are everywhere. Even all over humans.

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

And within human DNA.

[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160322100714.h...](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160322100714.htm)

Turns out we are all part virus. There is an interesting book called Virolution which detailed how viruses play a role in evolution.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The largest total biomass per square meter of Earth's area is in Antarctic krill explosions fueled by nutrient upwelling in the Southern Ocean. It's more biomass per cross sectional area than even the land directly under a redwood tree.

<comment><USER5> Under a redwood? Aren't they coniferous? Means their needles fall, acidify the soil, and essentially sterilize it. Forest floors are notoriously sterile places.

Perhaps a jungle, bayou or prairie would be a better comparison?

<comment><USER6> Never change, HN... the biomass over the footprint of a redwood tree is equal to the mass of the tree.

<comment><USER5> But under the tree? That was the assertion...

<comment><USER7> The tree itself is part of the "biomass per cross-sectional area" of the land underneath the tree.

Although I wonder how cross-sectional area applies to oceans, as they are more of a 3d phenomenon. Is it the entire column of water?

<comment><USER5> Hm. If you say so.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Here is the link to the interactive project spoken about in this interview: [https://lifeundertheice.org](https://lifeundertheice.org)

</comment><comment><USER9> Looking forward to reading this more carefully later. I find the idea of visiting Antarctica super interesting and I'm glad she talks about the prep/training that went into it as will as how science is done practically in the coldest places on Earth.

I'm also curious if there are any valid concerns of super bugs getting released from melting Antarctic ice? A bit morbid but all this unknown life being released could have _interesting_ results.

<comment><USER10> I'm not expert on these things, but if these microbes evolved without any animals around, I wouldn't have expected them to evolve any of the characteristics that make some bacteria harmful.

For example, our immune system should be able to handle them easily, because they never had to fight an immune system before.

There _could_ be some crazy thing that happens, but I bet the odds are low enough that we don't need to worry too much.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Coincidentally, I just learned about extremophiles last night in the book How the Earth Turned Green by Joseph Armstrong. Excellent read, if you're into the origins of life.

[https://www.amazon.com/How-Earth-Turned-Green-3-8-Billion- Ye...](https://www.amazon.com/How-Earth-Turned-Green-3-8-Billion- Year/dp/022606977X)

</comment><comment><USER12> Related: Antarctica Sets Record High Temperature: 64.9 Degrees [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/08/climate/antarctica- record...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/08/climate/antarctica-record- temperature.html)

</comment><comment><USER13> do u have any images?</comment>


The Psychology of the Internet Troll - <AUTHOR> http://academicearth.org/electives/psychology-internet-troll/

<comment><USER2> Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = [http://www.penny- arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19](http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19)</comment>


Ecstasy 10x yellow Twitter 120mg Mdma - <AUTHOR> https://media.ccc.de/v/34c3-9278-ecstasy_10x_yellow_twitter_120mg_mdma <comment><AUTHOR> Apologies for the odd title.

This 30 min video from 34C3 in dec 2017 is about a variety of art projects by Mediengruppe Bitnik. One of the projects was a bot who'd try to buy random products on the darknet (Tor in this case), one of which was the drug ecstasy as described in the title. All the bought products were put in an art gallery. After the exhibition was over, the drugs were seized (a fake password and credit card were among the other bought material, and were not seized). The video covers the legal implications and repercussions ie. was it the bot who bought this or its developers? Video also covers a few other interesting art projects such as a book with a JavaScript title, and a building with [for lack of better words from a non native English speaker] something akin to an optical illusion.

See also previously on HN: Swiss Public Prosecutor Seizes and Seals Work by Mediengruppe Bitnik [1]

Mediengruppe Bitnik have written a book "Delivery For Mr. Assange" where they attempted to send a package to Mr. Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy, documented here [2]

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8902273](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8902273)

[2] [https://wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.bitnik.org/assange/](https://wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.bitnik.org/assange/)

</comment><comment><USER2> This submission title might appear to be spam, but it's not! It's the actual title of a CCC lecture.</comment>


Hacker House Tents: $10/night, cheapest place to stay in California - <AUTHOR> http://www.airbnb.com/rooms/6478

<comment><USER2> Check your laws (fire codes, too).

Former neighbors of mine got in trouble for having friends stay in tents in their backyard for a while.

Granted, they were meth-heads, but what they got in a lot of trouble for was the tents not the noise/drugs. If you're running a "business" based on tents in your backyard, you could attract the wrong kind of attention, too.

<comment><AUTHOR> we don't tell people about our meth operations, that's a pretty underground business.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Do you guys hold social events?

Edit 1: (I want to meet people actually working on startups rather than those that just talk about them in various business conventions.)

Edit 2: Maybe something like the YC dinners, except people bring their own food / contribute some dish / or pay.

Edit 3: I'm more interested in meeting the people at HH than renting the room.

<comment><AUTHOR> few thoughts:

2: possibly, i haven't thought much about that. maybe if this is successful, we can use part of the money to fund a party of sorts.

3: i'm sure they're just as interested in meeting visitors too. you should definitely book sometime.

<comment><USER3> actually, I may try to throw a party for programmers instead :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Technically, there are places you can camp in California for cheaper than $10 a night. But this does seem much easier and certainly more entertaining. ;-)

</comment><comment><USER5> Is the dog there?

Is the dog awesome? ... This is at least as important to me as the location/price/amenities/cool people

<comment><AUTHOR> Dog is moving to the HH in San Fran

<comment><USER6> i believe his name is Ronin.

<comment><AUTHOR> Dog.name = Ronin. I forget my instance vars sometimes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If HH tents takes off, beware of hippy drum circles cultivating in your backyard..:-)

</comment><comment><USER8> I'd rather be in a tent at the beach than in some dudes backyard. 3G == Don't need your stinkin wifi

<comment><USER9> We have awesome internet connection. 35Mbps.

<comment><USER10> And you can legally be there, unlike the beach!

<comment><USER8> Don't be silly, there are plenty of beaches that allow camping. Just jump over the coastal range from Mountain View and you're in Half Moon Bay.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Extension cord?

<comment><AUTHOR> yes

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I just stayed at the Hacker House last weekend. Awesome place. Can't really vouch for the tents though ;)

</comment><comment><USER13> Given the recent sweltering Bay Area weather, I wouldn't really mind sleeping outside.</comment>


Your Morning Commute is Unique - <AUTHOR> http://33bits.org/2009/05/13/your-morning-commute-is-unique-on-the-anonymity-of-homework-location-pairs/

<comment><USER2> I've read the post, and I've skimmed the paper on which it is based. It's an interesting premise: if you know which census tract a person lives in, you can identify them down to about 1:1500; if you also know which census tract they work in, you can up your percentages to about 1:20.

But I'm missing the threat. What's an example of where this particular knowledge (feel free to assume for sake of argument that the pair is actually unique) leads to either personal disaster or a chilling effect? I presume it exists, but I'm not seeing how it compares to something like showing your ID (with address) to use a credit card.

<comment><USER3> Part of the point of the paper is to show, yet again, that data that could be considered sufficiently anonymized by stripping IP addresses names etc. is not anonymous enough.

Your credit card information identifies you, but you generally don't give your credit card information to any location based service you might want to use.

Additionally, there's still this thing called cash, or visiting places that don't require exchanging money.

A location profile could expose information like your doctors, what restaurants/bars/clubs you like, where you shop, who your friends are, what political or religious places/events you attend... do I need to go on?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Summary: your home and work locations represent a simple "hashing function" that will allow firms to uniquely identify us. This information on the surface wouldn't seem to represent a privacy risk but is and it's becoming easier for third parties to collect with the proliferation of location based services.

<comment><USER5> Ignoring the privacy issues, I think universities would be an exception, as many student/staff live on/near campus. I suspect people who work from home would make up a disproportionate number of the collisions (as they reduce two dimensions into one) - so perhaps their is privacy in that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> > To understand the privacy threats

As Bruce Schneier has written, there is no such thing as privacy.

Bruce Schneier, "Privacy in the age of persistence"

[http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/02/privacy_in_the...](http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/02/privacy_in_the.html)

"It is not possible to make a LASTING compromise between technology and freedom, because technology is by far the more powerful social force and continually encroaches on freedom through REPEATED compromises."

-Theodore Kaczynski

<comment><AUTHOR> That makes little sense. Schneier was talking about the far future. It's certainly not an assumption that people make as they go about their daily lives. "Eventually," we'll be a spacefaring civilization, so why bother with anything on Earth?

Also, if you're going to claim something absurd like technology and freedom being incompatible, you're going to have to do better than quoting the Unabomber.

<comment><USER7> > Also, if you're going to claim something absurd like technology and freedom > being incompatible, you're going to have to do better than quoting the > Unabomber.

You're making two mistakes...

1) Technology being abused to curtail freedom isn't "absurd," but a routine occurrence in our world. From traffic cameras to chipped passports, for every freedom we gain from technology, we lose at least one.

2) You're shooting the messenger. While I also disagree with his pessimistic conclusion, there have been many truths said by those we seek to demonize.

<comment><USER8> I take issue with point #1, that is true in a lot of cases but not necessarily so, it all depends on what people are willing to accept. While I do agree that the notion of privacy will always lose to technology, and if you believe that privacy is key part of freedom (debatable) then I grant you that point.

1\. Counter example: The development of better agriculture freed serfs & at a later time in the US slaves.

2\. Modern travel has freed people from oppressive regimes around the world.

3\. The internet is having a liberating effect on the freedom and control of information.

4\. Modern medicine frees us from the threats of many diseases.

Technology can be equally used for good and evil.

<comment><USER9> Your definition of freedom, as implied by items 4 & 1, is sloppy and dangerous. The parent posts use the word freedom in the political sense, as an antonym to slavery, subjugation, and tyranny.

Modern medicine _raises our standard of living_ by eliminating disease, which is mostly irrelevant to a discussion of the unique causal effects technology has on freedom.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I was just thinking about the very same thing yesterday.

Home to work commute tagged with time can help many application to alert high traffic or better times to travel, car pooling.

It would also be interesting to watch what others are doing in and around my area at any point of time.

Visualisation would be the key.

<comment><USER11> Did you read the article? He doesn't think this would be "cool"! He's saying that this could be used to identify people who thought they were anonymous. The main point he makes is that people consider the fact identification is difficult if someone has only one location, but overlook that it's much easier if someone has two locations.

<comment><USER10> Yes I have read the article and as other people have pointed out I too am missing the threat. This is like saying I will pull out the identity of the person who browsed through my blog and left a comment. It is definitely possibly to do it over a period of repeated visits. And assuming I spend all that time to dig out information.

So, instead I am positively noting that you cannot assume it is anonymous and think of ways I would benefit from it whether identified at an aggregate level or an approximation or even uniquely.

The author listed few examples which he words as 'exploits' the non-anonymity and I mentioned few more but rather positively. It might be a very fascinating view of the web if we can start browsing it from a world map, don't you think so ?</comment></comment></comment>


XD Pascal Compiler – DOS, .COM Output, 16 and 32-Bit Instructions, Pascal Subset - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/vtereshkov/xdp <comment><AUTHOR> Excerpt:

"XD Pascal is a small educational compiler for a subset of the Pascal language. A native x86 machine code generator directly emits COM executables for MS-DOS. The compiler supports VGA graphics, floating-point arithmetic, etc. 32-bit Pascal source is provided."

Features

o Fast recursive descent parsing

o Native x86 code generation (COM executables)

o No external assembler or linker

o Source file inclusion facility

o Single-precision floating-point arithmetic (using the x87 FPU)

o VGA graphics support

o Compiler source for both Windows (Delphi) and DOS (TMT Pascal)

</comment><comment><USER2> Shame Pascal is not being taught much these days. turbo pascal was a very easy stepping stone to the hard stuff you ended up having to use.</comment>


Excel data analysis with Python - <AUTHOR> http://leontius.net/2014/excel-data-analysis-python/

<comment><USER2> Thanks Leon, more healthcare hacking!</comment>


TIL a new Bash trick - up-arrow autocomplete - <AUTHOR>

http://eriwen.com/bash/effective-shorthand/ has a bunch of cool bash tricks, but the one titled "Another neat trick with .inputrc" is way cool, and something I've wanted a long time: start typing a cmd, then up-arrow through your history of matching commands. <comment><USER2> Vim does similar up-arrow completion(with the :! command), good to know bash can do it too.

</comment><comment><USER3> What is "TIL"?

<comment><AUTHOR> "Today I Learned...." Sorry, have been spending too much time on Reddit.

<comment><USER3> D'oh, I should've guess that!</comment></comment></comment>


Maciej Ceglowski – Superintelligence: The Idea That Eats Smart People - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kErHiET5YPw&index=1&list=PLaLoXSqdjlcJwDDQn1B7s5ONz7N3diz3h <comment><USER2> His arguments are not tight, but the talk is cathartic for those of us who see "AI weenies" for what they are.

</comment><comment><USER3> Aww man. Fell of the front page. It was really good. I like his take on paper clip maker as a comedian.

<comment><USER4> maybe it got some flags for being "political"</comment></comment>


Whats the Point of GraphQL and Falcor? - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@chetcorcos/what-s-the-point-of-graphql-and-falcor-cdd0f35960c0#.4ks41y48z <comment><USER2> It sounds like you're asking some of the same questions that David Nolen is asking (and answering) with Om Next. If you haven't been following that process, you might find it informative. You can find some details about Om Next on the wiki [https://github.com/omcljs/om/wiki](https://github.com/omcljs/om/wiki) and several talks by David are available YouTube.

<comment><AUTHOR> Awesome! Thanks for the tip. I'll be checking that out. I've just recently started to dive into functional programming. Redux turned me on to the Elm Architecture and I've really started to think about programming differently ever since.</comment></comment>


Topsy, nicely done twitter based search engine - <AUTHOR> http://topsy.com/

<comment><USER2> Soon to be followed by Flopsy (a facebook property) and Mopsy (a myspace skunkworks project).</comment>


Calcium could replace lithium in batteries that store solar and wind power - <AUTHOR> https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02634-0 <comment><USER2> The tricky part to finding the formula for a good calcium battery (as it was with lithium batteries) is getting the interface reaction to work. It's a complicated reaction that is hard to understand or predict. Brute forcing different combinations will take a long time because the search space is large. There is some work going on to make better simulations to speed up the brute force search. I'm not a battery expert; this is all second-hand from a friend who is working on calcium battery simulation.

<comment><USER3> Maybe add AI into solving this problem. Battery technology and AI. Should attract the VC money.

<comment><USER4> And a blockchain to track usage. That will get the slightly behind the times VC funds :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Article doesn't say much, nor does the abstract I found.

[https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2019/EE/C9EE0...](https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2019/EE/C9EE01699F#!divAbstract)

Literally just "something is possible" with no other discussion about capabilities

</comment><comment><USER6> Seeing a battery article in Nature has become a bad sign. They consistently blow up a minor result in chemistry into "world-changing event Real Soon Now".

It would be amusing to have an feature on, say, Elektrik, that shows battery articles from 1, 2, and 5 years ago.

<comment><USER7> [https://www.technologyreview.com/s/534866/why-we-dont- have-b...](https://www.technologyreview.com/s/534866/why-we-dont-have-battery- breakthroughs/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Interesting article. Though the new reaction with flourine was better than "any other calcium based electrolyte" how did it compare to lithium based models?

<comment><USER9> > Though the new reaction with flourine was better than "any other calcium > based electrolyte" how did it compare to lithium based models?

I noticed that omission right away.

I'm assuming that it's nowhere near as good as lithium, or it'd say so.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> "could" count of 11

"might" count of 4

I'll believe it when I see it.

<comment><USER11> I really hope they aren't making them in mice.

<comment><USER12> For anyone who might not get the reference: [https://medium.com/@jamesheathers/in-mice- explained-77b61b59...](https://medium.com/@jamesheathers/in-mice- explained-77b61b598218)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This "article" is idiotic. These batteries wont be able to store electricity generated from nuclear power?

<comment><USER14> Solar and wind power are variable. They can't deliver power at night or when there's no wind. So to make them viable as the main source of energy they need batteries, to store a surplus during peak hours that can be used up when production is low.

Nuclear energy doesn't have that problem, so it doesn't have such a need for batteries.</comment></comment>


Twitter begins rolling out audio tweets on iOS - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/17/twitter-begins-rolling-out-audio-tweets-on-ios/ <comment><AUTHOR> Will Clubhouse offer 139 character slugs?</comment>


A startup tale from the crypt - <AUTHOR> http://cerdafied.typepad.com/cerdafied_voip_mobile_web/2013/01/a-startup-tale-from-the-crypt.html <comment><USER2> Kudos for telling this story, especially discussing your relationships with investors.

These days it is pretty rare to see a story where such topics are addressed credibly beyond the standard "we love our investors" line.

If an entrepreneur loves their investors it is not news, but if they are willing to openly discuss problems that usually is.

</comment><comment><USER3> This sort of thing is what led to my bootstrapping a company instead of staying with the VC Startup Scene:

[http://smoothspan.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/a-solo- bootstrapp...](http://smoothspan.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/a-solo- bootstrapping-odyssey-2012-was-the-year-i-quit-my-day-job/)</comment>