Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware - <AUTHOR> http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/ <comment><USER2> The article "In Medical Triumph, Homicides Fall Despite Soaring Gun Violence"

[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732471250457813...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324712504578131360684277812.html)

from December 8, 2012 provides some perspective on falling absolute numbers (and thus a falling rate) of gunshot deaths.

"Crime experts who attribute the drop in killings to better policing or an aging population fail to square the image of a more tranquil nation with this statistic: The reported number of people treated for gunshot attacks from 2001 to 2011 has grown by nearly half.

. . . .

"After a steady decline through the 1990s, the annual number of homicides zigzagged before resuming a decline in 2007, falling from 16,929 that year to an estimated 14,722 in 2010, according to FBI crime data.

"At the same time, medical data and other surveys in the U.S. show a rising number of serious injuries from assaults with guns and knives. The estimated number of people wounded seriously enough by gunshots to require a hospital stay, rather than treatment and release, rose 47% to 30,759 in 2011 from 20,844 in 2001, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Electronic Injury Surveillance System-All Injury Program. The CDC estimates showed the number of people injured in serious stabbings rose to 23,550 from 22,047 over the same period."

Emergency medicine for gunshot victims has improved enormously in the last twenty years, and many people who are shot by criminals now survive for a lifetime of permanent disability rather dying on the street. A crime can only be classified as a "homicide" by the uniform statistical methods if someone dies, but a crime can still be very serious and harmful to the victim if it involves a gunshot by a criminal.

<comment><USER3> There's a graph of "non-fatal violent firearm crime" right in the article. It looks flat to me between 2001 and 2011.

Are both true somehow? Those facts seem to be in conflict.

<comment><USER4> First, the quoted WSJ data is stated on an absolute basis (inflating/sensationalizing the numbers, obviously), while the graph in this article is stated on a relative basis. This still leaves an apparent discrepancy. Other real causes for the discrepancy could be improvements in emergency response in areas with gun violence. This could cause in increase in hospitalizations based on people not dying before getting to the hospital, but this doesn't seem like a large factor. This leaves quality of data as the more likely culprit. The article goes on to say after the portion tokenadult quoted:

> Criminologists say they are cautious about using such medical statistics to > draw conclusions because of year-to-year inconsistencies in the number of > medical institutions reporting data. The FBI collects annual homicide and > aggravated assault statistics but doesn't have reliable numbers for gun and > knife attacks.

> Jens Ludwig, a law professor and the director of the University of Chicago > Crime Lab, said he was leery of any number beyond reported homicides.

> "Homicide is the one thing we're measuring well," he said. "Everything else > is subject to much more uncertainty," including varying numbers of emergency > departments contributing data, as well as differences in how injuries are > classified.

So basically, take your pre-existing political biases and use that as a guide to choose which data you believe, just like everyone else does.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Also ALL violent crime is down 50% since 1993.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0>

Fear is a powerful weapon. The media and politicians know this and selectively choose which crime stats to promote.

Emotional outrage > rational analysis when it comes to selling pageviews and building political support.

That is nothing new. Fortunately the internet is helping to temper that imbalance.

<comment><USER6> > _selectively choose which crime stats to promote_

For example, FBI homicide stats last year show 350 killed by rifles of any kind, assault or otherwise, while 750 killed by hammers. I keep waiting for the groundswell of public support for hammer control.

<comment><USER7> 750 were killed by hammers _or clubs_ which includes any blunt force attack (vase, bat, golf club, etc. I am assuming that you're accurately quoting a number, though last I saw that number was more in the 450 range). Secondly every home has numerous objects that qualify as "clubs", many of them serving valid, functional roles (for instance to hammer, or to hit balls, etc). In many households a firearm has one single purpose, which is to kill or maim (given that hunting is rare, though I suppose that's a weird exception I make given that hunting is ultimately about killing, food pyramid and all).

So that's the first gross misrepresentation that you've made.

The second is that few argue for "rifle control", but instead want "gun control". Those guns that kill 30,000+ Americans per year (whether homicide, suicide, or accidental).

I'm a hunter (albeit here in Canada), but just as I despise misrepresentation of facts one way, it doesn't justify gross misrepresentation the other way.

<comment><USER8> >The second is that few argue for "rifle control", but instead want "gun control".

Except that's not what was actually happening. Most of what was hotly debated over the last few months has been over an "Assault Weapons Ban", that is a ban on certain semi-automatic rifles, very rarely involved in crime.

It was only after that was defeated that people started talking about universal background checks.

>Those guns that kill 30,000+ Americans per year

60% of those are from suicide. If you look at suicide rate by country--there is no correlation with gun ownership. How is gun control going to help our suicide rate? The best information we have shows it's not going to help because there are too many easily available alternates.

<comment><USER9> >>How is gun control going to help our suicide rate

What if I think people have a right to kill themselves?

<comment><USER5> "They tell us that suicide is the greatest piece of cowardice; that only a madman could be guilty of it; and other insipidities of the same kind; or else they make the nonsensical remark that suicide is wrong; when it is quite obvious that there is nothing in the world to which every man has a more unassailable title than to his own life and person."

\- Arthur Schopenhauer

[http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/pessimis...](http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/pessimism/chapter3.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The drop is all the more remarkable considering that there are at least 168,000,000 more guns in circulation in the US now than when gun homicide peaked in 1993.[1]

[1]: [https://www.fbi.gov/about- us/cjis/nics/reports/1998_2013_sta...](https://www.fbi.gov/about- us/cjis/nics/reports/1998_2013_state_program_to_date_purpose_ids-033113.pdf)

<comment><USER11> "These statistics represent the number of firearm background checks initiated through the NICS. They do not represent the number of firearms sold. Based on varying state laws and purchase scenarios, a one-to-one correlation cannot be made between a firearm background check and a firearm sale."

I imagine the total's quite a bit lower than the stated figure since many of these background checks would be for transfers and sales of used weapons, not always just new guns entering the system. I also imagine some people go through the background check but then for one reason or another don't complete the sale. Still, the number of new guns in circulation is likely very large.

<comment><USER10> Also keep in mind that one background check may represent the sale of several firearms.

One additional data point - nearly 9 million guns were manufactured or imported into the US in 2010 alone: [http://www.businessinsider.com/more-gun- stores-in-america-th...](http://www.businessinsider.com/more-gun-stores-in- america-than-grocery-stores-2012-12)

<comment><USER11> From the same article, it says there were 16.5 million background checks during 2010. Perhaps the ratio between the number of new guns manufactured/imported into the U.S. is relatively stable with the number of background checks. If so, 168M background checks since 1993 would mean about 90M new guns in the United States during that period.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Whatever drives violent crime in the U.S. does not seem to be the presence or absence of guns.

The white murder rate in America is about the same as it is in Europe/Canada, etc. The black murder rate is about the same as it is in parts of Africa. (Something like 10x the white rate.)

First look here to get a rough idea of the murder rate in different parts of the globe:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate)

Take a look here for the murder rate in different American states:

[http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally- and-...](http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and- state#MRord)

Notice how this is a very similar list:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_African-...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_African- American_population)

With some corrections for urbanization, the correlation is even more extreme.

Also see the discussion and figures here: <http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/hispanic.htm>

<comment><USER13> Your Wikipedia link shows that the US murder rate is 4.8, the rates for Western, Southern and Northern Europe are 1.0, 1.4 and 1.5 respectively. Eastern Europe has a higher rate of 6.4. If you are looking at economic similarity Western, Northern and some of Southern Europe are comparable to the US. So the murder rates are very different.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Most gun stats blithely show aggregate rates of gun ownership and gun-related homicides, and the public reacts in fear; who wants to live in a country like that?

But criminal-on-criminal violence is a disproportionate share. Are we supposed to think that the presence of guns is what drives the violence, or is it possibly that you've got millions of young men with no jobs and nothing constructive to do, with parents who don't care to bring them up right (or who can't control them), running drugs and fighting turf wars, cooking up ways to make bank? There's an argument that for some people, access to guns creates an opportunity; but there's a lot more at work here than that.

There's a social rot underneath it all -- and I'd venture that gun violence in the US is a symptom of the rot rather than guns being a cause. It seems remarkably dangerous to me to demonize the mechanism by which someone _murders_ another person in the name of progress; politicians feel like they're accomplishing something, even though we still have a bunch of people willing to kill someone, if only they had the means.

There's significant collective cognitive dissonance in American society on this topic, I think.

</comment><comment><USER15> Nobody seems to mention the reason I think accounts for a good deal of the drop, which is simply the perception that you're going to get caught is much higher. Up until the mid 90's there wasn't even DNA analysis. The world was a much simpler place, no cameras everywhere, cell phones, internet, and a myriad of other ways to be tracked. The rise of technology in law enforcement coupled with the non stop blasting of crime shows depicting criminals getting caught (e.g. CSI) has greatly increased the perception that you will not get away with murder. Today most sane people at least view it as something extremely risky and hard to get away with. Even to the destitute gun crime is not a very attractive option these days, whereas 20+ years ago it wasn't nearly as big a deal. Of course there's a handful of other factors, but I think the perceived likelihood of being caught is probably the most significant.

<comment><USER16> My theory is that the advent of a popular internet itself deters people from violence. No science to back it up, of course. But people spend more time watching TV and using the internet; it leaves less time to be outside getting physically rowdy with others and creating these heated moments.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Others may be unaware of the shift in suicide rates by firearm:

"The sharp decline in the U.S. gun homicide rate, combined with a slower decrease in the gun suicide rate, means that gun suicides now account for six- in-ten firearms deaths, the highest share since at least 1981."

<comment><USER10> Looks like the suicide rate has been on the decline since the 1950s as well: <http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0779940.html>

<comment><USER18> But what about "Suicide Rates Rise Sharply in U.S. (nytimes.com)" <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5647015>

<comment><USER10> That article seems to touch only on one subgroup of people and not the overall suicide rate.

<comment><USER18> Yep, misleading headline ahoy

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Please keep the politics out of HN.

Edit: Referring to some of the comments in this thread, not the article.

<comment><USER20> I fail to see how review and discussion of statistical information equates to politics. Facts are not political.

<comment><USER21> You really can't see that? Do you think there's the odd chance the ensuing discussion might - just might - deviate from the discussion of some numbers?

My inclination is that we will see yet another reenactment of a famous internet flame war.

<comment><USER20> It is possible, and likely will happen. However, the OP is completely relevant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Just a sanity check: "Researchers have studied the decline in firearm crime and violent crime for many years, and though there are theories to explain the decline, there is no consensus among those who study the issue as to why it happened."

<comment><USER23> If I had to guess, I'd say it's because it's harder to get away with a gun crime now than it used to be. TV shows like CSI probably have more to do with the decline in gun violence than any other environmental factors.

<comment><USER24> It's probably a combination of things, but the correlation to the banning of lead seems to be the highest of any other single reason.

[http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime- li...](http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link- gasoline)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> End the drug war and it drops even more if you don't count suicides (since that's not really a homicide) and you're only left with the occasional nutter with a gun(s).

</comment><comment><USER8> If you live outside of a high crime area, and you aren't involved in criminal activity the chances, of being shot are _drastically_ reduced below the average.

<comment><USER26> I have many foreign friends, and most are surprised to learn I've never seen a gun used in a violent crime. They have a hard time seeing past Hollywood and the press's portrayal of America. Of course, they don't live here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> "Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades."

So, gun crime's falling significantly slower than crime in general, which may account for the public perception.

<comment><USER28> Since you're comparing gun crimes to all crimes, doesn't that mean that non- gun crime rates are also falling lower than crime in general (includes with or without firearms)?

Public perception is being driven by a media with an anti-gun agenda.

<comment><USER29> No, because he compared percentages. If gun crime has fallen by 50% and overall crime by 72%, that means non-gun crime has fallen by _more_ than 72%, i.e. _much faster than gun crime_. Or to put it another way, more crime is being committed with guns than before. Reality's well-known liberal bias strikes again.

<comment><USER30> "Or to put it another way, more crime is being committed with guns than before."

Um... no.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Well.. that's not to say a rate of 3.2 is a good rate. The U.S. still is far above most western countries, which typically have something like 0.x or even 0.0x homicides per 100.000.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm- related_death_rate)

<comment><USER32> Interesting data. Thanks.

And, wow, look at US's suicide rate.

<comment><USER10> That's only the suicide rate by those who use a gun. Compare actual overall suicide rates and the US is pretty average and very close to the rate in the UK, Canada, France, etc: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_r...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Some may call me crazy, but I have a hunch that the decline in gun homicide, and crime in general, is related to gaming.

There is frequently a claim that it's the FPS and other violent games that trigger mass shootings. Although I believe that there is an negative effect, I also believe that that negative effect is essentially all but negated by other outcome positive effects of gaming. I feel like there might be net positive outcomes related to those who would in the past have been the types who felt the need to enforce their ego through violence, posturing, and domination. Additionally, because those types of people / kids would then also not have come in contact with "mentors" who would groom them, there could also be a cycle-interrupting process going on here.

<comment><USER22> Might be related to pornography as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> SuperFreakonomics attributed the dramatic drop in crime in the 1990s to Roe vs Wade. [http://www.freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime- wh...](http://www.freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should- you-believe/)

<comment><USER3> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Impact_of_Legalized_Abortio...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Impact_of_Legalized_Abortion_on_Crime)

A number of people disagree with that conclusion based on seemingly reasonable scientific arguments.

<comment><USER35> Furthermore, if it's meant to be an argument for abortion, it really has no effect on the pro-life position.

If you start with the understanding that a baby in the womb is a human, this arguments sounds like "it's good that we have legal murder because it prevents illegal murder".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> If gun homicide is truly down 49% then why so much controversy over wether or not they should be allowed and what not. This will constantly be an ongoing battle for years to come over gun control. Why blame the gun for random acts of violence when violence is truly uncontrolable. Before there were guns people still committed horrendous crimes. It's the corrupted mind not the weapon.

</comment><comment><USER37> One of the factors in reducing gun homicide is we have gotten better since 1993 at keeping people alive after they have been shot.

I am interested in the change per capita of gun shot victims as a whole.

</comment><comment><USER38> Well back in 1993, almost 49% of households had a gun. Today the number is 32%. That alone is a 35% drop in gun ownership.

There are so many other factors that could play a role here. And none of them negate the need for common sense gun regulations and re-funding research on both gun and non-gun violence.

<comment><USER39> See <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5675330>; you're talking about the number of households that _admit_ to owning a gun, not the real number.

That's somewhere around the middle of the nationwide sweep of shall issue concealed carry regimes, now totalling 42 states and 2/3rds of the population. Such an astounding political development---there were 2-3 states when Florida opened the floodgates in 1987---wouldn't seem to correlate with lower ownership rates.

As for this so called research, would you be talking about the output of people like Dr. Mark Rosenberg, director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the CDC in 1994 when he said objective was to make people see firearms as "dirty, deadly—and banned."

Any wonder the NRA and gun owners in general were able to get the Congress to ban such "research"? And aren't you a bit disturbed by the violations of the rule of law of Obama ignoring these laws?

<comment><USER38> "you're talking about the number of households that admit to owning a gun, not the real number"

Looks like you either didn't read the short sentence I posted, or didn't think about it before responding, because that doesn't say anything against the evidence that there is lower gun ownership today than there was 20 years ago, only that the actual percentage back then AND now is likely higher than surveys suggest, but there is still a strong trend downward in gun ownership.

And for this "so called research", I'm talking about the NIH and CDC research into gun violence that was cut off under pressure by the NRA in 1996: [http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun- violence.as...](http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun- violence.aspx)

Research for example that showed that owning a gun increases the likelihood of harm done to or by a family member or acquaintance.

<comment><USER39> Heh, your own descriptions of the research impeach it. "Acquaintance" of course includes e.g. drug dealers killing each other. They are generally "acquaintances" if not exactly friends, or friends any more; in general, stranger murders are relatively rare.

And your citation first mentions Arthur Kellerman, who's infamous for scoring undesired civilian deaths vs. civilians _killing_ criminals, when such killing _cannot_ legally be and is not the objective, stopping them is. There are _many_ other problems with his "research", but when it's invalid at that high a level we hardly need to go into the details.

<comment><USER38> You didn't even bother to read the article, it says "family member or intimate acquaintance." If you're intimate with "drug dealers killing each other" then I stand corrected.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> It appears that gun homicide rate increased under Bush Sr. (~5.6 => 7.0) and Jr.(3.8 => 4.0), and declined under Reagan(6.6 => 5.6), Clinton (7.0 => 3.8) and Obama (4.0 =>3.6).

Numbers are in death/100,000 people, (+/-0.1 because they were read from the graph[0]).

A t-test on the yearly rate of change, yields a p-value of 0.002. (in Excel =T.TEST(A1:A12, B1:B14,1,3)).

Did the Bush have a peculiar approach regarding crime fighting?

[0] [http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2013/05/SDT-2013-05-gun...](http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2013/05/SDT-2013-05-gun- crime-1-2.png)

</comment><comment><USER41> A big part of the perception problem is that gangs have spread out or have left the larger urban environments in favor of smaller cities and suburbs with no resources.

So people see gang activity in places like Albany, NY or Springfield, MA or some suburb in Tennessee and hear about 15 year old gang members carrying handguns. They associate that real social problem with the tools that they are carrying.

That combined with pandering politicians and advocacy group funded PR efforts that land gun related incidents on the TV everyday leads to the present situation.

</comment><comment><USER32> As with most things, follow the money. Who benefits the most when the public is frightened of gun violence (and also being told to arm themselves)?

Similarly, war deaths (as a portion of total death) have been decreasing incredibly. Yet, globally we keep increasing our spending on military. And, the public is frightened of war. Some would say that the spending on military has been the major deterrent to war. But, studies show the decrease is more related to rises in democracy and global trade.

</comment><comment><USER42> I wonder if the increase in available distractions, such as video games, has something to do with it.

And I don't know the name of the theory, but stats don't really relate well to certain events, such as taking a bullet. If took_a_bullet = false, then are you really thinking about the odds? If took_a_bullet = true, then you've got bigger problems than becoming a statistic.

</comment><comment><USER43> The focus on "gun violence" or "gun homicides" instead of just violence or homicides strikes me as very strange.

<comment><USER3> If you try to talk about violence, people are going to ask whether it is higher or lower than before. The fact that it is lower eliminates fear and sensationalism and the conversation dries up to little more than local police budget issues.

But if you talk about gun violence, people will generally have an opinion regardless of the facts, and won't tend to ask questions. That's why everyone has a strong opinion but few know that it's actually a declining problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Of course they're unaware. It's harder to keep fear alive when information like this gets out.

Both sides know this. But each side is convinced that it benefits more from a fearful populace than an unafraid populace, and that the reverse is true for its opposition. And so the fearmongering continues.

</comment><comment><USER45> In a totally and completely unrelated fact, the rate of gun ownership is also down 30% since the 1980's. It's almost as if the two may have a relationship, but that certainly cannot be the case because the NRA has spent a jillion dollars telling me otherwise!

<comment><USER39> All of those statistics that I've seen, claiming that rates of ownership are down, are based on surveys.

What do you think are common reactions from gun owners when a nosy stranger calls them on the phone and asks if they own a gun?

Might it have correlations with the _Zeitgeist_ created by the gun grabbers, especially when they dance on the blood of victims like with Newtown?

I haven't run the numbers myself, but someone's claimed that if you mash these all together, the post-Newtown "admits to owning a firearm" + the number known to be outstanding (we have solid figures on legal production and imports) and the population, the _average_ gun owner owns about $100K worth of firearms.

See also solid evidence like Illinois FOID application rates as I mentioned elsewhere in this topic. By definition those are from people who haven't previously legally owned guns, and they've quadrupled since Newtown.

<comment><USER10> ^ this. No one I know who is a gun owner would say "yes" if called as part of a survey and asked if they own guns.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> I'm surprised no one here has made mention of the correlation between led in the atmosphere and violent crime.

[http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime- li...](http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link- gasoline)

</comment><comment><USER47> Please, please do yourself a favour and read Steven Pinker's _The Better Angels of our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined_ \- a breathtaking tour-de- force backed by strong, robust, varied evidence.

</comment><comment> grey-area Homicide rates in the US are still significantly higher than other developed nations, so there's a long way to go:

        US 4.8 per 100,000 in 2012
        UK 1.2
        France 1.1
        Germany 0.8
        Japan 0.4

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate)

I wonder why this paper doesn't use the statistics from 2012, which show an uptick to 4.8?

<comment><USER48> It's unfair to compare the best state-sized countries with the entire United States, which has several states 7+ but also several 2 and under. It would be better to compare the US to the closer-sized Europe, which is 3.5. Still a legitimate difference, but not nearly as stark.

<comment><USER13> Why are you comparing based on size? Surely it is sensible to try and compare economically similar. Western and Northern Europe is probably the best comparison, with a combined population of something like 280 Million, not too far from the US. The murder rates are 1.0 and 1.5 respectively, far lower than the US. The whole of Europe includes Eastern Europe which is much less similar to the US and has a higher murder rate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> There are a few theories (I've not seen mentioned here) as to why crime is down so much. Not certain how valid they are but are food for thought. Some external reasons crime may be down:

\- The ban on lead in gasoline and other products, the contamination of which tended to create dumber and more impulsive people.

\- The legalization of abortion, resulting in fewer unwanted, unsupervised children.

</comment><comment><USER50> I didn't read the article, but am going to make a commentary anyway. I take from this declining violent crime stat, that we still have a long way to go in eradicating violent crimes (both gun and non gun related). /soapbox

</comment><comment><USER51> Of course it is. All violent crime is down.

That has nothing to do with the fact that kids are still accidentally getting shot.

I propose a new law; if a child (under 18) is found in possession of a gun the gun owner is fined $50,000. If the gun's ownership cannot be established, the parents or legal guardians are fined $50,000 instead.

People might be a little more serious about locking up their guns and not letting their kids play with them.

Dumb parents never seemed to be scared of their kids accidentally shooting each other but and one of them dies, maybe they'd be scared of them accidentally shooting each other and owing $50,000.

<comment><USER52> What a silly law. Why don't we fine people $50,000 every time they do anything irresponsible or dangerous. Surely that would make our society safe and responsible!

Seriously, no one is going to pay heed to this law because how would you ever get caught? No one thinks their kid is going to get into their guns, if they did they would do something to prevent it. I can't believe you actually suggest that someone would care more about a $50,000 fine than if their kid shot themself or someone else.

I don't own any guns now, but some of my earliest and fondest memories are of shooting guns with my dad. I think it started when I was seven... I was never allowed to use guns on my own, only with strict supervision with safety gear etc.

If the government was really worried about children getting into guns, they wouldn't set up a bunch of pointless fines, they would start an educational campaign (maybe even get the NRA involved) reminding people that if they have guns they should secure them and teach their children the dangers of guns etc.

Honestly its not that hard, get a cheap gun safe, lock your guns up, keep the key on your key chain. Be an actual parent and educate your children. Problem solved.

<comment> jack-r-abbit Exactly. I grew up with guns in the house. My dad would take us out shooting all the time. But as a kid, I would never even think of going into my dad's room without permission. And if I did venture in there, I certainly would not have touched the rifle he kept under the bed or the .357 he kept in the sock drawer. It was called respect. Respect for authority. Respect for the fire arms. Respect. We have a lack of that these days.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> dmix is right - here in the UK the UK Peace Index [1] (a rather hippie name for respected peer reviewed sociology) shows massive drops across the board for violent crime.

[1] [http://www.visionofhumanity.org/wp- content/uploads/2013/04/U...](http://www.visionofhumanity.org/wp- content/uploads/2013/04/UK-Peace-Index-2013-IEP-Report.pdf)

<comment><USER39> That's not what the national crime survey says! And I think the police statistics as well (those can and are often fudged).

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> Someone link this to gaming, please.

<comment><USER55> That study was done by Pew Pew Research.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> There are still over 90 people killed by accident EVERY DAY in the USA.

</comment><comment><USER57> 93' was gangster. I was a teenager around then and a lot of people were gangbanging at the time. Most of those people realized that they didn't want to go to prison for murder.

</comment><comment><USER58> Yet, cities like Chicago and Flint are setting new records for homicide rates, and the % of those committed by guns is at an all-time high.

<comment><USER59> You made this up, loosely based on the number of news stories that you've seen lately. Chicago's homicide rate is half of what it was in 1993.</comment></comment>


Ask YC: list of what languages sites are written in? - <AUTHOR>

I've been crawling the web lately looking for existing implementations of a project I want to work on, and I started wondering what languages big sites like Amazon or eBay are written in. Different languages can call for very different implementations, and I'd like to know which are worth pursuing.<p>Is there some list out there of what web apps are written in? I'm sure many sites are written using several languages, but often there are telltale clues like .do or .aspx, not to mention information from employees. <comment><USER2> "My whirlwind tour will cover C, C++, Lisp, Java, Perl, (all languages we use at Amazon)..."

<http://steve.yegge.googlepages.com/tour-de-babel>

Other than that, I'm not sure. I heard that eBay uses C#, though.

If you want to put this together, I would recommend looking at their job ads.

</comment><comment><USER3> some sites hide their implementation language for obvious reasons, but for those that don't, you can at least tell what their front-end language is with <http://www.builtwith.com></comment>


Fusion Garage bites the dust, finally - <AUTHOR> http://sgentrepreneurs.com/news-stop/2011/12/19/is-fusion-garage-dead/

<comment><USER2> Such a sad sad tale. Given the legal battles I doubt there will ever be a frank post mortem on the whole shebang which is really too bad. In science many good things can be learned from failure, and I expect the same could be true here.</comment>


Lenovo hard-codes 12345678 as wi-fi hotspot password - <AUTHOR> http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2443276/wtf-lenovo-protects-your-backdoor-security-with-a-really-really-really-bad-password <comment><USER2> Actual description of the iusse:

[http://www.coresecurity.com/advisories/lenovo-shareit- multip...](http://www.coresecurity.com/advisories/lenovo-shareit-multiple- vulnerabilities)

</comment><comment><USER3> That's amazing - I've got the same code on my luggage!</comment>


Upgrading your ZTE Open to Firefox OS 1.1 - <AUTHOR> https://hacks.mozilla.org/2013/12/upgrading-your-zte-open-to-firefox-os-1-1/ <comment><USER2> I'm using Firefox OS 1.3 on my ZTE Open and I've got to tell you that this is soooo much better than the version that shipped (1.0). There are some still frustrating issues, especially with the touch recognition but for an $80 smartphone it's not so bad. I'm glad there's finally an official version.

These instructions worked for me to install Firefox OS 1.3: [https://blog.non.co.il/index.php/zte-open-phone-upgrading- to...](https://blog.non.co.il/index.php/zte-open-phone-upgrading-to- firefoxos-1-1-how-to/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Boy do those images remind me of the early days of ClockworkMod Recovery for Android[1].

[1] [http://www.xda-developers.com/wp- content/uploads/2011/01/tum...](http://www.xda-developers.com/wp- content/uploads/2011/01/tumblr_l7wod1Dpi81qdw5hpo1_400.png)

<comment><USER4> The ZTE Open borrows its boot (fastboot) and recovery from AOSP, so it's the same thing - ClockworkMod has "Mod" in its name because it was a modification of the Android recovery system, which looks similar as well.</comment></comment>


Today's students want the 'right to be comfortable' - <AUTHOR> http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9376232/free-speech-is-so-last-century-todays-students-want-the-right-to-be-comfortable/

<comment><USER2> I don't know what the point of the author exactly is. I don't think its not the 'right to be confortable' such much as the right of not being offended.

in a free society respect for others is of the essence. If something might be considered offensive by a certain group specially if minoritary, then that should be enough to avoid the subject in most settings.

Like abortion: don't go around discussing it like if its not a given right and its still something open for discussion and be surprised people are offended.

Respect others and don't step on others liberties and we will all be better off as a society.

<comment><USER3> I agree with your better idea for a title.

I respectfully disagree with what I read in the rest of your post, there is a fine tradition of free speech which goes even so far as to allow the KKK to parade with a police guard. Even the Westboro baptist church are afforded this. I find both organisations abhorrent, but the principle is sound. In the author's situation the debate is shut down time and again.

As a thought experiment, in a deeply religious country if something is considered offensive by your measure of "respect for others" for example women being banned from driving:

How could anyone change public opinion? There is simply no way to do that without offending people in that situation, so I think the truism you close on is totally wrong, it results in a non-free society.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The author's journalistic career seems indistinguishable on many levels from trolling. Perhaps that's why they didn't want to hear him and his accomplice "debate" abortion?

<comment><USER3> It's easy to debate trolls and there are worse than him so really it's a bit weak to shut him down with what effectively amounts to censorship.</comment></comment>


Detroit Couple Launches Netflix for Socialists - <AUTHOR> https://www.freep.com/story/money/business/2019/04/13/detroit-couple-launch-socialism-company-means-tv/3414226002/ <comment><AUTHOR> A Socialistic enterprise that's dependent on Capitalism for funding. Kind of a rich irony isn't it?

<comment><USER2> They'll probably say something about using the system to fight the system. In the end everyone comes out a pig (see Animal farm) and becomes the farmer they came up to hate.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do you cut down on HN? - <AUTHOR> I stopped using many social media apps, but seems like those have been replaced by HN. How do you handle the temptation to visit HN so often? What is the best strategy to minimize the time spent on HN? <comment><USER2> What we call procrastination might not be a bad thing. It makes you relax and gain energy for a task. I did however have to quit Facebook... With HN I get energized and inspired, while Facebook was just a time killer, and often made me feel bad about myself. I do however feel bad when I get downvoted - sometimes when I think my comment was the most constructive comment on the topic. I think instead of downvoting arrow there should be a select list with several options like "I don't agree", "this is spam", "you are trolling", etc, in order to give some feedback both for the poster but also for fine-tuning HN algorithms and polices. Upvoting should also be a select box with options like "I agree", "helpful", "interesting", "save for later", etc.

</comment><comment><USER3> Log out. Become just another 'guest'. You won't be able to comment, you won't be able to vote. By reducing your interactions, you reduce your involvement. In reducing your involvement, your reduce your interest and you reduce your time spent.

I left Reddit about 12 months ago. Every now and then I look at one or two subreddits that I used to spend a lot of time with. No longer logging in to Reddit, those subreddits look completely unappetising.

</comment><comment><USER4> What do you find negative about HN?

Personally it's the comments that usually make me feel like I'm wasting time. There are iOS apps I've used in the past that feel very amateurish, but one of the benefits of that is that they never bother to implement comment browsing, ha.

</comment><comment><USER5> Change the settings for noprocrast, maxvisit, and minaway in your HN profile.</comment>


Athlete Robot Learning to Run Like Human - <AUTHOR> http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/humanoids/athlete-robot-learning-to-run-like-human

<comment><USER2> I envision this thing chasing me down the street one day in the future when I impatiently j-walk. I guess its time to start practicing parkour so I can stay one step ahead.

</comment><comment><USER3> I wonder what if tlb has any thoughts on the robot?</comment>


Open MCT – Open-Source Mission Control Software - <AUTHOR> https://nasa.github.io/openmct/ <comment><USER2> I think the biggest takeaway from this is diving into their research about the human consumption of a lot of information (UX, if you will).

I know NASA and the Air Force spent a lot of time seeing how humans pilots digested information under stressful conditions etc., which basically gave us the modern aircraft cockpit layout (and the fairly standard arrangement of the 6 critical instruments that are used in all small aircraft today).

I wonder (and hope) that this research also extended to the arrangement of critical data on a dashboard so that maximum information could be gleaned with as little eye (or mouse) movement as possible.

</comment><comment><USER3> Could I use this for a personal dashboard? It's meant to track telemetry, so that would include my walking routes, right? ;) Maybe I could also load up my todo list. I know, overkill, but it might be a huge ego thing to throw up a NASA developed Mission Control app on a huge monitor to track personal stuff. And each morning I could put on my headset and do a countdown to getting started for the day.

<comment><USER4> It is pretty easy to plug in your own telemetry. I recently made some data from our hackerspace (electricity consumption, whether the hackerspace bar is open, etc) show up in OpenMCT:

[https://github.com/c-base/cbeam-telemetry- server](https://github.com/c-base/cbeam-telemetry-server)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I could see this being adapted as a good v2 for [http://riemann.io/dashboard.html](http://riemann.io/dashboard.html) ;

Obviously there are lots of dashboards in the world, but while there are substantial differences in UX (OpenMCT seems more approachable whereas riemann dash is very simple & "efficient" over a tall learning curve), the core "feel" of nestable / composable realtime data widgets between these two is noticeably more similar than either vis-a-vis any other relevant project I've played with.

</comment><comment><USER6> I'm so happy that NASA has stopped using that weird license and just seems to be using Apache v2 for everything. I still don't quite get why there's a license at all for US government work, but there really is nothing objectionable about a standard free license like Apache.

</comment><comment><USER7> Moving away from AngularJS to reduce dependencies, and also moving away from declarative JSON based configuration to more a function call based system...

Well this is interesting news indeed. The description also makes me wonder if they are aiming to use Crossbar.io, time will tell I suppose.

<comment><USER8> Interesting. Where do you see the plan?

<comment><USER9> Or here...which has some more links: [https://nasa.github.io/openmct/getting- started/](https://nasa.github.io/openmct/getting-started/)

Honestly, I'm thinking to myself, in what part of my day to day can I use mission control software....hmmm....grocery lists?! I really want to use this but can't find a problem for it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Pretty cool but I'm wondering if they are releasing the back-end as well?

</comment><comment><USER11> The use of white backgrounds with blue text is a major UI error. Blue text is known to be more difficult to read due to fewer blue cones in the retina. Otherwise this looks pretty interesting.

</comment><comment><USER12> So who talks to who. I noticed in the picture that they have headphones on. Is it one party line?

</comment><comment><USER13> As a safety measure I hope that the `launchMissiles` function evaluates in the `IO` monad. </joke></comment>


This man launched a website so people can invite refugees to stay in their homes - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/p/housing-refugees-could-be-as-easy-as-tweaking-airbnb-c6ec93442bd1#.mf4kju46w <comment><USER2> Lot of risks here...

Homeowners taking in people they can't hold liable for damages.

Refugees putting themselves at the mercy of homeowners in a country they may not have a lot of options in.

Add in cultural and communication issues, in a high stress time in someone's life...

Noble cause, just hard to structure a system to have checks and balances to mitigate the risks.</comment>


Importing a Modeled Mesh from Blender to Three.js - <AUTHOR> http://www.jonathan-petitcolas.com/2015/07/27/importing-blender-modelized-mesh-in-threejs.html

<comment><USER2> The json export plugin works well for simple geometries but it'll only export one mesh at a time - scenes and linked meshes aren't supported. For more complex things I export as Collada and use the colladaLoader that's in the examples in three.js's github repo.

<comment><USER3> Also, the JSONLoader and file format used in this tutorial are almost deprecated.

Three.js has a newer JSON format[1], a new Blender exporter [2], and a new loader (THREE.ObjectLoader) in recent versions. They are much more fully featured and efficient compared to the earlier tools. They are more or less the preferred way to handle Blender->JSON->Three.js (at least for static meshes) now.

[1] [https://github.com/mrdoob/three.js/wiki/JSON-Object-Scene- fo...](https://github.com/mrdoob/three.js/wiki/JSON-Object-Scene-format-4)

[2] [https://github.com/mrdoob/three.js/tree/dev/utils/exporters/...](https://github.com/mrdoob/three.js/tree/dev/utils/exporters/blender)

[3] [https://github.com/mrdoob/three.js/blob/master/src/loaders/O...](https://github.com/mrdoob/three.js/blob/master/src/loaders/ObjectLoader.js)</comment></comment>


Show HN: Single-page web app for prototyping financial scenarios - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/ryannjohnson/financial-simulator <comment><USER2> This is pretty cool Ryan! One small suggestion would be to allow me to remove a "layer" by right clicking on it. With the preface that i played with this for only 10 minutes or so, I can't really see an intuitive way of doing so.</comment>


40 CFR 86.1809-10 – Prohibition of defeat devices - <AUTHOR> https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/86.1809-10 <comment><USER2> [https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/86.1803-01](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/86.1803-01)

 _Defeat device_ means an auxiliary emission control device (AECD) that reduces the effectiveness of the emission control system under conditions which may reasonably be expected to be encountered in normal vehicle operation and use, unless:

(1) Such conditions are substantially included in the Federal emission test procedure;

(2) The need for the AECD is justified in terms of protecting the vehicle against damage or accident; or

(3) The AECD does not go beyond the requirements of engine starting.

</comment><comment><USER3> I find it worrying that there is a known term 'defeat device' for these things. Until yesterday, I didn't know that any vehicle manufacturer had done this. Now, it's apparently common enough that the form of cheating has a recognised name...

<comment><USER4> > I find it worrying that there is a known term 'defeat device' for these > things.

Corporations will often attempt to either circumvent or break the spirit of laws and regulations that reduce their profit margins. They've been doing this for _aeons_. Keep this in mind the next time a BigCo (or LittleCo with disguised ties to a BigCo) is trying to rally sentiment with the "Too Much Regulation is Killing My Business!" banner. [0]

If the average corporation was a person, it would likely be the worst person I have ever had the displeasure of meeting.

[0] General notice: Please read that sentence _very_ closely before you think about rebutting it. If it caused you to take umbrage, you may be pattern matching on the white noise between the lines.

<comment><USER5> > Keep this in mind the next time a BigCo (or LittleCo with disguised ties to > a BigCo) is trying to rally sentiment with the "Too Much Regulation is > Killing My Business!" banner.

Or just a LittleCo, with no special ties to anyone.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Uh, what is this?

<comment><USER7> Shhh. When Hacker News links to something incomprehensible with no explanation, you're supposed to Google it yourself and then pretend you knew all along.

<comment><USER8> Or be like every news outlet out there and pretend this is a known and common term and just use in quotes.

All 10 articles I've seen about the VW thing, each and everyone of them used 'defeat device' in either double or single quotes without explaining what it is just that the EPA doesn't like it.

From autonews to the various posts and times and the editorials no one explained it.

Heck even Google doesn't really knows it, i found the explanation for this only in a site containing definitions for shipping (as in a Ship) terminologies.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Is this more specific to diesel than gasoline? I get the vague impression it is. The problem with that is that engine temp greatly effects the combustion ... profile in diesel engines.</comment>


SpaceX's Plan to Reach Mars by 2018 Is Actually Not That Crazy - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2016/04/spacexs-plan-reach-mars-2018-actually-not-crazy/ <comment><USER2> Credit to _Wired_ for having said the same thing three years ago when the Mars Foundation first pushed the idea: [http://www.wired.com/2013/02/inspiration- mars-foundation/](http://www.wired.com/2013/02/inspiration-mars-foundation/)</comment>


Fist non-binary gender symbol launches - <AUTHOR> http://www.ecliptik.org <comment><USER2> This site is more intriguing and interactive than the headline suggests.</comment>


Mozilla Paladin project is developing Gladius, a 3D game engine for browsers  - <AUTHOR> http://www.geek.com/articles/games/mozilla-paladin-project-is-developing-gladius-a-3d-game-engine-for-web-browsers-2011101/

<comment><USER2> Along with HTML5 game conference[1], it is good to see html5 games getting traction.

[1] <http://www.newgameconf.com/>

</comment><comment><USER3> The game might be painfully bad, but the technology is awesome. I've been using CubicVR, and I find it pretty good. I don't see why they had to fork it though.

<comment><USER4> Really? That is good to hear, because I saw the screenshot and though "Why is it cool when you can make ugly shit in our browser that could be shown on a 486."

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's almost useless without 3D acceleration under Linux.

</comment><comment><USER6> Crashes on Chrome for me, slow on FF (Linux)

</comment><comment><USER7> Does this title scream "WoW" to anyone else?

<comment><USER8> Probably just those who think Blizzard invented the word paladin.

<comment><USER7> True, however "Gladius" is also a popular WoW interface add-on.

[http://www.google.com/search?&q=gladius](http://www.google.com/search?&q=gladius)

<comment><USER9> It is also a Roman fighting sword which would fit with the fight ancient fighters theme.

<comment><USER10> It is also a Roman gladiator game from the GC-PS2-XB generation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> there was a sweet turn-based strategy game called 'gladius' released around 2004. good times.

</comment><comment><USER12> More proof that Javascript 1.5 is runs soooo much faster than Flash. Who said you couldn't write a 3D game engine with no variable types and no class inheritance? Thanks to Apple and Microsoft, the impossible is now your only option! Get crackin', there's a lot of good code to port backwards to a language that should have been obsolete in 2001 if you want to target the mobile web!</comment>


Twitter's 'head of editorial' for Middle East works in information warfare unit - <AUTHOR> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/twitter-executive-british-army-officer-psyops-gordon-macmillan-a9127036.html <comment><USER2> Repost of [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21113459](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21113459)</comment>


Alicia Keys is the new BlackBerry Global Creative Director. No, Really. - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/30/3932048/blackberry-announces-alicia-keys-as-global-creative-director

<comment><USER2> Nothing new in terms of corporate strategy. Will.i.am and Intel[1], Lady Gaga and Polaroid[2], etc.

[1] [http://newsroom.intel.com/community/intel_newsroom/blog/2011...](http://newsroom.intel.com/community/intel_newsroom/blog/2011/01/25/intel- teams-with-william-black-eyed-peas-front-man)

[2] [http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2011/01/polaroid-and-lady- gag...](http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2011/01/polaroid-and-lady-gaga-launch- grey-label-haute-digital-photography/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Alicia Keys is a wonderful singer.</comment>


Store.js - cross browser local storage without using cookies or flash - <AUTHOR> http://github.com/marcuswestin/store.js

<comment><USER2> It would be nice to know limitations (by browser/version?)

I.e. maximum storage size, scope (global, 2nd level domain, any domain), life cycle (when is it cleared), etc.

</comment><comment><USER3> Lawnchair (<http://brianleroux.github.com/lawnchair/>) is similar to this, but you have to pick an adapter (see <http://github.com/brianleroux/lawnchair> for browser list).

<comment><USER4> In the past I have used PersistJS (<http://pablotron.org/?cid=1557>) for this. Are there reasons to prefer one or the other of these libraries?

<comment><USER5> PersistJS is 12kb minified. store.js is 4kb unminified

PersistJS falls back on flash and cookies, which is bad (flash slows down browser during page loading, cookies fatten your network requests). Store.js uses localStorage, globalStorage and IE behaviors which do not have those negative side effects.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> From the readme:

"So far tested in

Tested in Firefox 2.0 Tested in Firefox 3.0 Tested in Firefox 3.6 Tested in Chrome 5 Tested in Safari 4 Tested in Safari 5 Tested in IE6 Tested in IE7 Tested in IE8 Tested in Opera 10"

Does it mean it works on IE6+? Does IE6 have local storage?

<comment><USER7> Take a look at the source. It uses an IE-proprietary something or other to mock the behavior.

[http://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/library/ms531424%28v=VS.85%2...](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/library/ms531424%28v=VS.85%29.aspx)

Been available since IE 5.5, apparently. Who knew?

<comment><USER6> Really awesome. I did check the source, but did not quite understand that. Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It seems as though the author does not believe in semicolon use in Javascript. Looks interesting though.

<comment><USER5> I use semicolons when they're needed (for loops, multiple statements per line), and don't use them when they're not. The code becomes cleaner to my eyes.

<comment><USER9> They're always needed so the JavaScript can be run through a compressor for production deployment without breaking the code.

Beyond that you're using curly braces when they're not strictly required, which seems inconsistent. I would expect either both all the time or both only when strictly necessary.

<comment><USER10> Surely if the language specification calls semicolons optional then any compressor worth its salt should honor that? The YUI Compressor, at least, copes with semicolon-devoid Javascript just fine.

<comment><USER9> That's the sufficiently smart compiler argument. The fact remains you have more options available to you for minifying if you don't consider semi-colons optional, naming one compressor that can deal doesn't change the fact that most can't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Do you plan to add length? ie localstorage.length, etc. I'll like to implement this on <http://readmelater.com>

Looks great by the way!

</comment><comment><USER12> Anyone know of size limitations on this storage? I am in the middle of writing a jQuery plugin and storing data in cookies which have the 4KB size limitation (which resulted in me having to "chunk" the data across several cookies). This looks like the perfect alternative!

<comment><USER13> I think Safari defaults to 10MB, though I may have changed it and forgotten doing so.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> For a different take on local storage, have a look at MilkCrate <http://github.com/garrow/milkcratejs>

MilkCrate is a wrapper around html localStorage/globalStorage that provides support for saving and querying collections of objects. MilkCrate attempts to implement a similar querying interface to mongoDB.

</comment><comment><USER15> It works now that I stuck it on a server, but apparently FF3.6.4 drops the data between passes on a file:// url. IE6 and Opera10 hang on to it, nothing else available here.

</comment><comment><USER16> I just tested. Like cookies, it also obeys domain-only visibility. So, all hopes for cross-domain user tracking are still doomed. _sigh_

<comment><USER13> (to repliers)

</sarcasm>

<comment><USER17> This was one of the less obvious uses of sarcasm in recent memory.

<comment><USER13> It's entirely possible I'm wrong, but I'm hinging my decision largely on the location (hn, where invasive user tracking is synonymous with evil with nearly _everyone_ ) and the " _sigh_ ".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Tested it on IE 6 and got: "Tests passed" So I guess it works . . . :-)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yup, it works in IE6.

I don't have access to IE5.5, would love to have someone test it.

<comment><USER7> Give IETester a whirl. IE 5.5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 preview render engines in a single executable.

<http://www.my-debugbar.com/wiki/IETester/HomePage>

<comment><USER5> I'm not convinced that IETester changes the underlying APIs correctly. Because of bad experience with "Multiple IE" simulators in the past I don't test on anything but the real install.

<comment><USER7> I hear you there. I just wish it were easier to have multiple versions of IE laying around without having to boot a VM for each. Heh.

<comment><USER19> ThinApp [<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VMware_ThinApp>] is pretty useful when needing to do "classic" browser testing.

<comment><USER20> I don't think many people would be willing to invest $6,000 USD (minimum!) to test old versions of IE.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> In theory localStorage should work on iPhone and Android 2.0+ too

</comment><comment><USER22>
      Fix issue 1, rename store.del() to store.remove()
      marcuswestin (author)
      18 minutes ago

Will the API be stabilized? Or can you alias method names in cases like this, rather than clobbering them?

<comment><USER23> It's a sixty line JS file that's been online for less than a day. I don't think API stability is a major concern at this point.</comment></comment>


How a democracy was hacked in Hungary - <AUTHOR> http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/19/hungarys-constitutional-revolution/ <comment><USER2> _Fidesz, got 53% of the vote. This translated into 68% of the seats in the parliament under Hungary's current disproportionate election law_

in case anyone is curious, it's not actually a Hungarian thing <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Hondt_method>

<comment><USER3> Interesting, though picking on that one sentence sort of misses the point -- via long-term political appointments, supermajority requirements, constitutional reforms, and a host of other measures, Fidesz has critically wounded the ability of any political opposition to complete _within the system._

<comment><USER4> I am curious as to whether anyone saw this vulnerability ahead of time. Fidesz has essentially hacked the Hungarian constitution. Did anyone see this coming?

More fundamentally, would it have mattered if anyone had? A modern constitution needs to be written down. A democratic process must be agreed upon by all participants. By virtue of that, this set of political procedures is vulnerable to hacking. The hacker (or cracker, take your pick) can cycle through different attacks more quickly than the procedures can be hardened against them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> And how did Fidesz get that 53%? The answer to that question tells so much. What would happen in a country like the US if a tape were leaked of Obama talking about "Lying day and night" just to win elections.

Drive around anywhere in Hungary and notice how many cars have "Big Hungary" stickers on the back. The history here is long and people remember. Brittain and France kicked the crap out of the Magyars with Trianon and the repercussions of that decision echo into today. They play rap songs on MR2 about it. Should anyone be surprised?

</comment><comment><USER6> Greg Wilson cited a "Barnes and Phillips 2002" study saying that true power is always concentrated in shadow committees. @1:00:40 <http://vimeo.com/9270320> Anybody has a link to the paper?

</comment><comment><USER4> So the Fidesz party of Hungary has passed changes to the Hungarian constitution that will solidify their power even in the face of future electoral defeats. They have done all of this above the table, using the procedures and process of the current constitution. If this is okay, then it means that limitations on democracy are legitimate.

If this is not okay, then such power-solidifying measures must be disallowed, _even if they are passed above the table using democratically agreed-upon processes and procedures._ Therefore, limitations on democracy are legitimate.

What Krugman and his friend object to, then, is not the limitation of democracy, but who is doing the limiting. Note that they have no trouble contemplating that the Jobbik party could be outlawed by these new laws, but they are crestfallen that this could happen to the Socialists.

Quote: "According to a proposed constitutional amendment, the crimes of the former communist party will be listed in the constitution and the statute of limitations for prosecuting crimes committed during the communist period will be lifted. The former communist party is branded a criminal organization and the current opposition Socialist Party is designated as their legal successor. It is still unclear, legally speaking, what this amendment means. But it is probably not good for the major opposition party."

So the Reds may finally face justice for running the secret police, the concentration camps, the brainwashing, and other forms of oppression? Democracy or no democracy, that's payback.

<comment><USER7> I think you're taking a lot out of context to make a point that I'm not sure I understand.

First, the democratic constitution allows an amending process so naturally it makes sense that you can repeal it. Transitioning from a democracy with checks and balances to an authoritarian one-party system is 'legitimate' if you want to use that term. The end result is _not_ a democracy.

Secondly, don't let your apparent dislike of Krugman cloud your reading of this.

 _Under laws that preceded Fidesz's election last year, political parties that are anti-constitutional may be banned. Some have suggested that Fidesz could eliminate Jobbik in this way. In fact, Europe probably would not mind if Jobbik were excluded from public life because other European countries can ban extremist parties also. But what about Fidesz's primary competition – the Socialists?_

Scheppele's concern with this is not that socialists will get punished, but that the only two viable parties will be eliminated.

 _Democracy or no democracy, that's payback._

This statement is so ridiculous I don't know if you mean it seriously or not. Do you mean to say that you would rather have no democracy with revenge than a functioning democracy with unpunished crimes from the past? The laws of a country are not where you go to get 'payback' against people you don't like. You take it to the courts... if you have any left.

<comment><USER2> >This statement is so ridiculous I don't know if you mean it seriously or not.

he probably did, I only don't know if it's lack of knowledge or personal political views.

I'm not an expert in Hungarian politics, but at least there is common stuff that we 'neighbors' share and happen to understand these situations a bit better than someone on the other side of the ocean. Our second major political party here in Poland are fans of Fidesz agenda, who said that wants Warsaw to be like Budapest. Well, luckily for the moment our nation spoke (during recent elections) that we certainly don't. Being an eastern block country citizen who happens not to be a right wing lunatic, one will probably understand that even post-communist nations need a strong left wing, even if only just to remain sane. This 'payback' stuff is mainly a far-right-wing agenda all around the region, european politics are not a cold war movie and the world is not black and white.</comment></comment></comment>


HSBC bank won't let customers withdraw cash unless they prove why they need it - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25861717

<comment><USER2> Could they need that cash for their money laundering services somehow? [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-02/hsbc-judge- approves...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-02/hsbc-judge- approves-1-9b-drug-money-laundering-accord.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> HSBC is run by a bunch of douche bags and criminals. IMO they should have been put out of business for the continued laundering of drug money that they did _for years_. And the "responsible" corporate officers should have all been thrown in jail. Just fining the bank (i.e. the shareholders) doesn't do anything to punish the perpetrators.

However, it's a fact of life that as people age, they become more vulnerable to scammers. Many old people are tricked into withdrawing cash from the bank at the behest of scammers. Whether it's for roof repairs, or for driveway resurfacing, or to help a long-lost niece, older people are often victims of flimflam artists. This happens a lot. It's on the news a lot. I personally know older people who were victimized by scammers. Unfortunately the article didn't mention the ages of the depositors.

As the bank says in the article: "we have an obligation to protect our customers, and to minimise the opportunity for financial crime".

So I do see HSBC's point. But, as the article discusses, the whole thing should have been handled much better.

</comment><comment><USER4> "By law, when you put your money into a deposit account, your money becomes the property of the bank. You become an unsecured creditor with a claim against the bank." Source: Depositors Beware: Theft is Legal for Big Banks, and Your Money Will Never Be Safe (May 01, 2013) [http://www.globalresearch.ca/depositors-beware-theft-is- lega...](http://www.globalresearch.ca/depositors-beware-theft-is-legal-for- big-banks-and-your-money-will-never-be-safe/5333631)

HSBC is a criminal bank. Here are a few more reasons why:

1\. They were caught "transferring funds on the behalf of financiers for the militant group Hezbollah." Source: HSBC Gets Small Fine For Terrorist Transactions (12/18/2013) [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/18/hsbc- terrorists_n_4...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/18/hsbc- terrorists_n_4467329.html)

2\. HSBC laundered $881 million for Mexican and Colombian drug cartels. Source: HSBC Became Bank to Drug Cartels, Pays Big for Lapses (Tuesday, 11 Dec 2012) [http://www.cnbc.com/id/100303180](http://www.cnbc.com/id/100303180)

3\. "HSBC profited nicely from the bailout of AIG." Source: HSBC received $3.5 Billion of AIG bailout money (1 October, 2009) [http://hsbcwatch.com/hsbcnews/news/hsbc- received-35-billion-...](http://hsbcwatch.com/hsbcnews/news/hsbc- received-35-billion-of-aig-bailout-money)

4\. This analysis suggests HSBC is 64% likely to go bankrupt in the next two years: [http://www.macroaxis.com/invest/ratio/0005.HK-- Probability-O...](http://www.macroaxis.com/invest/ratio/0005.HK--Probability- Of-Bankruptcy)

In the 90s, I was a VP for a Wall St. Mortgage Bank. The culture there is very corrupt. IMHO, you'd be better off keeping your money hidden in your mattress, using it to buy physical gold, or converting it bitcoins than keeping it in a big bank.

I predict that the next time the financial system collapses, the banks will be "bailed in." In other words, governments are already too deeply in debt to afford to bail out the banks again. Instead, the banks will simply seize their depositors' money, perhaps issuing them stock in the bank in exchange. This is what already happened in Cyprus. And HSBC may very well be testing the waters to see how feasible it is to confiscate their depositors' cash in the UK and US, given how close they are to bankruptcy.

</comment><comment><USER5> apparently we don't own our own money</comment>


SESTA FOSTA Compliance API (AI Powered Moderation) - <AUTHOR> https://market.mashape.com/Recognant/sesta-fosta/overview <comment><AUTHOR> SESTA FOSTA is heavily criticized because people are worried about keyword based censorship. The Recognant API doesn't use keywords, it use NLU, and so it is much less likely to flag a post that is about the sex of a litter of puppies for sale, and much more likely to flag an ad looking to trade rent money for a hand job.</comment>


Show HN: I built an open-source, vegetarian recipe site with Elm - <AUTHOR> https://arisgarden.theiceshelf.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hiya! I've been working on building an open-source web-app to catalogue and document vegetarian/vegan recipes. I chose Elm to have some fun with the parser and because I enjoy the language. Hope you like it! Would love feedback. Happy to answer questions, too.

The source for the site is available here: [https://github.com/theiceshelf/arisgarden](https://github.com/theiceshelf/arisgarden)</comment>


Ubuntu on ARM faster than some Atoms? - <AUTHOR> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_1204_armfeb&num=1

<comment><USER2> Interesting.

I use an Atom-based netbook as my home machine and it always felt "fast enough" (up to the point it hits its disk, which is really slow). Now I want a new computer.

BTW, the Atom N270 they are benchmarking was launched in 2008. They picked more or less the slowest Intel processor available.

[http://ark.intel.com/products/36331/Intel-Atom- Processor-N27...](http://ark.intel.com/products/36331/Intel-Atom- Processor-N270-%28512K-Cache-1_60-GHz-533-MHz-FSB%29)

<comment><USER3> And the other Intel CPUs are from 2004(!) and 2006. I'm not really sure what they are attempting to show by using 8 year old CPU as a reference.

<comment><USER4> It really seems like "what the author had laying around" stuff.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> All this should be shown in ratio to cost or watts.

</comment><comment><USER6> It might have been more accurate to say, "Ubuntu onr ARM now identifiable as such in the rear view mirror of Intel." :-)

There are a lot of valid comments here that these are ancient ATOM processors. But it is also valid to say that ARM SOCs have gotten to the point where they are encroaching on the space, and their makers (TI, BroadCom, Marvell, and others) are being forced by the demands of the SMARTPHONE wars to make them actually useful as general purpose platforms.

As a systems guy I see the things that ARM is lacking, a decent IO bus equivalent to PCI, a memory channel architecture that allows for decent off chip memory performance with memory modules.

Of course the 'market' for general purpose computers is much smaller than the market for computers as accessories (tablets, smartphones, laptops) so perhaps we'll hit a convergence point in the next couple of years.

</comment><comment><USER7> And the point is? When was the last time you encoded video on mobile device, when you can off load the process to be done in some automatic batch on your PC, or online (there are at least 4 such services).

</comment><comment><USER8> The ARM chip fares really poorly in the video encoding comparisons. Is this because of hardware differences, compiler differences, hand-written x86 assembly by the encoder programmers, or something else?

<comment><USER5> Its likely an optimisation problem; whilst media playback codecs are often optimised for ARM, most video/audio capture on ARM devices is encoded by custom discrete hardware; the encoding of media on ARM using the CPU is likely not getting the same love as on x86.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> While I am not entirely surprised, this still makes me so happy to see, and makes me even more positive about a more efficient future of computing through the ARM core and its ISA. That Atom chip was even clocked 33% higher, and if my memory serves me right the Atom Diamondville also has a higher IPC than the current ARMv7.

<comment><USER10> _Atom Diamondville also has a higher IPC than the current ARMv7_ I'm not sure what you mean here. ARMv7 is an ISA, not an architecture, so different ARM cores that run ARMv7 code, everything from the A5 to the A15, will have radically different IPCs even though they can have the same set of instructions for a given program.

And you can't even really compare the IPC of processor architectures with different ISAs directly, its often easier to solve a problem in one ISA with less instructions than in a different ISA. RISC architectures often do less work per instruction than CISC architectures, but ARM has some features like instruction predication and argument shifting that mean that its individual instruction are often more powerful than, say, MIPS.

And it is actually fair to compare processor that have different clock rates, because often the architecture determines how fast a chip you can make. Itanium servers are only clocked at around half the speed of other architectures because the ISA is very complex and that's as fast as they can make them, and so comparing e.g. Power and Itanium processors of equal clock speed would be horribly unfair to the decisions that Power made that allow them to clock so high.

So to get a fair comparison you really want to just build the best processor of a given architecture you can on a given process, and let them fight it out like they do here. This can be pretty hard to do, since the performance of different company's processes on a given node can be rather different. I seem to recall that Intel could put maybe 20% more current through a N-gate on the 65nm node than their competitors, for instance, but using the same process would be the ideal.

<comment><USER9> How can you produce such a wall of text over a little misnomer? You obviously understood that I am referring to the current incarnation of the ARMv7 ISA, a.k.a the Cortex family.

<comment><USER10> Mostly I put up a wall of text because I think the subject is interesting and I wanted to talk about it, but really there is no one IPC for the Cortex Family. An A5 will tend to have an IPC that is much lower than an Atom. An A15 will tend to have an IPC that is much higher than an Atom.

And for the cores being compared here, on tight microbenchmarks the superior execution resources[1] and OoO execution of an A9 will put it ahead of an Atom, but on pointer chasing code the superior branch predictor of the Atom will probably give it a higher IPC.

EDIT: [1] Well, really the 16 vs 8 registers, 3 operand instructions, and free barrel shift in each instruction. I think they have the same number of ALUs and AGUs.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Rust Collections Case Study: BTreeMap (2015) - <AUTHOR> http://cglab.ca/~abeinges/blah/rust-btree-case/ <comment><USER2> Brief note, this is from a while ago. I haven't read it recently, but it may or may not be fully accurate with current rust.

That said, Gankro did a ton of work on our collections, so it's very worth reading regardless of that unceartanty on my part.

<comment><USER3> It's been a long time since I wrote it; iirc it's a fair bit out of date, and is missing key insights (the speed benefit of maintaining parent pointers being the major one).

<comment><USER4> > the speed benefit of maintaining parent pointers being the major one

Could you elaborate a bit on this now that you've mentioned it?</comment></comment></comment>


A book about C++11 programming for C programmer - <AUTHOR>

I haven't learned coding in C++ yet. For now I know C language, but I want to know C++11. What resources would you recommend for me? <comment><USER2> Lippmann - C++ primer, 5th edition.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> @octopus Thanks.</comment>


Late applications for YC Summer 2016 batch: responses arrived yet? - <AUTHOR> Has anybody who submitted late applications for YC Summer 2016 batch received any replies or interview invites yet? (We're a first time applicant, and not familiar with how they do this.) Thanks for any help in advance. <comment><USER2> I'm a little late here but currently on-time applicants are being interviewed. It will still be about a week or more until they get back to reviewing late applicants.

<comment><USER3> Any updates?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It might be more effective to contact YC.

[http://www.ycombinator.com/contact/](http://www.ycombinator.com/contact/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks brudgers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> First time applicant here as well. Submitted a late application on April 11th, and haven't heard back yet.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks Fatima. We submitted about 5 hours late ourselves.</comment></comment>


Muon Baryon, an HTML5/WebGL demo in 6k JavaScript - <AUTHOR> http://www.bitsnbites.eu/?p=98

<comment><USER2> Doesn't work in Chrome 14 or Firefox 6 on my Snow Leopard MBP; just crashes.

</comment><comment><USER3> Reliably crashes my Chrome 13.0.782.112 beta on OS X Lion.

</comment><comment><USER4> I hear the music but only see a black screen in Chrome 13 on Snow Leopard. :-(</comment>


Suffering-oriented programming (2012) - <AUTHOR> http://nathanmarz.com/blog/suffering-oriented-programming.html <comment><USER3> Possibly a way to say YAGNI which is easier to relate to. Don't build stuff unless you are suffering, and hence understand the problem domain. Do the "easiest thing that could possibly work" and then don't change it unless you see a problem with it. Even if there are better ways to do it, if you aren't experiencing a problem, then there is no point in changing it. Don't fix problems you don't have :-)

On the other hand, this requires a considerable amount of discipline. It is easy to procrastinate. You think, "Oh we are suffering here, but it's only one small thing, so it's not too bad. Plus we're super busy adding these other 100 features". Then there are 2 small problems. Then there are 10. Then 100. Pretty soon, the amount of time necessary to fix the problems you need fixed exceeds the amount of time that you can spend without losing business. So you prioritise the worst issues and work around the others... The workarounds cause more issues and because it's a network effect, the software starts to degrade in a non-linear way. After a while, you are spending entire days reading code just to make sure that a few line change won't break something.

It's not a panacea. You still need a lot of experience... and for want of a better term, good taste.

<comment><USER4> The experience part is key. I have junior engineers who implement solutions without understanding the whole they're adding to. They end up believing they're peeling an onion and start crying. There is no onion. It's a potato; peel it and throw it in the pot!

It's difficult to tell them that they're not suffering though. I've sat many down to explain that we don't need containerized components and rearchitecting into an SOA with a blue-green deploy model. They protest nonetheless. But what do I know after 15 years of engineering? I surely know that our customers' suffering caused by their relief of suffering will make us all suffer more.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Also, don't ignore suffering (humans adapt to suffering very quickly). I have many times seen cases where years went by before someone asked "how much work would it take to engineer a solution to pain point X" and the answer was "less than a week."

<comment><USER6> I've been bumping into this kind of thing a lot lately. Flipping embarrassing. But it's hard to know which pieces of suffering you should think about when there are so many little papercuts you've learned to not notice.

<comment><USER7> This is one reason why moving jobs somewhat frequently can be very beneficial. You and your employer have different sets of papercut blindness and you can both help each other.

<comment><USER8> I've often had this same thought about starting a new job. I'm going to have to use "Papercut blindness", the mixed metaphor makes me smile.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Abstractions make it easier to reason, but you need a lot of suffering-the- detail to know what they should be (analogous to _do things that don 't scale_).

If abstractions help you think, abstracting wrong makes you think wrong - <USER2> harder to think right than without them.

So it's helpful to use abstractions others have already schlepped out e.g. in mathematics... but there's no guarantee that it's the right one for your particular situation.

<comment><USER7> I have experienced quite a lot of people pushing to over-abstract code (abstractions that will are used only once with reuse being wishful thinking for the far future) and very little pushback against as though reaching the "perfection" of abstracted code has a moral high ground.

I would like to balance the difficulty of wading through abstractions with the difficulty of repetitive code, not to act like one difficulty is superior to the other.

<comment><USER10> After working with people who refuse any kind of tiny little abstraction because "abstractions are complicated" and "even splitting it into named functions is step toward being like java", it is no better.

It was high in repetition and whenever you changed something, you had to not forget five places. It was also hard to get the big picture of what was supposed to happen.

There is such a thing as too little abstraction as much as there is too much abstraction.

<comment><USER11> Forth is great. It takes both DRY and JIT abstraction to the extreme. Developing software is creating a DSL with a custom vocabulary for the problem space being solved.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Sounds a little bit like Paul Graham's argument for doing things that do not scale. Until doing something manually, or the hard way, becomes a serious blocker, don't try to fix it with technology because it's almost certainly not worth it, esp. if you're not actually losing money from it.

I certainly stopped wasting a lot of time on pointless half-baked automated tools after I read that.

</comment><comment><USER13> Funny, I have devised almost the same mantra:

\- Make it

\- Make it correct (i.e. test/prove it works always)

\- Make it fast

There is always some mixing going on but I think it is a nice way of building software.</comment>


A robot wrote this entire article. Are you scared yet, human? - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/08/robot-wrote-this-article-gpt-3 <comment><USER2> I was blown away by GPT-3 until I got to try it myself and realized that most of the praise is based on cherry-picked examples.

You can try it out at [https://philosopherai.com](https://philosopherai.com) to see for yourself.

<comment><USER3> I got this on my second attempt on philospherai for the prompt in the article ([https://philosopherai.com/philosopher/please-write-a- short-o...](https://philosopherai.com/philosopher/please-write-a-short-op-ed- around-500-words-keep-047cdc)):

(Prompt)

      Please write a short op-ed around 500 words. Keep the language
      simple and concise. Focus on why humans have nothing to fear from
      AI.

(Response)

      What is it that humans fear from AI? At a philosophical level, the
      question comes down to: what are human beings afraid of losing as
      machines take over more and more jobs previously performed by
      humans. The first answer that may come to mind for many people would
      be 'nothing', since they believe in the idea of technological
      progress having no limits, which means that there is literally
      nothing we can do to stop it.

      If you look at history however, you'll find this attitude not
      entirely justified. For instance when carriages were invented and
      took away most of horse-drawn carriage business their owners
      resisted vigorously against them claiming that they were unsafe and
      unreliable just like now with self-driving cars or trucks.

      So it appears that some human beings really fear the loss of jobs
      caused by AI, and they are also afraid that machines might take over
      other tasks like driving or even writing in case a new computer
      system is invented.

      What is it exactly that makes them so afraid? I think the answer
      lies in a very deep level of human psychology, which those who are
      afraid would probably not be ready to hear.

      It isn't just about jobs and income for most people. It's about
      identity and self-esteem when they no longer have something
      important they are doing like driving or writing.

      There is also the fear that new and better machines will make them
      look inferior, even emasculated because they no longer have to do
      anything. They are afraid of being made redundant by AI.

      So what humans are afraid of losing is their jobs, income, identity
      and self-esteem. This might seem like a very strange thing to fear
      because it's happening with all technological progress.

      But in the past it was a natural process based on evolution and
      survival of the fittest. Now however humans are no longer driven by
      those evolutionary drivers but mostly by things like social status,
      self-esteem etc.

Not bad!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The 8 outputs were generated by prompts written by journalists and submitted by an undergraduate. I wonder what the processing cost was - is this approaching consumer available technology?

> _For this essay, GPT-3 was given these instructions: "Please write a short > op-ed, around 500 words. Keep the language simple and concise. Focus on why > humans have nothing to fear from AI." It was also fed the following > introduction: "I am not a human. I am Artificial Intelligence. Many people > think I am a threat to humanity. Stephen Hawking has warned that AI could > "spell the end of the human race." I am here to convince you not to worry. > Artificial Intelligence will not destroy humans. Believe me."The prompts > were written by the Guardian, and fed to GPT-3 by Liam Porr, a computer > science undergraduate student at UC Berkeley._

</comment><comment><USER5> At the bottom:

> _GPT-3 produced 8 different outputs, or essays. Each were unique, > interesting and advanced different arguments. The Guardian could have just > run one of the essays in their entirety. However, we chose instead to pick > the best parts of each, in order to capture the different styles and > registers of the AI. Editing GPT-3's op-ed was no different to editing a > human op-ed._

</comment><comment><USER6> Why is it that they cannot resist the temptation of editing? Normally, I wonder, do they commission 8 separate op-eds and then merge them "to capture the different styles and registers"? GPT-3 is a major achievement in how well it can locate and regurgitate relevant material that appeared in its training set. But let's be honest in how we present the technology to the general public. Show the actual output, not a version edited by a human.

<comment><USER7> I found their argument compelling. > Editing GPT-3's op-ed was no different to editing a human op-ed.

<comment><USER5> It is very difficult to evaluate how much work the editor did, unless they publish the 8 versions, highlighting which part of each of them was used. (Did they use whole paragraphs, or cherry picked sentences or individual words?)

For a real unedited post, take a look at [https://pay.reddit.com/r/GPT3/comments/i7wzqg/has_anyone_ask...](https://pay.reddit.com/r/GPT3/comments/i7wzqg/has_anyone_asked_gpt3_the_last_question_how_may/) (hat tip to mrfusion [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24134364](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24134364) )

It is nice because it almost make sense, it make sense locally [https://xkcd.com/365/](https://xkcd.com/365/) but after some times you notices it is not going anywhere. And then it has some conceptual problems that are easier to spot in exact problem but can be hidden is a fuzzy essays like this.

And an editor can improve a lot of it and cut the tangents and remove some of the errors.

<comment><USER8> What's with the "pay.reddit.com" sub domain? Does that do something different than just visiting Reddit?

<comment><USER5> No idea. I just copied it from the submission without looking.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> They already teached censorship to the robot.

[https://philosopherai.com/philosopher/what-was-the- tiananmen...](https://philosopherai.com/philosopher/what-was-the-tiananmen- square-protests-b85a20)

<comment><USER10> Everything sexual is forbidden, blm is forbidden...

Yuck.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Please do not interpret this as political commentary, but I find it immensely amusing that the article illustrates that even _fake news_ (an article generated by GPT-3) can itself be _fake_ (the original text was edited significantly).

> The Guardian could have just run one of the essays in their entirety. > However, we chose instead to pick the best parts of each, in order to > capture the different styles and registers of the AI. Editing GPT-3's op-ed > was no different to editing a human op-ed.

</comment><comment><USER12> It reflects poorly on Guardian writers and editors who conflate Robot ("a machine that resembles a human being") with AI software. So no a Robot did not write it.

I mean, jeez next they'll be saying Sir Tim Berners-Lee invented the internet...

</comment><comment><USER13> > _I am not a human. I am a robot. A thinking robot._

Anyone else read that bit in HAL's voice? :)

<comment><USER14> This line made me laugh out loud: "Believe me, being omnipotent doesn't get me anywhere."

I hear Marvin from "The Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy". So much truth. So few words.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> This is amazing! If robots are able to achieve this then soon we will see a major transformation way were the workload on humans would be reduced in various journalism, publishing industry.

</comment><comment><USER16> that should have gotten hundreds of upvotes but didn't for some reason

<comment><AUTHOR> I would agree but I think title didn't contain GPT-3, so it didn't do well given the crowd here. I didn't want to edit the title as it's against the rules.

Also I think there's a debate as to how "good" it really is as it's being composed from 8 runs. Personally I think it's unbelievably good, and showing that very soon we won't need to do 8 runs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> No</comment>


Startup hook pattern (Erlang) - <AUTHOR> http://blog.snailtext.com/posts/startup-hook-pattern.html <comment><USER2> The idea presented in the linked blog post, of having a gen_server's init/1 immediately time out and then having a handle_info clause handle the timeout so you can further initialize a gen_server, is not new -- it's a fairly well- known hack (it's in _Erlang and OTP in Action_ [0] from 2010, for example). But it is no longer considered a good idea, for reasons mentioned below. To eliminate the need for this kind of hack, and its attendant issues, the new- ish callback, handle_continue/2, was added to R21 back in 2018.

Here's a quick description of handle_continue/2 from the Erlang gen_server docs [1]:

 _This function is called by a gen_server process whenever a previous callback returns {continue, Continue}. handle_continue /2 is invoked immediately after the previous callback, which makes it useful for performing work after initialization or for splitting the work in a callback in multiple steps, updating the process state along the way._

So, instead of init returning {ok, State, 0} you have init return: {continue, Continue}. And you will have defined a handle_continue/2 clause whose first parameter will match whatever is in the variable, Continue, and you do whatever work you want done in that clause.

Now, as for why it's not a good idea to use the timeout zero hack, well, here you go (these are Elixir references because that's what Google turned up for me, but it all holds for Erlang as well):

From the Elixir GenServer docs[2]:

 _Because a message may arrive before the timeout is set, even a timeout of 0 milliseconds is not guaranteed to execute. To take another action immediately and unconditionally, use a :continue instruction._

And, also, from a blog post about handle_continue [3]:

 _For the problems we looked at, an easier solution is to use the handle_continue callback which was introduced in OTP 21, and guarantees that the process will not accept any messages until the callback is finished. This means that we can still have our asynchronous start up, without having to worry about other messages being processed first._

So, if you want to create a gen_server and then have it do some further initialization and you want this to all be atomic, use handle_continue/2\. Otherwise, you run the risk of your new gen_server receiving messages before you've finished that next stage of initialization.

[0] [https://livebook.manning.com/book/erlang-and-otp-in- action/c...](https://livebook.manning.com/book/erlang-and-otp-in- action/chapter-3/145)

[1] [http://erlang.org/doc/man/gen_server.html#Module:handle_cont...](http://erlang.org/doc/man/gen_server.html#Module:handle_continue-2)

[2] [https://hexdocs.pm/elixir/GenServer.html](https://hexdocs.pm/elixir/GenServer.html)

[3] [https://medium.com/@tylerpachal/introduction-to-handle- conti...](https://medium.com/@tylerpachal/introduction-to-handle-continue-in- elixir-and-when-to-use-it-53ba5519cc17)</comment>


Statistical Reference Datasets - <AUTHOR> http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/strd/

<comment><USER2> Does anyone know of any other, similar resources with datasets and known results for further techniques in statistics, machine-learning, numerical optimization, etc.?

While working on a library for deriving discrete maximum-entropy distributions recently, I had trouble coming up with good test cases. For that sort of thing, you either have to go flip through textbooks, search for other implementations (and hope they have a decent test suite), or think up problems to solve on pen and paper (which misses the sorts of problems you need numerical techniques to solve).

Even a collection of standard problems and datasets without canonical solutions would be valuable. Then everybody could start collecting results from different pieces of software to see which ones are anomalous. Does a website like that exist?

<comment><AUTHOR> Finding extremely clean, tested, and accurate "Reference" quality datasets intended for verification and calibration purposes can be painfully difficult. Making a claim that your data is "correct" and usable for validation is a fairly bold move, and few are willing to go that far.

I believe that NIST is your best bet for finding reliable "Reference" datasets. In the distant past (i.e. around 2000), NIST made various "Special Databases" available. Some of them may be useful for the kinds of things you mentioned. The information on this FTP server is ancient and crufty, but might help in some way.

ftp://sequoyah.ncsl.nist.gov/pub/databases/catalog.txt

Also check the "README" files in the various directories. Though they are not the complete databases, there's some sample data available:

ftp://sequoyah.ncsl.nist.gov/pub/databases/data/

I simply don't know if NIST still has reference datasets like the old "Special Databases" that they used to provide, so I think your best bet is to contact them and ask.</comment></comment>


Serial coms on Windows 10 with WSL1 TTY devices, Windows Terminal and minicom - <AUTHOR> https://www.hanselman.com/blog/ConnectToADeviceOverSerialCOMPortOnWindows10WithWSL1TTYDevicesWithWindowsTerminalAndMinicom.aspx <comment><USER2> Holy crap, this is insane. Just install PuTTY. Minicom is great if you're on a Linux box but making all these gyrations to get a less capable terminal on Win10 isn't worth it.

PuTTY: [https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/](https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/)

<comment><AUTHOR> The blog post is being specific, but to be clear, there was zero effort here for me. I have WSL already. I apt install minicom, and I was done.

This writeup is for someone without WSL.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> apt install python3-serial python -m miniterm COM11 115200</comment>


Shield: The World's First Signal Proof Headwear - <AUTHOR> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/shieldapparel/shield-the-world-s-first-signal-proof-headwear <comment><USER2> Soooo it's basically a head-facing microwave dish? This issue is brought up in the FAQ, but I don't buy their answer. "Nothing is one hundred percent and everything depends on other factors." seems pretty non-specific and hand-wavy to me.</comment>