A letter to our daughter - <AUTHOR> https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-zuckerberg/a-letter-to-our-daughter/10153375081581634 <comment><USER2> > We will give 99% of our Facebook shares -- currently about $45 billion -- > during our lives to advance this mission. We know this is a small > contribution compared to all the resources and talents of those already > working on these issues. But we want to do what we can, working alongside > many others.

Ninety. Nine. Percent.

<comment><USER3> I mean, what else are you going to do with $45 Billion? Build a really big house?

I've had the opportunity to rub shoulders with a few billionaires over the past few weeks, and it's remarkable how differently they think about money than the people who don't have it. Sure, they may buy a nice car (or jet), but after a certain level the only thing you can do with that kind of money is plug it back into something meaningful.

Hats off to Zuck and the other people who try to turn their success into something even greater than, well, their success.

<comment><USER4> >I mean, what else are you going to do with $45 Billion?

You are thinking about it the wrong way. You don't spend $45B on _stuff_ for yourself. You spend $45B on changing the way governments and populations live work and how power is balanced.

When Bud Fox asked Gordon Gekko "How much is enough" Gekko knew immediately that Fox wasn't in the same league. Money isn't about stuff, it's about power and influence.

<comment><USER5> I strongly feel this power, influence, giant houses, jets, personal cruise ships etc are old generation stuff - something that grey haired Gekko will personify. The "new rich" is dramatically different and for the better. Today's centi-millionairs wants to stay anonymous, don't want to have butlers, have houses that they can manage without permanent staff and often prefers travelling first class or renting Yatch instead of buying them even if they can afford it. The new rich sets target to make X amount of money and then "retire". Their "retirement" consist of working hard doing their favorite activities and travelling the globe to sample the "regular folks" flavors. Most of them don't have desire to keep growing billion dollar business which will sip away their time and energy. They have strong political belief but have no desire for acquiring political power directly or indirectly. They are not in to heavily influencing how rest of the population shall live. They consider time to do their favorite activities far more important than keeping money scoreboard. They want to buy fashionable cloths and accessories but not those that will immediately attract attention and single them out in the crowd. They want to be physically fit and avoid having family as long as possible. They like to invest in ideas and technology more than traditional financial instruments.

I think new rich crowd will almost completely replace old generation wealthy in next 50 years or so. People who are born in this decade will have very hard time understanding philosophies and life style choices of Gorden Gekko.

<comment><USER4> Hate to break it to you but what you described about the "new" millionaires is the majority of all multimillionaires, regardless of generation.

See: The Millionaire next door

<comment><USER6> I accidentally downvoted you due to fat finger error, sorry.

<comment><USER4> Well I'm crushed, but hopefully I can get over it ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Maybe I'm being too cynical, but this seems about as philanthropic as Ron Hubbard starting a religion.

Firstly, the donation is stock not cash, so the value of this foundation will be directly linked to the value of Facebook shares.

Secondly, it has been stated that one of the things this foundation will do is "participate in policy debates". If the headline was "Mark Zuckerberg to put $45 billion is stock behind lobbying effort to establish Internet.org as a monopoly in developing countries", that wouldn't sound quite so positive, would it?

<comment><USER8> It sincerely depresses me that the top comment on Hacker News is so incredibly cynical. The man is giving away a huge amount of money and you can only find ways to detract.

> Firstly, the donation is stock not cash, so the value of this foundation > will be directly linked to the value of Facebook shares.

So? The vast majority of his wealth is _in_ Facebook shares. That doesn't change the fact that he's giving away the vast majority of it. You think he should have sold it all now, destroyed its value, and donated a much smaller pot?

> it has been stated that one of the things this foundation will do is > "participate in policy debates".

One of many things. Not to mention he has never attempted to make Internet.org anything close to a monopoly.

That your reaction to an incredibly charitable act is such pure cynicism is absolutely disgusting. There are plenty of billionaires who hoard their money or perpetuate hereditary fortunes, and those who don't should be commended.

<comment><USER9> > Not to mention he has never attempted to make Internet.org anything close to > a monopoly.

Do you even know what Internet.org _is_? They're providing free access to a subset of the internet that Facebook controls, while forcing people to pay if they want to access the internet as a whole. _The entire reason Internet.org exists_ is to create a Facebook monopoly on data access in developing countries.

Your entire comment is naive.

<comment><USER10> Internet.org provides access to a subset of the internet that Facebook chooses to pay for. The target audience is mostly people that can't afford any internet access to the first place because it is to outrageously expensive. As well, that subset of the internet is open to developers to submit their own services to be supported by Internet.org [1]. Last time I glanced through the agreement, Facebook is just trying to avoid paying for HD photos and video downloads, which would increase the cost of Internet.org beyond feasibility.

An initiative can be charitable while also benefiting the donor. The users of Internet.org get free access to Facebook as well as the other services being provided and that doesn't detract from the service or make the whole initiative evil.

I have yet to see research that providing a zero-rating service is harmful as you suggest.

[1]: [https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet- org](https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org)

<comment><USER9> > I have yet to see research that providing a zero-rating service is harmful > as you suggest.

"Internet.org provides access to a subset of the internet that Facebook chooses to pay for."

> Last time I glanced through the agreement, Facebook is just trying to avoid > paying for HD photos and video downloads, which would increase the cost of > Internet.org beyond feasibility.

This could be achieved by choking bandwidth, which would be easier to implement, simpler, and more transparent. Instead, you get stuff like:

"In order for your content to be proxied as described above, your URLs may be re-written and embedded content (like javascript and content originating from another domain) removed. In addition, secure content is not supported and may not load." [1]

Let's be absolutely clear here: Facebook wants to control what content gets into Free Basics and how it's presented, and is willing to make security impossible in order to do it. This enables both censorship and mass surveillance controlled by Facebook and whoever is willing to pay them.

> The users of Internet.org get free access to Facebook as well as the other > services being provided and that doesn't detract from the service or make > the whole initiative evil.

It's not the things users get access to that I'm worried about, it's the things they _don 't_ get access to, and who else gets access to those user's data.

[1] [https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet- org/participat...](https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet- org/participation-guidelines)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Something's always bugged me about relying on philanthropy as a source of funding the public good, as opposed to the public funding the public good through taxation and the democratic process: In the former case, the public doesn't really have much of a say about where the help goes. We must rely on the judgment (and personal values) of a few rich people and hope they pick charities that maximize the benefit.

Would the outcome be better or worse if we had, say, a 99% tax bracket at >$N million, and let the public decide the best way to deploy that funding via the ballot box? Would that process better align with the values of a democratic society? Or would we just get more corporate welfare, bombers and aircraft carriers?

I'm not ragging on philanthropy--it's awesome that some of these billionaires understand the meaning of "enough" and choose to give away their fortunes to worthy causes. But is it best for society to leave it to a few lucky 'elite' to judge what is and isn't a worthy cause?

<comment><USER12> I have more faith in the judgement of the system that elects billionaires than the system that elects our government.

Billionaires will spend their money in more efficient and productive ways than our government spends tax dollars. You may disagree with a rich individual's vision of the future, but he will be vastly more likely to effect his vision than our elected officials.

<comment><USER13> Perhaps billionaires will spend their money more efficiently.

But they'll spend less of it on the public good.

The government may be less efficient (also, citation needed there, as I don't buy that at face value), but even if it is it has access to WAY more funds.

Sure, we have some nice billionaires like Zuckerberg and Gates who give their money away, but if you required all the billionaires to give up some money, you'd have a much larger pool to work with. So efficiency isn't the only part of this argument. There is also volume.

<comment><USER14> If you force rich people to give away a large enough percentage of their money, perhaps you will remove any incentive for the non-philanthropic ones to keep _earning_ more money. If they weren't inclined to give it away in the first place, they probably won't be inclined to make more, knowing they'll be required to give it away.

<comment><USER15> And therefore the people who end up making the most money are the people who are the most philanthropic and that is worse than the current system how?

<comment><USER14> Because those people are already giving most of their money away to causes that benefit the world. The "other" rich people are still, on average, creating wealth though, via the companies they start and run. If you disincentivize them from doing those things, you eliminate that wealth, leaving everyone worse off on average.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I feel only on HN and Reddit can people find reason to criticize a guy who is giving away billions of dollars for humanity. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.

<comment><USER17> I think it's a good sign if people don't take words at face value and be critical of it.

<comment><USER18> Their public pledge to donate 45 billion dollars to charity within their lifetimes with an eye towards long term solutions deserves criticism? Seriously, WTF?

<comment><USER17> If I may paraphrase the sentiment here:

Firstly,

      Their public pledge to donate 45 billion dollars

That number is based on current valuation of Fb and cannot be equated to someone writing a check for $45B. If Fb goes the MySpace way, how much is that donation worth?

Secondly there appears to be a duality between how the company operates and what this post tries to rally for.

Finally, using the pretense of writing a letter to their newly born daughter rubs some the wrong way.

<comment><USER19> > If Fb goes the MySpace way, how much is that donation worth?

If Fb goes the Google way and its value continues to go up, the donation will be worth more. It's true that the donation is of unclear value. But calling it $45 billion is a way to communicate the scope of the pledge that they've committed to.

> Secondly there appears to be a duality between how the company operates and > what this post tries to rally for.

It's important to distinguish between the behavior of a person and the behavior of Facebook, Inc. Every time the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation does something, we don't get dozens of people rising out of the woodwork harping on Microsoft's unethical business practices - but Bill Gates' mid-90s Microsoft was definitely on par with Facebook at its worst. It's _okay_ to celebrate good things done, as long as we don't fully forget how we got there. We should continue to criticize Facebook as a company even as we recognize that the individual here is attempting something great.

> Finally, using the pretense of writing a letter to their newly born daughter > rubs some the wrong way.

It's a pretty easy and effective rhetorical device. The letter is obviously targeted at the world, or he wouldn't have published it. But it's a good way to present some emotional framing - this is why he cares so much, why he's invested in a better world. Not all attempts to inspire pathos in the reader are rooted in evil, it's just a tool for effective writing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This seems more like PR than a genuine letter to a child. Which is fine, but I wish they'd treat it as such.

They talk about facebook, donations, improving the world, their beliefs, etc. but very little on how to be a better person or how to enjoy life. Maybe I'm projecting, but what would you want to find in your pillow after moving in for your first day of college?

I hope they wrote their daughter a real letter. One directed to her and not something that will be tweeted by hundreds of news organizations.

<comment><USER21> My brain hurts just reading through this letter. I'm trying to picture my parents -- or anyone's parents! -- writing:

"Your mother and I don't yet have the words to describe the hope you give us for the future... Our hopes for your generation focus on two ideas: advancing human potential and promoting equality... We can do this work only because we have a strong global community behind us. Building Facebook has created resources to improve the world for the next generation. Every member of the Facebook community is playing a part in this work... Love, Mom and Dad"

Philanthropy aside, doen's this "letter" read like a scene from the Silicon Valley TV show?

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Why are the techno-barons so focused on human health? Not that there's anything wrong with these efforts, but human disease is much less of a threat to our species and planet than an ever-increasing human population. What I'm saying is that humans have little difficulty reproducing; it's a solved problem.

What's not a solved problem is our disappearing fisheries[1], rhinos going extinct all over the place[2], farmland desertification[3], tropical deforestation[4], ocean acidification[5]... From my back of the envelope math, it seems that longer lives and a larger population will exacerbate our environmental and resource issues.

I'd like to see billionaires purchase large tracks of land simply for preservation. Cleaning up industrial waste from rivers. Foot the salaries of anti-poaching efforts. Get clean fusion energy production up and running. That sort of thing. Perhaps we should get our planet's shit together before tackling immortality?

[1] [http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/06/03/t...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/06/03/the- end-of-fish/)

[2] [http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/16/africa/kenya-northern-white- rh...](http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/16/africa/kenya-northern-white-rhino/)

[3] [http://www.bbc.com/news/world- africa-34790661](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-34790661)

[4] [http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/30/indones...](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/30/indonesia- fires-disaster-21st-century-world-media)

[5] [http://fm.kuac.org/post/increasing-ocean-acidity- threatens-m...](http://fm.kuac.org/post/increasing-ocean-acidity-threatens- marine-food-web-circumpolar-waters)

<comment><USER23> Bill Gates has teamed up with Mark Zuckerberg to form multi-billion-dollar clean energy fund: [http://www.sciencealert.com/bill-gates-has-teamed-up-with- ma...](http://www.sciencealert.com/bill-gates-has-teamed-up-with-mark- zuckerberg-to-form-multi-billion-dollar-clean-energy-fund)

It sounds like they are doing exactly what you request.

<comment><USER24> Investing in new energy technologies is not an effective way to address any of the problems he mentioned.

<comment><USER25> So clean energy isn't beneficial in tackling 'farmland desertification[3]' and 'ocean acidification[5]'? You have heard of climate change, right?

<comment><USER26> Dirty energy isn't the (main) problem; intensive agriculture and aggressive fishing is the main problem.

Humans need to eat less meat and fish. Much less. Like, in rich countries, at least 95% less.

<comment><USER25> > "aggressive fishing is the main problem."

That is a separate problem from ocean acidification. Ocean acidification is directly linked to pollution from fossil fuel usage.

<comment><USER26> Yes, aggressive fishing is a different problem (but a problem nonetheless).

Ocean acidification however, is caused by the fact that the oceans absorb the excess of CO2 present in the atmosphere; and livestock are responsible for more CO2 production than all of transportation.

<comment><USER25> > "Ocean acidification however, is caused by the fact that the oceans absorb > the excess of CO2 present in the atmosphere; and livestock are responsible > for more CO2 production than all of transportation."

There's a common misconception that all CO2 is bad. CO2 is a natural part of the bio cycles found on Earth, what's bad about using fossil fuels is the rapid expansion of CO2 (and other gases) in the environment where life lives, which causes instability and damage as the Earth adapts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Sometimes, I think people on HN probably think they get points for being the most cynical critic.

Can't we just say, "Dude we are happy for you, and thanks for the money."

And what happened to the rule about not saying stuff you wouldn't say to a person's face. Would you be calling Mark a narcissist to his face? Keep it civil people.

<comment><USER28> > Would you be calling Mark a narcissist to his face?

I definitely would. I'd call him a cunt too. He is one, and in my country you call a cat a cat. None of that tippy toeing around you english people do, Zuck is a horrible person as the last ten years has shown everyone, Facebook is a despicable company with despicable ethics.

This letter is vomit inducing, and the comment section is rich people stroking each other for "helping the world" after being major actors in destroying it, fuck them all too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Zuckerberg isn't planning on retiring.

He will rival Bill Gates in the magnitude of philanthropic contributions.

And in other news Facebook Notes is challenging Medium as the default one- column publishing tool.

Note as well, that of all the immaterial goods that have the potential to create immense value to people and humanity, education and health are the ones strongly highlighted. Global equality is there, but to a critic this too will be seen as another factor in building and supporting an ever-growing, and long-living, consumerist middle class.

There is very little said about freedom, democracy, privacy, justice or self- determination. Even if this reading is unfair, cynical or simply too demanding of what this text and announcement is. Not to mention detracting from what is otherwise a highly admirable act.

<comment><USER30> According to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's financial declarations [0], assets as of December 2014 read at a hair under $45 billion. This very much rivals the size, even if it will take some time to build momentum and make as much of a difference as the Gates Foundation has to date.

[0] [http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We-Are/General- Informatio...](http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We-Are/General- Information/Financials)

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I'm signed up for CNN's "Breaking News" emails that are sent out whenever some earth-shattering crisis occurs or particularly important news that affects everyone. I received one of these email alerts upon the arrival of their daughter. This gave me a great sigh; good news for them, but how did it become worthy of worldwide immediate news notification?

<comment><USER32> You didn't read the article did you?

<comment><USER31> I did. What does that have to do with CNN Breaking News?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Couple problems with this otherwise well-intentioned effort:

1\. It's a drop in the bucket compared to what governments spend on a regular basis trying to solve these problems. (Bill Gates has said as much.)

2\. Private charity by the billionaire class is not a scalable solution. Historically most social advancement has happened through popular organization and government programs, not charity.

Silicon Valley itself is a product of government spending. The Internet and thus Facebook wouldn't exist without billions of taxpayer investment in early stage high risk research and procurement via DARPA and other government agencies. That continues today (just a couple examples: Siri and autonomous vehicles).

If we are serious about accomplishing social change and "long term investments over 25, 50 or even 100 years," the answers lie in greater government investment in these areas. Just like Silicon Valley. And that means _all_ Silicon Valley companies should be paying back to the government just as they would an early stage investor. Not as a "noble choice" but as an obligation. (Currently they get the core tech pretty much for free.) That would drum up an order of magnitude more funding for much-needed social projects.

I'd like to hear more Silicon Valley CEOs talk about that.

<comment><USER34> To quote the letter itself: "We know this is a small contribution compared to all the resources and talents of those already working on these issues. But we want to do what we can, working alongside many others."

<comment><USER33> A far cry from "we know this is payback for public investment in tech companies, and we call on all of silicon valley to support formal remuneration to the federal government to give back to the public."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I'm not trolling, as much as it will seem the opposite, but I feel compelled to wonder about postnatal mania (mild postpartum psychosis) as I read the letter. I wonder how different (or private) the letter may have been had it come four months from now. I wonder how many really significant acts of charity and kindness by the super wealthy and influential occur in the days following childbirth. Just wondering aloud here.

<comment><USER36> I'd imagine they had such a significant decision planned far before the kid was born.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Reading this is impossible to not to think of Bill Gates. Someone who realized the impact his money can have. Many people in this industry have been influenced by the actions of Gates, especially in the tech community. As a 20 something the money I make certainty pales in comparison to that of Gates or Zuckerberg, but even at a low rate for the tech industry it is much above that of my friends, many of who have worked much harder to get to where they are. It is difficult to be in a position to give help and refuse. Perhaps the effect Gates can have on the minds of the wealthy will be even greater than the already vast contributions he has produced.

</comment><comment><USER38> Just wow. I asked my parents how my birth changed their lives. They said they had to invest in some good ear plugs (for themselves) as a sleep aid, and that they lost a sock drawer until I graduated to the futon. While I did not spark the solving of the world's problems, at least I did have some small impact.

</comment><comment><USER39> Never much cared for Zuckerberg but this changes my perspective.

Off-topic: can Facebook please go ahead and literally kill the blogging industry by giving the ability for everyone to use these updated Notes section? As is, the majority of the referrer on the Internet is Facebook. They might as well get the blogs out of the way.

<comment><USER40> I agree, let's put the entire internet in Facebook. News like this just proves Zuckerberg knows best. /s

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> "As you begin the next generation of the Chan Zuckerberg family, we also begin the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative to join people across the world to advance human potential and promote equality for all children in the next generation. Our initial areas of focus will be personalized learning, curing disease, connecting people and building strong communities.

We will give 99% of our Facebook shares -- currently about $45 billion -- during our lives to advance this mission. We know this is a small contribution compared to all the resources and talents of those already working on these issues. But we want to do what we can, working alongside many others."

</comment><comment><USER42> Mark has set some ambitious goals regarding poverty, disease, nutrition, and equality, and connectivity. I hope for all of our sake that he is successful in realigning many of the perverse short-term incentives through his and his Priscilla's generous contributions and efforts.

I wish he had spoken more about luck and balance. This is something that Bill & Melinda Gates, as well as Warren Buffet do very well. Understanding luck and balance is the key to empathy, which is also a phrase that is missing from this letter.

I also wish he had not marketed this press release as a letter to his daughter. Perhaps he has another, private letter that is actually more relevant and personal, but if I were Max, I probably wouldn't be thrilled to read this 20 years down the road.

But I'm sure he had a reason to release this letter as he did, and that he thought for a long, hard time before penning these words. Best of luck to the new father, mother, and daughter.

<comment><USER43> Most of these things can be achieved, but I really don't understand what most people expect from equality. For example, does equality mean that if I sit on my ass and do nothing, I get the same as the person next to me who works their butt off? Or does it mean that I get a fixed amount based on the effort I put in? How is that effort measured?

When people talk about equality, I'm not sure if they mean equal opportunity or equity or utopia (knowing that utopia depends on a slave class). Maybe it means something else.

The reality is that humanity has empathy and greed (noting they are not opposites). I can not imagine that I will ever see every person equally.

<comment><USER44> In this example, equality means that if you act in your best nature, you deserve as much as any other person who acts in their best nature. If sitting on your butt is the best thing, then yes you deserve as much as the next person, likely though sitting on your butt is not the best thing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I find it disgusting that he's just had his first child and is already piggybacking a PR exercise off it.

In spite of the enormity of the announcement, to tie it up as "A letter to our daughter" is deeply crass and makes me feel queasy.

</comment><comment><USER46> Applause to the Zuck for the public commitment to invest 99% of his fortune in charitable causes.

Providing cheap, reliable internet to underserved areas of the planet seems like an achievable goal. Much of the technology is present, and so this goal can be attacked now given available funding. The technology should improve further and become cheaper in the near horizon. Go for it Zuck. Make a dent.

"Curing disease", however, or "learning and experiencing 100x more than we do today" \- these trite and nebulous platitudes seem line lines stolen from HBO's Silicon Valley script. "Eradicating polio" is a concrete, well-scoped, measurable, and realistic goal (regardless of whether its is the best apportioning of resources). "Curing disease" is not. Does someone who's married to a doctor really believe that all disease is eradicable in the next 100 years? Must we resort to impossible moonshots and unqualified invocations like "Make the world a better place!"? Something like "colonize space!" is not a helpful goal; "build a habitation on Mars which produces enough food, water, and O2 to sustain 5 people for a year" begins to be.

This pedestrian rallying cry is a chaotic amalgam of cliches. I hope Zuckerberg puts more thought, organization, and direction into how he will invest his billions for the betterment of posterity.

</comment><comment><USER47> It astounds me that people are taken in by this. There are so many ways that Zuckerberg can manipulate this to his self-worshiping benefit that I can't even guess which ones he'll pick. Consider the type of charity Zuckerberg has previously favoured: totally monopolistic internet infrastructure in India. Sure, people get internet, but it'll Zuckernet from now until forever. Philanthropy is a broken system, because powerful philanthropists never really give away their money: they retain control of whatever the charity is used to build. When you have everything and it's not enough, that kind of control is worth a lot of dollars to you.

<comment><USER48> Do you think your comments apply to Bill Gates?

<comment><USER47> It's less clear cut with Gates because he has a quite different personality to Zuckerberg. Gates has a genuine desire to understand and fix things, although that is amongst his more positive traits. Zuckerberg/Facebook, on the other hand, has well-documented antisocial and indeed malicious behaviour.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> This leaves a bad taste in my mouth, for some reason. Must one's private life be this public? I get that Zuckerberg doesn't agree with privacy, but surely putting his daughter in the public limelight as soon as she is born is an imposition on her privacy.

Maybe I'm just getting old.

<comment><USER50> I see you have some downvotes but I came here to say the same thing. Zuck is using the birth of his daughter to advertise a new venture.

You want to be generous? Great, do it!

Telling us in a letter to your daughter as a hook to attract eyeballs is kind of weird and exploitative.

Update: I also thought I should say that this is no big deal, he has some different ideas about what's ok and what's not and I see that every day, I'm not mr perfect either.

I guess the reason it's interesting in this case is because he is head of facebook and entrusted with a lot of people's personal information. If his judgment is different to mine then I don't feel comfortable entrusting him with my social life.

<comment><USER51> Facebook is his thing, and he wants people to be public and share by default. So he is leading by example.

<comment><USER52> I hope he doesn't make a baby as a tool.

"Dear Max, we use you to make some PR. We won't give you the money we don't have. Love, Mom and Dad."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Some thoughts:

* Addressing a public press release to your private child's name

* Naming the initiative with your family's name

* Calling for "change now" as if the world isn't already working very hard every day towards progress

* Looks like a move out of a strategic playbook some advisers gave for "how to be President someday"

* Looks like they're marketing themselves as the royal family, like Facebook is the new kingdom

* Looks like that smug thing that's hip today where people compete to be most charitable

* Reminds me of the Melinda and Bill Gates thing, and the Google medical research thing

Part of this is the perspective of engineers who believe everything is solvable if you just build something to do it. If it isn't built yet, it must be because we're not working hard and fast enough. That if someone has billions of dollars, and are just willing to fund an initiative, they can take credit for curing all disease.

Part of it is the fear that's faced by people who felt invincible when they become old, or have a newborn infant. When you can purchase anything, the new difficulties are things like bacteria, viruses, and entropy. When you are a god in the eyes of the society and economy, yet a worm in the eyes of biology and ecology, there's no longer a clear path towards how to solve your daily concerns. If you're poor and need food, there's simple steps you can follow to acquire what you need. But when you're wealthy, what do you do to get well from illness, to escape the pains of aging?

These people, and much of the digital society today, need perspective and psychological understanding beyond what they have. But you won't see an initiative for that.

</comment><comment><USER54> Aren't this "foundations" essentially just tax loopholes for the rich?

[http://www.salon.com/2013/04/12/10_tax_dodges_that_help_the_...](http://www.salon.com/2013/04/12/10_tax_dodges_that_help_the_rich_get_richer_partner/)

read point 4.

<comment><USER55> The problems with these tax systems are far greater than just the wealthy exploiting income tax. There are so many hidden costs in the endless complexity of the tax and financial systems in nearly all of the modern Western governments.

It's a shame people rarely protest the sytematic issues, preferring to attack people or specific groups of people (often the wealthy or left vs right) - which are positions that generate adversarial responses rather than rational counter-arguments: [http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/](http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/)

The surest way to minimize abuse/loopholes while being supported by rational a-political benefits:

Flat tax + basic income.

Eliminating millions of hours of wasted time due to beaurocracy (and while treating each social class with consistent dignity). These arguments are more likely to be persuasive to politicians - both left and right. This is a lesson I believe the general public missed after the whole Occupy movement failed to result in much political change. The problem with the obsessive focus on "the 1%" was that it generated an us vs them response, further entrenching positions on both sides and further distancing already strained policial/social group relationships.

For example: the simplification of taxes would very likely increasing the speed at which people file taxes and therefore signficantly increasing the speed that tax revenue could be collected annually, while reducing the amount of time they spend chasing down people who fail to do taxes. <\- These are the types of a-political positive benefits I hope will eventually get attention one day to make the previously mentioned policies less of a pipe dream.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> Hope many more will follow, my sincere admiration.

Here the SEC filling: [http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/0001326801150...](http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000132680115000035/form8kdec2015.htm)

</comment><comment><USER57> First time I've heard of Facebook Notes, which apparently aren't new at all. The notes that I do see aren't styled the same way as Zuckerberg's letter.

<comment><USER58> I mean, technically, Facebook has had notes since the early days. I know the format and style has changed, but I remember writing 'notes' on my wall that any friend could read in a dialogue box since around 2005/2006 ish?

To that note, very few people I know actually use Facebook notes compared to other blogging platforms.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> > Can we truly empower everyone -- women, children, underrepresented > minorities, immigrants and the _unconnected_?

Part of me thinks that Zuck means people without family or otherwise ties to wealth and influence. But another part of me thinks that he means those that aren't connected to the internet. If it's the latter, this is quite the bold statement. The implication would be that people without access to the internet are structurally disadvantaged. Which in a lot of ways are true. The internet enables anybody to acquire knowledge, skills, and relationships with an ease that is otherwise impossible. Thankfully, this bucket has a fairly clear solution path.

</comment><comment><USER60> I'm all for rich people giving their mass fortunes to charity but they sure do seem to take a long time to do it. Bill Gates is STILL the richest person on the planet in 2015 and his wealth GREW $3.2 billion last year. Can we save the praise for giving away $44 billion until he actually gives it away?

Source: [http://www.forbes.com/sites/kerryadolan/2015/03/02/inside- th...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/kerryadolan/2015/03/02/inside- the-2015-forbes-billionaires-list-facts-and-figures/)

<comment><USER61> It's actually quite hard to give away money faster than you get it above a certain level of wealth. I suspect this reflects more the performance of the investments Bill has than the level of charitable investment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> from an evolutionary psychology standpoint, we are all driven to constantly increase our social value (and indirectly that of our offspring). once you hit a certain level of wealth, it is rational for you to shift your attention from making more money. your social value is only increased by wealth up to a certain amount, after which the marginal returns in social capital approach zero for every additional dollar earned. to put it simply, how much more social value do you have with $1 billion versus $2 billion? The world is indifferent. At that point, you are simply a rich person.

once you reach such an inflection point of wealth, you must find an alternative means of increasing your social capital. there are two common ways: one is to demonstrate your evolutionary fitness in a field completely unrelated to how you amassed your wealth: many rich get into movie production, novel writing or other creative endeavor. These usually fail.

another alternative, the safer alternative, is to expend your remaining time and resources advancing social causes (running for an elected office certainly falls under this category). this is the simplest way for an adult, untrained in anything other than their primary business, to increase their social capital.

it's not a coincidence that zuck is still willing $450mm to his offspring-- more than enough to hit that inflection point. he knows that any additional dollar beyond that inflection point provides marginal social value to his offspring.

</comment><comment><USER63> New money mistake. You don't change the world by putting your money into non- profits but rather cultivating a dynasty that has tentacles in business, government and thus policy.

You consolidate this kind of wealth into the proper channels to influence public opinion and thus a much greater sum (measured in trillions) over a greater time to get the real change you believe in.

It's a good gesture but a losing strategy. But it's his money to do as he pleases so, cheers Zuck.

</comment><comment><USER64> "Medicine has only been a real science for less than 100 years, and we've already seen complete cures for some diseases and good progress for others."

Thats a bit unfair. Scientists have been painfully working to advance the field of medicine for centuries.

<comment><USER65> I think "real science" refers to reproducibly, experimentally driven science.

<comment><USER64> Arab scientists were performing reproducible and successful removal of cataracts 800 years ago. Surely thats 'real medicine'.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> Okay, maybe it's just me, but after reading the introduction and getting through the list of extremely difficult "Can we..." challenges followed by the "We must..." directives, the first quote that popped into my head was a variation of _"a poor man is crazy, but a rich man is just 'eccentric.'"_

I get the desire to solve the world's ills, of society's shortcomings, of essentially fixing the thousands of years of evolutionary programming to craft a utopia. What sane person would sit down and say "You know, when I die, I want to leave the world a chaotic fireball of pain and suffering" in all seriousness? Maybe I'm significantly jaded, but I hope I'm not the only one who finds such a letter a little bit narcissitic, brought to you by the originator of one of the most narcissitic platforms of the modern era, and hosted on that very platform, naturally.

> _Our generation grew up in classrooms where we all learned the same things > at the same pace regardless of our interests or needs._

This isn't true at all. "Our" generation grew up with having to work to acquire knowledge. To spend time in the library. To sit down and read. To think. It took time, effort, opportunity, and personal investment - so much of which is no longer a priority now.

> _The internet is so important that for every 10 people who gain internet > access, about one person is lifted out of poverty and about one new job is > created._

Citation needed. Like, really.

<comment><USER67> Frankly, I find this is a very cynical approach to the lecture of this letter.

Most everyday Joes might not have the means to change the world but it is certain that when turn into billionaire, they rarely pledge the quasi-totality of their fortune to improve the well being of others.

If this is narcissistic, just let it be and be appreciate that for once, a great deal of money will be put to good use. The world is full of Koch Brothers, Saudi princes and European heirs to prove that most billionaires are more concerned about evading taxes rather than giving back.

<comment><USER68> Don't know about the Saudi princes however the Koch Brothers have given away millions of dollars (and I am sure there also give away money anonymously as well).

[http://www.kochfamilyfoundations.org/foundationsdhk.asp](http://www.kochfamilyfoundations.org/foundationsdhk.asp)

Also rest assured that Facebook also "evades taxes" in the same way that the Koch brothers do, that is by taking advantage of the US Tax Code in a legal way. And none of us have any idea what the Koch Brothers have in their wills and have not publicly announced.

<comment><USER69> David Koch, worth 44,200 million dollars, is donating literally millions?!? How generous of him to give away approximately 0.002% of his fortune here and there.

Please be serious. This comparison is laughable, the ≈ $300M listed on his foundation is literally 0.7% of his net worth.

<comment><USER70> ..and who the hell are you to determine where someone donates their money??

<comment><USER71> GP wasn't determining where someone donates their money. GP was pointing out that putting the Koch brothers in that comparison is ridiculous given their net worth.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> No pressure or anything. Love, Mom and Dad.

</comment><comment><USER73> As far as I can tell, this is a speech directed at _other billionaires_ , attempting to 1. put them in an idealistic frame of mind and then 2. making the suggestion that the natural outlet for that idealism is philanthropy, while 3. Putting his own money where his mouth is for some peer-pressure.

If that _works_ , then this will singlehandedly be the highest-ROI "evangelism" anyone has ever done. Unlikely, though.

</comment><comment><USER74> Not to be cynical, but isn't this also just a method to ensure your company will remain for a longer duration? As a decline in facebook stock will indirectly hurt the philanthropic projects which are linked to it through his foundation. I would take his "pledge" more serious if he would invest actual capital (money, resources, ...) in such projects.

</comment><comment><USER75> "He has informed us that he plans to sell or gift no more than $1 billion of Facebook stock each year for the next three years and that he intends to retain his majority voting position in our stock for the foreseeable future."

[http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/0001326801150...](http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000132680115000035/form8kdec2015.htm)

What an amazing donation! But not for the foreseeable future. I don't care how multiplicative his voting shares are. If there is no plans to sell them in the foreseeable future, this is a pledge spread out across a generation, decades, while real problems are affecting us every year. Every year where he just capped himself at 1 billion dollars in donations.

Why are you applauding this?

</comment><comment><USER76> > right now, we don't always collectively direct our resources at the biggest > opportunities and problems your generation will face.

One of the biggest problems facing kids in the west is digital addiction. Society as a whole is still collectively in denial here as adults gain from it, from parents who get some peace while the kids play with the iPad to game developers pushing out endless FarmVille clones attempting to get kids hooked enough to convince their parents to approve some in-app payments.

The problem is already there - just need to look at the amount of Ritalin being subscribed - [http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/may/06/ritalin- adhd-...](http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/may/06/ritalin-adhd-shocks- child-psychologists)

</comment><comment><USER77> It is unfortunate that we cannot accept the kindness and generosity from those who have been blessed with wealth and whom wishes to share it with others. Rather we ridicule them and surmise that they have some hidden agenda behind their desire to share.

</comment><comment><USER78> This is very admirable. Hats off to Mark Zuckerberg. Very well done!

</comment><comment><USER79> This is amazing. Money doesn't make us live longer, but does $45 billion help bring the future sooner? I bet it does. It will widen our horizons on what's possible. Everyone on earth will benefit from it.

</comment><comment><USER80> I have had some problems with the way his company operates sometimes but I can't find a single thing he said I don't emphatically agree with here. Hat tip, Mark Z.

<comment><USER81> I find that I don't agree with the whole thing. It just seems like a PR stunt to me :( Why the fuck are you posting a letter to your daughter across the globe? Why do you have a letter at all, can you just say it to her sometime when she is actually able to understand. I guess for him completely different rules apply, but my wife and I don't even post any pictures of our daughter online nor are we sharing anything about her. She should be able to decide herself, what she wants to put there, when she is able to…

<comment><USER82> One good answer: It totally changed my perception of Facebook. If the guy at the top is trying to save the world, that automatically makes facebook a lot more appealing, not just to me and many other other I know who have historically been quite suspicious of facebook and its overly invasive privacy 'features'.

<comment><USER43> I will never change my perspective about Facebook. They sell data to the highest bidder and almost certainly use that data to exploit Facebook users.

(this contradicts my positive post about respecting Mark for posting the letter).

It's similar to Standard Oil. Rockefeller screwed over many businesses and jacked up the price of fuel to great detriment of society (at least in some ways). Then, he donates the money to help society.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER83> Dear Max, you are filthy rich. I accidentally created a very successful social network. People mostly use it to post cat pics, drowned babies, whine about everything and the best possible selfies they can take, or you know, post stuff that is addictive to humans. We then sell ads and well, make tons of cash. I say accidentally created because there where already social nets out there but mine was just out at the right time and had the right funding and coaching we needed. Well, honestly, I also had to screw a couple of guys to get here. Anyway, Maxy, all this is ancient and boring stuff. The deal is that since I have tons of cash and success people think I am smart, I think am smart too, so I ought to know a thing or two about how to solve real world problems. I mean it can't be that hard: it is just a matter of developing tech. Billy is throwing 2B to energy research, I can do just the same, see daddy will be a hero too! Anyway dear, this posting personal stuff on Facebook fever just got me and I love you and it is so cool Shakira just likes this post. Also, the post generated a billion views, we sold them ads at premium: your first day on Earth Maxy and you are one million dollars richer! Ok, thats it. Love. Dad.

</comment><comment><USER84> Many wealthy citizens have only used their wealth to enrich themselves and their families. It is nice to see someone that is focused on making the world a better place.

</comment><comment><USER85> I'm so glad I'm not on Facebook.

</comment><comment><USER86> Okay yeah there might be a lot of flaws or criticisms about this, but at the end of the day, this is a net win for society. Go Mark and Priscilla!

</comment><comment><USER87> Alternative proposal: Use that money to turn Facebook into a self-sustaining non profit that solely cares about maximizing its users experience and stop breaching privacy so that data can be sold.

Perhaps that's not as fancy as investments in health, education or the environment but at least it seems very doable and could solve one problem (excellent means for human communication) for good.

</comment><comment><USER88> Thanx Mark. Now that your CIA financed endeavour became a money making machine, you find it is about time to contribute some sort of "philanthropy" to the world. It is no wonder the millions of serfs don't waste any time to congratulate you on this great action of yours. Please, a word from the world to American based institutions: Please, stop saving the world. Really, look at what your government is doing to Syria, etc supporting terrorists through CIA controlled channels. And for God's sake! Read the reports from World Bank before posting this "i will save the world" letter: Poverty and inequality have risen during the last years, not decreased!

</comment><comment><USER89> When I read this stuff (as in the letter) I just think one thing:

You guys are so full of yourselves.

<comment><USER90> These opinions really are going to have an influence on the entire industry.

</comment></comment><comment><USER91> Interesting how internet connectivity is mentioned without a reference to internet.org after that got a lot of net-neutrality heat. Regardless, great to see so much money being invested in so many great causes.

</comment><comment><USER92> Reading some of the comments make me sad. This has happened so often lately..

</comment><comment><USER93> A great read indeed, plus a nice picture. I'm going to print out this and read along with my next generation.

I'm thinking about starting to use facebook again, left it a few years ago.

<comment><USER94> Seems that Zuck succeeded. So now all he has to do, to gain the old users who didn't agree with Facebook policies, to post cute family notes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER95> > Today your mother and I are committing to spend our lives doing our small > part to help solve these challenges. I will continue to serve as Facebook's > CEO for many, many years to come, but these issues are too important to wait > until you or we are older to begin this work. By starting at a young age, we > hope to see compounding benefits throughout our lives.

In other words, _I 'm getting in on this philanthropy thing at a much younger age than Bill Gates_.

</comment><comment><USER96> When things like this pop up, as well intention-ed as they may be, I just think to myself, if this were just a regular guy and not famous, would anyone give a shit?

</comment><comment><USER97> Disappointed once again in the immediate cynicism here but by now I should know not to be surprised by it in any community where nothing is sacred.

<comment><USER98> What should be considered sacred?

</comment></comment><comment><USER99> I think a bad sentiment here is mostly generated not about what Mark says on his post, but what he does otherwise. We've seen a fair share of controversy regarding facebook, privacy practices etc, we've seen a fair share of controversy regarding internet.org.

I for one find it all skeptical - I don't see how his ideas would align with facebook goals as a company

</comment><comment><USER100> I would have loved having parents writing such beautiful letter to me for my birth. It's an extraordinary beautiful welcoming.

</comment><comment><USER101> > Your generation will set goals for what you want to become -- like an > engineer, health worker, writer or community leader.

Realistically, we can't all avoid being garbage collectors or street sweepers, can we? Or will automation really replace all unsavoury jobs with high-paying professions?

</comment><comment><USER102> Oh lovely. This is the same man who called his users dumb fucks in the infancy of his company. Now he's worried about future generations and pushes his corporate agenda innocently using his newborn. Facebook is like a goddamn cult that acts like God's gift to humanity.

</comment><comment><USER103> _Can we truly empower everyone -- women, children, underrepresented minorities, immigrants and the unconnected?_

Yes you can, Mark: Stop requiring people to use real names. And stop caving in requests from authoritarian governments that want to do their dirty work for them.

</comment><comment><USER104> this melodramatic bs

</comment><comment><USER105> I'm so excited about the trickle-down economics that I can hardly curb my enthusiasm

</comment><comment><USER106> Well, I'll say that I appreciate the effort on Zuck's part, but somehow I still can't make myself like the guy :\

Oh well, I guess I don't have to like him to appreciate that kind of cash going into worthy causes.

</comment><comment><USER107> Wow, addressing climate change and unsustainable resource consumption are absent from the list and "protecting the environment" is once mentioned in passing.

</comment><comment><USER75> I think this letter and [http://givingpledge.org/](http://givingpledge.org/) are good.

But we all give away wealth when we die. To someone or another.

The pledge is not necessarily one of generosity other than looking past one's family. Which is something, but less impressive along the generosity dimension than giving away more earlier (while that money has a very real opportunity cost to you).

That said, if I had billions of dollars, I'd be investing in my own research and not giving it away. But that's just me.

</comment><comment><USER108> His daughter is clearly not the intended audience of this post. In fact, the fact he is having a kid has nothing to do with this post.

</comment><comment><USER109> [https://imgflip.com/i/v2fo1](https://imgflip.com/i/v2fo1)

</comment><comment><USER110> He just put his baby into the public eye; now it's paparazzi bait like some Prince's kid in England

</comment><comment><USER111> Well I hope he learned something from the boondoggle his grant to Newark schools turned out to be.

</comment><comment><USER112> Kayne and Kim named their son, North Mark and Priscilla named his daughter MAX.

</comment><comment><USER113> This is really cool. I kind of missed notes in Facebook. How do you create one?

<comment><USER114> The "Notes" app in the sidebar.

</comment></comment><comment><USER115> As I said in previous post --- if I were writing a letter to my son, it would be a private affair and not posting it worldwide on FB.

Also, there is a huge difference between pledging to donate during our lifetime and "donating". Anyone can make that pledge and then decide a comfortable schedule.

</comment><comment><USER116> In the end, the only thing anyone has to give is their time.

How many billions of hours are spent daily on Facebook? His fortune is won on the backs of those poor fools.

It ain't gonna happen, but shutting down Facebook now would be a greater philanthropic act. (Yea and obviously OtherFacebook would come online.)

</comment><comment><USER117> so you equate to internet monolopy as impactful as curing diseases?? So the dude is doing something else you find objectionable, but it doesn't come close to good stuff he is trying to accomplish.

</comment><comment> o0-0o This would have been a lot more genuine if he had just wrote the letter - tucked it away - and then let his actions do the talking.

When a choice is between doing the right thing loudly, and doing the right thing quietly, the amount of noise you make is the inverse of the size of your dick.

~_^

</comment><comment><USER118> Thank you Mark.

</comment><comment><USER119> Time to short Facebook stock.

Given stock is the best way to motivate executives, when the guy on top is giving all of it away you know where the stock price is going.

<comment><USER120> Are you actually shorting their stock, or just blustering? You _sound_ very confident.

</comment></comment><comment><USER121> I like Zuck. He seems to have picked the right role model to follow (Bill Gates). I just hope he cashes out before a credible competitor takes over.

</comment><comment><USER122> Actions speak louder than words.

</comment><comment><USER123> I'm dismayed by the lack of focus on the environment here. Humans as a species are doing just fine. Health gains just marginally improve that. We need to focus on finding balance with nature that doesn't involve mass extinctions and subjugation.

<comment><USER124> I suspect he looked at his daughter and saw the faces of billions. Not to say you're incorrect.

</comment></comment><comment><USER125> It is a lot of promises that are hard to keep.

They think they can just throw money at a problem and it will eventually go away given enough time.

They think people in communities will give up their bigotry against certain groups without a fight. They think everyone in the future will adopt the same worldview that they have. They think that they can solve poverty by giving everyone an Internet connection on the planet and most people who are poor are illiterate and can't read and write.

Like I said a lot of promises.

Some problems can't be solved with money, it takes innovation, it takes a new way of thinking, it takes doing things in a way nobody thought of yet.

Students who are poor and have family problems have emotional and psychological problems that hinder their learning. No matter how much money you spend on their school, as Gates has learned, their test scores don't go up. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer- sheet/wp/2014/06/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer- sheet/wp/2014/06/09/how-much-bill-gatess-disappointing-small-schools-effort- really-cost/)

This effort by the Gates Foundation proves that building better schools does not give the students a better education.

You see they made the mistake of throwing money at a problem in order to solve it. Five years later and a disappointment in what they had created.

Parents of the students get by with low paying jobs, because there is a wealth inequality in our nation. It leads to poverty, family issues, emotional and psychological problems none of which building new schools could address. All of which factor into having a hard time learning and getting better test scores.

Why is there a wealth inequality and people have to settle for low paying jobs?

Technology has automated most of the good paying jobs so they can be done with computers for free. Microsoft and Facebook for example earn money from technology that does work for others for free and earns money. Websites can operate 24/7 and replace people who take phone calls or work at a desk to fill out forms.

Also we used to have factory jobs until we shipped those jobs to China because the labor cost less over there.

Getting a good education is only possible if you have a good enough credit rating to get a student loan, if your family is poor and struggles and misses paying bills, you will have a bad credit rating and not be able to get a student loan for college. Not getting good enough grades will lead to a lack of scholarships and other things.

People who can't get a college education face a life of hardship working low paying jobs just to get by. Not everyone can become a computer programmer after being a dropout, and then join a startup. Some have to work retail jobs in the service industry and 2 or 3 of those jobs. Not having time to raise their children properly. Not able to help with homework because they work overtime to get enough money to pay the bills.

These factors have not been addressed in the future plans for fixing our education system.

Sure you can learn a lot on the Internet and even use it to earn money, but most people just use it for entertainment value and communication. So there are distractions to learning on the Internet. But what happens when the freelance market suddenly gets 3 billion more lower wage contractors in it all competing for the limited amount of contracts?

I wish I knew how to solve these problems, but I learned from experience that you can't just throw money at them and solve them.

You need the government to help out with some sort of basic income program to lift people out of poverty as good paying jobs are scarce because of automation or AI advances. I expect that to get worse in the future.

You need better mental health clinics to address the emotional and psychological problems associated with poverty for the students to be able to learn better. You need to find money for tutors to help them with homework when their parents cannot. You need to teach poor students stress management and test anxiety management so that they can o better in tests and learn better study habits and score higher.

I've found at least with my son, that the Internet is a distraction for him. Time he could have spent studying for tests, he instead watches Youtube videos and plays video games. I've tried to help him as best as I can, but now he is failing chemistry as a junior in high school but passing his other classes because they are not as hard.

We are one of those poor families because I ended up on disability in 2003 and don't earn as much as I used to as a programmer. There is only so much I can help my son, he makes decisions for himself, but I cannot force him to study more or do better on his tests. I feel as if I didn't go on disability we'd be better off and I'd be able to hire a chemistry tutor for him to get his grades up. I forgot as I took chemistry in 1985, and it was so long ago. It is harder to raise a child than you think, esp if you are on a limited income. The school he goes to is a good one with good teachers and modern equipment and they use iPads for ebooks and learning, but it is not enough and still students struggle with their classes.

No matter what you do there will still be problems as no system is perfect, and students will still get low mtest grades no matter how good a personalized system you develop. The Dewey System was developed for personalized learning and it failed. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dewey](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dewey)

Most of what they are trying to do has already been tried and failed. It is like trying to go against human nature and change the way human beings behave so they can learn better. But human beings cannot be reprogrammed like robots, and almost all of these theories go with the case that human beings can be reprogrammed like robots to create a better community for better learning.

It is like trying to solve a social problem using technology thinking, you need to think in terms of society and the way people work, which is not the same way technology works. You need to lead social reforms in communities in a way that makes sense to everybody and not just people on a certain political spectrum that leaves out all others. You will face a resistance to change, as many won't want to change. People will come up with conspiracy theories over the changes, etc.

It is a good start to build a different system of education and try to make new communities for education for everyone, but money alone won't solve it, you need the cooperation of everyone in the community to change the way their human nature works and give up on the old ways of doing things. Some won't want to give up on the old ways.

</comment><comment><USER126> Every rich guy thinks he knows what's good for the world. And why announce this together with the birth? Should the world celebrate this miraculous event that also led to our salvation?

</comment><comment><USER127> Patrick Bateman -- World problems speech

[https://youtu.be/dZlK_ThjMk4](https://youtu.be/dZlK_ThjMk4)

</comment><comment><USER128> [https://www.facebook.com/chanzuckerberginitiative/](https://www.facebook.com/chanzuckerberginitiative/)

"Please log in to continue."

Seriously? One might think they would prioritize raising awareness over increasing Facebook userbase.

<comment><USER129> It works if you disable XHR on the page (yes, really).

</comment></comment><comment><USER130> Expensive shot at Bezos and his distate of charity. Well played, Zuck.

<comment><USER131> How is this at all related to Bezos?

</comment></comment><comment><USER132> Adorable baby girl, welcome to the world.

PS: _stress_ and toxicity quite often are the real causes whereby the few diseases Mark mentioned is a consequence.

</comment><comment><USER133> Wow, that's a lot of pro-facebook comments for a "Hacker news" site. Shouldn't you people be browsing reddit or better yet, facebook?</comment>


How modern web design works - <AUTHOR> http://www.thetomorrowlab.com/2014/04/modern-web-design-works/

<comment><USER2> I wish the title of this article was more inline with its thesis, which is found further down:

> modern web design has much more in common with product and industrial design > than it has with print or graphic design.

His examples of industrial design flaws that _look_ snazzy are bang on, and replicate problems often found in web designs. You gotta USE a thing to know if it's designed well. The Design of Every Day Things[1] should really be required reading for designers charged with designing for the web.

One of the best ways of knowing whether your design is effective is to watch people use it. The assumptions you made about how your audience will use your design will likely be blown away, and watching them try to accomplish the site's goal will lead you towards designs that help them do that more effectively.

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/Design-Everyday-Things-Donald- Norman/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Design-Everyday-Things-Donald- Norman/dp/0465067107)</comment>


Ask HN: Why is nonbody working on a distributed/crypto semantic web? - <AUTHOR> It would need to be fork-able.
It would need to be extendable.
It would need to be versioned.
The index would need to be distributed.
The extension and forks would be need to be open.
The query language would probably need to be open, version-able, fork-able, extendable. <comment><USER2> Because thats just a bunch of randomly cobbled together BS terms that dont help anyone. For 99% the web as it exist is way better.

<comment><AUTHOR> For a lot of use cases the web sucks. It co-mingles data with presentation. Google, facebook etc are paid a lot of money to turn unstructured data to structured data which can be discovered and searched. But, who would publish data only to a network that nobody uses because the network doesn't exist. classic chicken and egg problem. So, invest in a network not a company that will change terms on you once it becomes bigger and can afford more lawyers.</comment></comment>


Research In Motion buys QNX - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/09/research-in-motion-wants-to-get-into-your-car-with-qnx-software-acquisition/ <comment><USER2> I find it hard to believe this is just about automotive. QNX makes a very well regarded embedded OS, people I know who've worked with it rave about it.

So I can't help wondering if RIM has just bought their next-gen mobile OS, especially given the widely held view that RIM's current platform is ancient and creaky.

<comment><USER3> The odd part is that QNX has never really been interested in the mobile-os market. They have mainly been targeting the automotive, defense, industrial and medical verticals.

<comment><USER2> This post from a former QNX marketing VP appears to disagree with you: [http://saunderslog.com/2010/04/09/rim-didnt-buy-qnx-for- its-...](http://saunderslog.com/2010/04/09/rim-didnt-buy-qnx-for-its-auto- business/)

"QNX has long been looking for a partner with whom to enter the mobile space. For example, almost 10 years ago I was the marketing VP at QNX for a short period of time. Even then, QNX CEO Dan Dodge thought that the real prize in the embedded OS market was the mobile handset."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The linked press release in that article is about QNX's home energy management system, not about any acquisition.

<comment><USER5> This one seems to be the real deal: <http://press.rim.com/release.jsp?id=3766></comment></comment>


Deaf and following the World Cup? We're streaming live captions - <AUTHOR> http://tveeder.tumblr.com/post/88658629118/deaf-and-into-the-world-cup-were-streaming

<comment><USER2> I wish I could upvote this a hundred times. This is exactly the kind of thing I like to see more of. Is this your project, sunpazed? Nicely done!

EDIT: Wait, what? Did that guy really say:

"Yes. It's edgy stuff, this. It will ruffle a few ferts. Will say something some people won't like. Hopefully they won't be watching the show. It wasn't very difficult to give Tony Abbott a dick and balls. He was holding this at the time."

I spotted some other weird bits, (I have nothing to compare it to) Is this is computer-based voice recognition? I have to admit it's a lot better than Youtube's terrible excuse for captioning - most of what I see on this page looks pretty coherent and on topic.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, it is. Myself, and a small group of enthusiasts developed the service.

We launched in 2011, with the idea that the hearing impaired could use the service to access a great source of realtime information - television.

The hearing impaired could now objectively access and review online the quality of captions delivered by broadcasters.

Since then, it has grown into a useful resource for everyone.

One of the biggest benefits, we believe, is that our service raises the awareness of captioning to others who haven't traditionally relied on it.

For those technically minded, it's a client-server model built with custom client hardware. Currently, we're only streaming Australian channels, however, there's scope to plug in any terrestrial broadcast, and feed it into TVeeder.

There's a REST API too.

<comment><USER3> Is there any documentation for the API, or at least a link to it?

<comment><AUTHOR> Sure. It's a simple REST API. Here's the link: [http://tveeder.tumblr.com/post/60208341417/oh-theres-an- api-...](http://tveeder.tumblr.com/post/60208341417/oh-theres-an-api-hidden- behind-the-covers-too)

<comment><USER4> I'm not sure it's working, I just tried the SBS of the GER POR game and after some ads (which corresponded to the websocket data):

      ...
      "text": " Every second of every game ",
      "text": " live on the big screen at Crown. ",

All that ever came back was:

      {
        "range": []
      }

It's like there were no captions whatsoever. Failing under load?

<comment><AUTHOR> Try this link: [http://beta.tveeder.com/785/byrange?&from=1402972200&to=1402...](http://beta.tveeder.com/785/byrange?&from=1402972200&to=1402977600)

<comment><USER4> It worked from Safari but not FF on the proxies network. During the BELvALG game there are lots of trouble again, seems to only get a small portion of the captions and then stops updating. Here is the last of what I was able to get:

        {
          "id": 4399254,
          "channel": 785,
          "text": "But at BOQ you can talk to one person",
          "date": 1403023783.284,
          "cid": 7
        }

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I don't understand the service. When watching tv with my hearing impaired father I push the CC button.

For the world cup specifically the espn announcers perform so terribly we likely won't even do that and have music playing instead.

<comment><USER6> I remember watching a match during a strike of announcers in Italy, where announcers are supposedly very knowledgeable about soccer.

It was one of my best experiences in soccer ever, beat only by when I started using my radio to listen to a group of comedians commentary.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm deaf and many many thanks for this. I will share with others.

</comment><comment><USER8> Do you have a way for people around the world to provide additional content? For example if I have a tuner card, and want to run some service to extract screenshots and CC text to send to you via some sort of API

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes. However, it does require custom hardware. We've prototyped a small hardware platform to allow others to contribute to the live feed. However, this remains at prototype stage - we've been running self funded since inception.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Very nice :) .

Are these captions taken from a live text commentary (like BBC's service), or from a radio commentary?

I think the second would be more useful, since they tend to mention players and plays more often.

A nice case of tech helping people with disabilities, great job and good luck !

<comment><USER10> The linked posting (now?) says the captions are coming from SBS Australia.

<comment><USER9> Yes, it did when I read the posting, but is that live audio commentary transcribed or live text commentary?

I think realtime-transcribed live audio commentary would be more timely and lively :) though also harder to do I guess. In either case it's a great service.

Edit: it apparently IS computer-generated live audio! Amazing :)

There are some syncing services between radio and streaming - for example here in Uruguay we like the local radio commentary, and so do the Brazilians and Argentineans, we might watch a match on tv with the sound turned off and radio turned on.

<comment><USER11> Probably too late now that the conversation has moved on, but if you happen to see this could you point me to one of these syncing services? A very quick google search didn't turn up anything. Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Very well done. I experimented once with Sports broadcast captioning (not real-time though; using YouTube videos) by using Amazon Mechanical Turk for crowdsourced closed-captioning.

An example is here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCgc1jAXGSk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCgc1jAXGSk)

</comment><comment><USER13> Isn't being deaf and watching soccer more like being there in person? Whenever I go see live matches there is no announcer. The ref has no mic and makes no hand gestures and there are no jumbo-tron close ups on anything important. Very difficult but apparently genuine. Part of the barrier to entry for football fans I suppose.

<comment><USER14> > The ref has no mic and makes no hand gestures

While, from the stands, they may be difficult to see, soccer referees definitely make standardized hand signals.

<comment><USER13> Is it only done the instant they make the call or is it repeated after the fat like in american football/hockey? I'll have to take your word for it because from where I've sat I could see nothing :)

<comment><USER15> Main ones off the top of my head:

Arm straight up: offside

Arm towards goal line: goal kick

Arm towards corner: corner kick

Arm in one direction or the other indicates throw in direction (if it was a close call -- often there isn't any chance for dispute and the team knows what's what and throws it in within a second or two if there is a hurry).

There is a "play on" type arm wave (usually accompanied by a verbal "play on" or something) to indicate "yes I saw him fall, no I don't think it's a foul, keep playing".

The line referees have flags and have similar signals. The only real difference is for a foul they hold the flag straight up and wave it a little. For offside they hold it straight up and stand still to mark where the offside occurred. The line referee should _always_ be located at the exact line that marks offside. Of course pro players are faster than referees, but to get past level 7 refereeing (starts at level 9, kids games, level 7 is probably high school games, state level, etc) you must pass fitness exams as well as paper exams. Level 2 is FIFA assistant referee, so they must all be in quite good shape.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is a very nice service - well done.

Tangentially, most soccer commentary (esp. in the US) is so horrible it's not a big loss not being able to hear. Just watch the game ;-)

</comment><comment><USER17> Hmm, the stream doesnt load for me at the moment. Is it location restricted or are there too many users right now? The other streams work.

</comment><comment><USER18> Yesterday when I brought up ESPN's streaming feed they had an option to stream a video with closed captioning. Is this your source?

</comment><comment><USER19> Well done sir! There's so much talk about UX lately and still just few really think about real problems like Accessibility

</comment><comment><USER20> Not a big fan of soccer, but this is really cool!

<comment><USER21> They have other TV programs being streamed as well. Looks like 6 channels. (Ex: [http://beta.tveeder.com/560/live](http://beta.tveeder.com/560/live) )

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes - there's 6 streaming, see: [http://tveeder.tumblr.com/post/60161190670/weve-just- graduat...](http://tveeder.tumblr.com/post/60161190670/weve-just-graduated- from-alpha-to-beta-with-the)

The architecture allows for additional channels as needed.

<comment><USER22> This could be the next big thing on the hipster world...

\- What are you doing?

\- Just here, reading TV

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> would be interested in the tech behind this... voice recognition?</comment>


"Goldman sachs code torrent" honeypot - <AUTHOR> http://cryptogon.com/?p=9712

<comment><USER2> Why didn't they hide their tracks? Because they're not the "bad guys." They're just bored employees.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, it's a neat exercise, but the guy takes it a bit too seriously. I think your 'bored employees' assessment is spot on.

I'd also like to point on that the source is pretty wacky.

Some choice quotes from the site:

"Since the assassination of John F. Kennedy, an international, crypto-fascist syndicate has been rapidly consolidating its grip on this planet."

"The system is in collapse now. This is my best and only advice: Get into a situation that eliminates your reliance on luck and minimizes the impact of factors that are completely beyond your control. Do this immediately."

Apply grains of salt as needed.

<comment><USER4> Is a crypto-fascist like a crypto-zoologist?

<comment><USER5> It's a term that originated out of something of a malapropism by Gore Vidal at a Democratic National Convention, made speaking of William F Buckley Jr., meant to imply that he was a secret fascist.

If only cryptozoologists were secret zoologists.

<comment><USER6> _If only cryptozoologists were secret zoologists_

Awesome! I'm going to have a t-shirt made.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The hits are a result of an OSINT (Open Source Intelligence) procedure that every investigative agency or department typically follows as part of an investigation. The modus operandi being that personnel scour public sources for a given set for amalgamated analysis.

That said, it is not necessary that people related to this investigation are the ones who visited that link. The organizations in question are large entities with a multitude of people curious about what is possibly the biggest corporate 'espionage' case of the year. Cool experiment nonetheless.

</comment><comment><USER8> Really not sure what the point was, other than to see if concerned parties would snoop around—which, of course, they did.

</comment><comment><USER9> > _It's a mystery to me why more organizations don't hide what their people > are doing online (ask any 12 year old computer enthusiast how this is done > if you don't know), but for whatever reason, many of them don't._

I don't know, how?

</comment><comment><USER10> I liked this comment:

"I think it is tres interesante that you know how to read who hits your website. I am totally unschooled in such things and when I see what you find. Wow."

Most people have no idea how big their tracks are on the web. When you visit a web server it generally logs that you did and any information your browser supplies, which is often a surprising amount (useragent, referrer). That along with some decent GeoLocation on IP addresses and reverse lookups and you can tell a lot about a person. Add in a little Googling and that anonymous threat you left might just turn around on you.

</comment><comment><USER11> kiddie games

<comment><USER12> Someone seems to be taking this extremely seriously. I just tried to post it on a large, paid WordPress hosted blog, and the blog refused to accept it three times in a row. Then I "TinyURLed" it and it went right through, and was posted as an ordinary "TinyURL"!!!

Try it!!!</comment></comment>


Scorching Summer in Europe Signals Long-Term Climate Changes - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/04/world/europe/europe-heat-wave.html <comment><USER3> This seems as good a place as any to tell HN about my business:

We provide systems to banks to help them include activities which mitigate climate risk into credit agreements, and evidence of compliance into credit scores. It provides a nudge for bank clients to adopt practices which both mitigate climate change and build resilience to climate-related weather shock.

We're a fintech biz built on the fundamental insight that environmental damage, including climate change, is hardwired into the design of the credit system, because issue of credit is blind to resource overuse/abuse, creating a systemic perverse incentive for environmental degradation.

If you're interested in finance, tech and concerned about climate change, I'd love to hear from you in the comments below.

2 further points:

1\. HN was the community that gave me the confidence to launch this business.

2\. Through our learning experience, we have discovered that banks are already reducing exposure to agricultural lending due to concerns about weather shock. Where farmers can't get access to credit, their production can drop 75%. Although we are only in the foothills of climate change, our financial system will amplify its impact. There may be technological fixes for high value cash crops grown in controlled environments. Not so sure about staples.

<comment><USER4> > There may be technological fixes for high value cash crops grown in > controlled environments.

Can you expand on this? I have felt the same way, and have a good understanding of the tech problem to be solved, but I'm having trouble selling the idea to any buyer. Would you attempt to anticipate crop price spikes and plant ahead of time?

<comment><USER3> By technological fixes in agriculture, I simply mean greenhouses and fertigation systems. Control the environment in which plants grow more closely and thereby mitigate risks associated with weather shock. Works great for things like capsicum, high value lettuce etc. I don't see how this can be replicated for things like wheat and maize, although admittedly GM crops potentially offer some route to solving this problem.

<comment><USER4> For wheat and maize it can't and it doesn't have to. Both are stable after picking and can be transported. Lettuce cannot be transported as well after being picked. Maybe shipping containers with live lettuce?

<comment><USER3> Re wheat and maize, it's what happens before they're picked that is the concern. Where banks project high rates of loss, they simply withdraw from the sector - understandably.

Re lettuce, I think what we will see is 2 things: firstly highly capitalised vertical farms close to where the lettuce will be consumed. Secondly, smallscale contract farming again close to point of consumption. Imagine a small greenhouse in your back garden. You pay for the infrastructure and have Uber like aggregator linking you directly to buyers. Oh god - I can see the pitch now: it's like Uber for Romain lettuce...

<comment><USER4> The problem with Uber for romaine is that it takes at least a month to fill the demand for romaine. Anyone with a car could, potentially, sign up and fill a ride request. In practice, this might not be a big problem if the shortage is longer than the time it takes to grow romaine. This is where my mind was going with this but it would require people to have equipment sitting idle or be growing romaine lettuce anyways and sell it when the price is high enough.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> What's most striking in this article is the disconnect between the gravity of the situation and the ecological impact of "economically efficient" local solutions such as flying in workers from Thailand and lettuce from L.A.

Seriously, flying in 30000 heads of lettuce from half the world away to honor a contract with a supermarket? I can understand that it's the "right" local solution (most likely the only way to avoid bankruptcy for the farmers), but from a global perspective this is utterly crazy.

<comment><USER6> Do you think bananas sold in Europe are grown locally?

Compared to all the stuff flown around, one extra shipment is a drop in the bucket.

<comment><USER7> Greece produces bananas. (source : [https://en.actualitix.com/country/wld/banana-producing- count...](https://en.actualitix.com/country/wld/banana-producing- countries.php) page 10)

Iceland used to produce bananas: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_production_in_Iceland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_production_in_Iceland)

<comment><USER6> [https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/bananas_en](https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/bananas_en):

European citizens are major banana consumers, making the European Union (EU) the world's biggest importer of bananas from Latin America (nearly 70%) and African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries (around 19%). The EU's own production of bananas amounts to around 11%.

<comment><USER8> Yes, and to add to that a vast majority of this 11% is grown at quite a distance from the continent:

Of the total banana volume marketed in Europe, which amounted to 6,122,898 tonnes, 11.3% is of EU origin, with the Canary Islands accounting for more than 60%, followed by the French Martinique and Guadeloupe (36%) and by the Portuguese Madeira (3%).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> What we need is for carbon sequestration to become a profitable industry.

<comment><USER10> "The world is going to hell, almost literally"

"We just need to figure out how to make money while avoiding it"

Which pretty much sums up why we are here.

<comment><USER11> "We just need to figure out how to make money while avoiding it" is just other words for "To achieve X, we need to figure out (and implement) an incentive structure so that people would benefit from doing stuff that facilitates X, which is pretty much the only way to get them to do it".

<comment><USER12> That's what I was trying to say. So how do people benefit now from preventing likely future disaster?

<comment><USER11> Right now they don't, but the major governments can set up incentives so that e.g. carbon sequestration would/could become a profitable industry.

<comment><USER13> No they cant.

After talking to many people over many years - its getting increasing clear that we cannot afford to stop our economic systems.

Even meager impacts of these systems result in huge shocks to the political systems which result in politicians getting un-elected.

This means that the people talking about actual change will never get the floor - the requirements are too high- profit margins will take too much of a hit, GDP growth will become anemic and wage growth will be stunted.

The things we need, are too expensive, and its FAR too cheap to just abuse the commons, than to let people know the actual full price of the cheap and convenient goods we use.

<comment><USER14> Put this on our species' eventual planetary gravestone -- as a warning to others.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Korea is experiencing the hottest summer _ever_ in recorded history, but Korean summers have always been hot, humid and uncomfortable, so while it's definitely more uncomfortable than usual, it isn't causing too much turmoil.

For parts of the world like Europe where such extreme temperatures have been relatively rare, it will be extremely interesting - not to mention super unfortunate - to see how long it will take for individuals and societies to adjust to what very well may be a new normal and/or how it may impact migration (both in and out) patterns.

<comment><USER16> How is the hot summer in Europe indicative of a long-term climate change more than Donald Trump saying "see, it's snowing outside! I told you there's no climate change!"

<comment><USER17> The extent of the heatwaves is the difference. I saw a map showing that basically the whole world has above average temperatures this summer - <USER2> heat waves tended to be local. Much like a local record snowfall.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> If you want an amusing (and yet depressing) perspective, I recommend Peter Watts' _Echopraxia_. One of the background themes is how much energy they need to pump sulfates into the stratosphere, in order to prevent catastrophic GCC- driven wildfires. Given the current heatwave around the northern hemisphere, it seems that reality is catching up.

<comment><USER18> > catastrophic GCC-driven wildfires

Is that an undocumented option?

<comment><USER12> Isn't that gcc? ;)

But yes, I ought to have said "global-climate-change-driven". Rather a mouthful, though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> In the last 12 months we've had tropical storms, siberian-like snowstorms and now a long hot summer. It's certainly been more interesting than our usual grey wet summers and grey wet winters.

<comment><USER20> And over here in Greece, we get sudden rains every day, whereas we used to not get a drop for three or four months. The change is really striking, and it does not bode well at all.

<comment><USER19> Yes it's a bit scary wondering where it will end (except to say I wouldn't mind if all our summers here were like this one.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Is there anywhere on earth where the weather can be considered normal or not changing much from the norm? Just curious where the best or last habitable areas would be? Perhaps New Zealand?

<comment><USER6> I bet Sahara is pretty constant all the time :)

EDIT: Spoke too soon:

[https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate- weather/videos/sno...](https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate- weather/videos/snow-covers-sahara-fourth-time-37-years)

<comment><USER22> It's actually really not. A few thousand years ago, it was a tropical forests and it will be again within a few thousand years.

<comment><USER12> Yeah, I've read that too. So maybe the US Southwest will go total desert. And maybe even the Amazon. But the Sahara could become tropical forest again. I don't recall mechanistic details. Something about atmospheric standing waves, I think.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> cool story incoming: I'm new here, and i was wondering if there would be climate change denier accounts here, just like the shitty news aggregation\commenting site that i left behind. sure enough they are here! commenting as they will on how the Titanic is doing 'just fine' and insisting we 'wait and see' how it turns out.

i suppose I'm not surprised, but i _had_ hoped things would be different.

<comment><USER24> And as someone commented on a previous thread here, their presence with trolling arguments causes the thread to become 'contentious' so the HN algorithm knocks it off the front page. I've no doubt that for some of the trolls that is the objective.

It's a pity because this is probably the most important issue of our time and it's going to take an engineering/scientific approach to solve it - so I think it's highly relevant to HN. There are some sharp minds on here. It should be hotly debated and the ranking algorithm should be able to take the heat.

<comment><USER25> We have the technology and solutions. We've had them since the 80s.

We need to change the culture to make the necessary sacrifices to get things done but, as you can see, human nature is hard to change.</comment></comment></comment>


Solving All the Wrong Problems - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/10/opinion/sunday/solving-all-the-wrong-problems.html?_r=1&amp <comment><USER2> Previous discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12064083](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12064083)</comment>


Tip, a programmable tooltip on Mac OS X, now supports executing a command - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/tanin47/tip/wiki/Universal-Tip,-a-programmable-tooltip-on-Mac-OS-X,-now-supports-executing-an-arbitrary-command <comment><USER2> Oh neat. Could use this to start an org-capture.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes! that's a great use case for Execute.</comment></comment>


An eBPF overview, part 5: Tracing user processes - <AUTHOR> https://www.collabora.com/news-and-blog/blog/2019/05/14/an-ebpf-overview-part-5-tracing-user-processes/ <comment><USER2> This article is so hard to read. If youre interested in tracing Id just check out Brendan Greggs series on the subject.

[http://www.brendangregg.com/blog/2019-01-01/learn-ebpf- traci...](http://www.brendangregg.com/blog/2019-01-01/learn-ebpf-tracing.html)</comment>


Highlight of TiECON - 13 yr. old CEO - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2007/05/19/elementeos-13-year-old-ceo-highlight-of-tiecon/ <comment><USER2> This should be no surprise - children are _excellent_ at modelling others. They can learn to talk the talk just like the real thing. Don't forget they can develop virtuoso skills like this 11-year-old violinist: <http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/45>

Young children can be very mature. I was, and only devolved during adolescence. It's just a function of physiology.</comment>


Apple's Grip on Metal Chassis Supplies Leaves Ultrabook Makers Scrambling - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/07/apple-metal-chassis-domination/

<comment><AUTHOR> And here the link to what seems to be the original story:

[http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20120625PD221.html?mod=3&...](http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20120625PD221.html?mod=3&q=APPLE)</comment>


Show HN: A tiny web-based editing tool that can be used by everyone - <AUTHOR> Dear HN folk,
I wish you success with your personal projects and of course the best possible health.
Concerning the lambda way project, whatever introduction I make:
http://lambdaway.free.fr/
http://lambdaway.free.fr/lambdaspeech/?view=whitepage
http://lambdaway.free.fr/lambdaspeech/?view=lambda
http://lambdaway.free.fr/lambdaspeech/?view=prime_pattern  and following…
time has gone by … and I must come to the conclusion that my interests (expressed in the lambdaway project) are far off the radars of HN folks, among others. I am not talking about the solution I am outlining in the lambda way project - I'm just an amateur - but about the goal I am aiming for:
Both a tiny web-based editing tool that can be used by everyone, a tiny tool to accompany the exploration of the world of algorithms and another simpler way to introduce programming.
This new year is beginning and I no longer expect any more interest, let alone any help.  I think it's time to remind myself that I have been first and foremost an architect working with concrete, steel, and wood and not bits and bytes.
And there is so much beautiful architecture to see, study and live in! The Sagrada Familia, for instance, is less than 200km from my home … a great example of complexity built on a minimalist idea, the chain:
 - http://b2b3.free.fr/confs/?view=angles_3
Best new year 2020! Alain Marty <comment><AUTHOR> [http://lambdaway.free.fr/](http://lambdaway.free.fr/)

[http://lambdaway.free.fr/lambdaspeech/?view=whitepage](http://lambdaway.free.fr/lambdaspeech/?view=whitepage)

[http://lambdaway.free.fr/lambdaspeech/?view=lambda](http://lambdaway.free.fr/lambdaspeech/?view=lambda)

[http://lambdaway.free.fr/lambdaspeech/?view=prime_pattern](http://lambdaway.free.fr/lambdaspeech/?view=prime_pattern)

</comment><comment><USER2> Thanks! Best to you and yours also!</comment>


Everything you need to know about Enterprise IT in one handy graph - <AUTHOR> http://i.imgur.com/KL95eFL.png

<comment><AUTHOR> Source: [https://twitter.com/swardley/status/526054482333802497/photo...](https://twitter.com/swardley/status/526054482333802497/photo/1)</comment>