Pig brains partially revived four hours after death - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-47960874 <comment><USER2> This is from the Nature article on the same subject [1]:

> _[...] Nevertheless, the development of technology with the potential to > support sentient, disembodied organs has broad ethical implications for the > welfare of animals and people. "There isn't really an oversight mechanism in > place for worrying about the possible ethical consequences of creating > consciousness in something that isn't a living animal," says Stephen Latham, > a bioethicist at Yale who worked with Sestan's team. He says that doing so > might be ethically justifiable in some cases — for instance, if it enable > scientists to test drugs for degenerative brain diseases on the organs, > rather than people.

Gauging awareness in a brain outside a body would probably be difficult, given that the organ's surroundings would differ so radically from its natural environment. "We could imagine that brain could be capable of consciousness," says George Mashour, a neuroscientist at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor who studies near-death experiences. "But it's very interesting to think about what kind of consciousness, in the absence of organs and peripheral stimulation. [...]"_

It's also 'very interesting to think' how many more dimensions this could add to torture. This is the end of the article:

> _[...] In the meantime, scientists and governments are left to confront the > legal and ethical quandaries related to the possibility of creating a > conscious brain without a body. "This really is a no-man's land," says Koch. > "The law will probably have to evolve to keep up."

Koch wants a broader ethical discussion to take place before any researcher tries to induce awareness in a disembodied brain. "It is a big, big step," he says. "And once we do it, it's impossible to reverse it."_

Sobering.

[1] [https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01216-4](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01216-4)

</comment><comment><USER3> >a specially designed liquid round the brain, which contained a synthetic blood to carry oxygen and drugs to slow or reverse the death of brain cells.

I had no idea humanity achieved synthetic blood. This is from the study:

>a haemoglobin-based, acellular, non-coagulative, echogenic, and cytoprotective perfusate that promotes recovery from anoxia

Am I the only one excited by what viable synthetic blood might mean for blood banks?

Study is here: [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1099-1](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1099-1)

<comment><USER4> Don't get your hopes up. I worked in a neurology lab where they used something similar years ago. You could keep a pig / rat brain running for a few hours like this, but it would start to fall apart in other ways pretty fast.

<comment><USER5> Is this study then representative with this synthetic blood?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Imagine donating your body to science and then waking up in a lab as a brain in a vat.

"A Living Soul" by P. C. Jersild is amazing sci-fi book exploring this. [https://www.amazon.com/Living-Norvik-Press-English- Swedish/d...](https://www.amazon.com/Living-Norvik-Press-English- Swedish/dp/1870041097/)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._C._Jersild](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._C._Jersild)

<comment><USER7> It'd actually be fantastic. If I've donated my brain to anything like the modern research apparatus, I can be relatively sure of one of two possibilities: Either my brain was chosen as a test, in which case the project is on the news literally worldwide and the ethics have had the crap argued out of them and I can be sure that any limitations of the environment are due to technological shortcomings and I get to participate in fixing it, or I'm part of a follow-up trial or large-scale roll-out, in which case they'll have fixed up the rest of the issues. In the first case I get to be a grad student again, albeit with a bit of a disability. In the second case, I'm catching a rez from a reasonably reliable medical procedure and the major issues have already been worked out. In both cases I'm no longer dead, and these scenarios are nowhere near having enough downsides to outweigh that.

<comment><USER8> Option 3: the experience of being disconnected from your body is so distressing that you can do nothing but attempt (and fail) to scream. The scientists have no idea you are in distress. This goes on for months or years. By the time technology develops to a point where they can communicate with you, you are irreparably broken.

<comment><USER9> Couldn't they monitor brain activity for common pain modalities?

<comment><USER10> They currently ignore them. Not talking fantasy.

When beating heart corpses (technically brain dead but body is alive) have their organs removed, in some cases the bodies go through symptoms of a live human being killed by vivisection. These are generally ignored.

Let's hope our understanding of brain death is fully and completely correct.

<comment><USER11> Years ago, I saw a TV interview of the first recipient of a heart-lung transplant.

When asked some question post surgery, she blurted "I could really use a beer!" She didn't drink, but the young male donor of her organs who died in a motorcycle crash did.

She wrote a book about her experience. Initially, she had bizarre dreams, as if tapping into the psyche of her organ donor. Over time, those stopped.

Mention of this tends to not go over well on HN, though it would be easy enough to google who got the first heart-lung transplant, find her book and read it to confirm if I'm making this up or misremembering it or if it's a true story (at least insofar as me remembering that she claimed such things).

<comment><USER12> Given how much my personality shifts from relatively minor things like switching between high/low carb diets, or medium things like whatever was in my drip when I went under general anaesthetic, I totally believe that her personality was changed by having a transplant, or separately by her anti- rejection meds.

I'd be surprised if most such changes have statistically strong correlation with organ donor personalities.

<comment><USER11> _I totally believe that her personality was changed by having a transplant, or separately by her anti-rejection meds._

Thanks.

 _I'd be surprised if most such changes have statistically strong correlation with organ donor personalities._

So would I.

I'm not talking about _most such changes_ or statistical significance. I'm talking about one specific case that was unusually well documented and highly scrutinized that potentially supports the idea that "souls" \-- or something we might describe with that word -- might actually be real.

A high percentage of people go to church or otherwise have some kind of spiritual belief. But some kind of scientific affirmation that this isn't simply adult thumb sucking and there may be something to it seems pretty uncommon.

I found her story interesting from that angle.

But, I mean, if your mind is made up that souls are nonsense, then you are probably not the target audience for my comment.

<comment><USER13> Personality transfer by transfer of parts of the body other than the brain, even if it was clear from h evidence, isn't scientific affirmation of the soul, it's scientific reinforcement that the "self" is contained in the body not some separate soul. It contradicts the understanding that the seat of the self in the body is solely and exclusively the brain, but that doesn't support the idea of the soul.

<comment><USER11> Not enough qualifiers for you? Putting _souls_ in quotation marks and adding _or something we might describe with that word_ wasn't adequate?

<comment><USER12> I'm going to have to say "no"; the word comes with a lot of cultural baggage, and it's not clear what you might mean by "something we might describe with that word" if not Cartesian dualism — not because there are no possibilities, just because those alternatives are not well known.

<comment><USER11> I'm aware it comes with baggage. That's why I made an effort to qualify it.

I don't personally think it's hugely important whether one prefers the framing of _self_ over _soul._ The woman told a tale that credibly suggested she got something of his consciousness in the exchange, not just his physical organs.

I realize it matters a whole lot to most people which framing gets used. Again, this is why I did my best to qualify it.

<comment><USER13> > I don't personally think it's hugely important whether one prefers the > framing of _self_ over _soul_.

The existence of the _self_ , and it being seated in physical organs, is noncontroversial, and in no way particular associated with the spiritual belief of people who go to church. The idea that the self is seated somewhere distinct from the body—the _soul_ —is. So, I think that the "framing" is quite relevant to the connections you tried to draw upthread.

Which isn't to say it's not an interesting anecdote (though, on its own, of very little probative value) either way.

<comment><USER11> I was replying to a comment that ended with "Let's hope our understanding of brain death is fully and completely correct."

It seemed pertinent to that line of thinking.

There's a fairly rich history of Western Christians who were serious scientists and also sincere believers in God who argued that belief is a matter of faith, God is not provable and there is zero contradiction between being both a Christian and a scientist.

I don't have some personal need to relitigate that point. I'm very aware that some people frame things in terms of religion and some don't.

I don't personally feel it is critically important to pick a camp in order to see the story this woman told as intriguing and potentially casting light upon or at least calling into question some of our current framing concerning brain death being the single most important detail.

I know it's a touchy subject for most people. Whether they believe in a soul and a religious/spiritual framing or not, they tend to feel strongly that the other camp is in the wrong and that this is a really big deal.

I generally agree with the conclusion that "being a believer" is a matter of faith. Some people believe. Some don't.

I believe in souls and reincarnation and so forth. My ex did not. Everyone swore that a marriage could not work if you didn't have the same belief system in that regard.

We both believed in the American Constitutional right of freedom to believe as you saw fit. It was the only thing we didn't fight about in two decades of non stop arguing.

Having different points of view in this matter had no bearing on the decision to divorce.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Throwing it out there—when I'm dead, you are _totally_ allowed to resuscitate my brain. Better than being dead.

Please make sure I am supplied with some good books to read, if at all possible.

<comment><USER15> I can't relate to this at all. When I'm dead, I'd like to cease. I have no desire for my brain to outlast my body.

<comment><USER16> Will you know you're dead though? If they have the technology to bring your brain back, they probably have the technology to make your brain think you're still in your body and you woke up.

<comment><USER15> I'm alive now and my wishes are to not experience this.

<comment><USER17> Are you though?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Immediately reminded me of that unforgettable movie in which a 1WW soldier who have lost all his sensory inputs and motor control and is still alive brain is used for experiments.

Movie title is "Johnny got his gun". No idea how mainstream it is but i suspect not that much.

If you believe nothing could be worse than death, you should consider to watch it.

<comment><USER19> It was relatively unknown until Metallica based a popular song and video on it.

<comment><USER20> Perhaps, but we read it in my high school English class, in a small midwestern town in the 1980's, so it wasn't _that_ obscure.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> What am I missing here?

Rodent studies routinely use whole brain and slice tissues for long term neuro-experimentation [0]. You can keep slices alive for days on end, if you're careful [1]. Is it just that it's a whole pig brain that they used these tried and true techniques with? Ischemia isn't something to laugh at, it's very tough to deal with. But the 'ethical' issues have long been put to bed, we've been doing this since 1951 [2]

[0] [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28744893](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28744893)

[1] [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9914290](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9914290)

[2] McIlwain, H., Buchel, L. & Cheshire, J. D. The inorganic phosphate and phosphocreatine of Brain especially during metabolism in vitro. Biochem. J. 48, 12–20 (1951).

</comment><comment><USER22> Anyone here considered cryo? the only thing putting me off is being trapped in an infinite torture with some bitter robot overlord. The good thing about death is just that. No one can suffer infinitely. We get to die. I read a short story once where this kind of happens. It's the end of time and 3 people are stuck in an evil machine who keeps them alive. Then one guy kills/free's 2 of the others. Can't remember what it was called. May have been an Asimov short. As far as I know cryo can be as little as £30 a month on a life insurance plan. Backing people up will become big business if they can show everyone there is nothing metaphysical about the mind.

<comment><USER23> I have no mouth and I must scream [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Have_No_Mouth,_and_I_Must_...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Have_No_Mouth,_and_I_Must_Scream)

Is it this?

<comment><USER22> wow. amazing. so much came back to me reading that. was a long time ago. thanks!. But ye, before this book I was well up for cryo. Since, I've decided death is probably for me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> If this technology pans out, and there doesn't seem to be anything fundamental against it, the future will be very different from what I imagined. Medical treatment, space travel and exploration, even _retirement_ may have gotten a lot more interesting.

<comment><USER25> Not really. We know that oxygen-starved brain quickly destroys itself in minutes, unless very cold. So even if you can revive a brain after hours, it will not be a very good brain.

<comment><USER24> Why would anyone wait a few hours after death to do the technique? Wouldn't it make more sense to do it right away, and get the brain into its new medium? Right now there's all the limitations of something that's a nascent technology, but the methods should surely be improved as time goes on.

<comment><USER25> Cause it takes time to get to the hospital that does the procedure and it takes time to start the procedure.

<comment><USER26> Train first responders to do it. There's already a pilot program for blood transfusions and it's already saving lives: [https://wtop.com/virginia/2019/03/new-fire-and-rescue- progra...](https://wtop.com/virginia/2019/03/new-fire-and-rescue-program- delivers-blood-trapped-crash-victims/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Fulltext: [https://www.gwern.net/docs/longevity/2019-vrselja.pdf](https://www.gwern.net/docs/longevity/2019-vrselja.pdf)

_Nature_ overview/discussions: [https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01216-4](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01216-4) [https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01168-9](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01168-9)

</comment><comment><USER28> "Mostly dead is slightly alive!"

<comment><USER29> Was slightly disappointed that none of the researchers' names was Max.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Freezing your head might be good idea. If one day you could simulate a braina and scan a brain in sufficient detail just freezing might be enough to keep sufficient detail.

Who you are must be in chemistry of your brain not in the electricity because you are same person after epileptic seizure as before.

<comment><USER31> This presumes that you _are_ the same person after a seizure, or even after a nap, or even after half a minute of ordinary life, or even a unitary "person" to begin with.

<comment><USER30> That's a philosophical question (i.e. useless).

You are same enough for practical purposes like holding relationships and retaining knowledge and skills.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Cellular revived not neurally coherent?

</comment><comment><USER33> Frankenstein has taught us nothing uh?

<comment><USER34> Idle thought: Frankenstein with VC money...

"Yeah, we're raising our series A so we can ink a deal with a Chinese morgue for a steady supply of parts to stitch together, and to scale up our electricity generation to the needed amount so we don't have to depend on the odd lightning bolt, which turns out to be really rare here in Palo Alto"

<comment><USER35> That could be a great short, or a novel.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Wait, isn't this how the zombie apocalypse normally starts?

<comment><USER37> That's precisely what I was thinking!

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I don't see why they bothered drugging the brains. Even if they became conscious, the pig's bodies are dead and gone. There is nothing to feel, one is simply alone with their thoughts, perhaps even dreams.

<comment><USER39> We don't know what a brain disconnected from all sensory inputs feels. It could be agonizing pain for all that we know.

<comment><USER40> It sure seems like patterns of cortical activation (or something like that) could be compared to some sort of waking standard to take a very good measured guess at some point.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: When does it make sense to develop your product as open source? - <AUTHOR>

I'm in the process of starting a company that's developing a PaaS product to help developers deploy and roll back releases across development, QA and production environments. This is a venture that will, at some point, require seed funding to take it past the MVP stage.
The model we're leaning towards currently is to release the software as open source, to encourage a more rapid adoption, while the company sells ongoing support contracts, custom integration, training and consultancy. Because of the nature of the project, it doesn't make sense for it to be offered as a hosted service.
When does it make sense to do this, and when is it more likely to cause failure? Is it something that would immediately put investors off, or would they still see value in it? Is it a model suitable only for bootstrapped companies? <comment><USER2> Tom Preston, the co-founder of Github had some interesting things to say about the benefits of open sourcing almost everything that the company creates. [http://tom.preston-werner.com/2011/11/22/open-source- everyth...](http://tom.preston-werner.com/2011/11/22/open-source- everything.html)

But a deeper question is what problem are you trying to solve with another PaaS product that is not already served by the likes of Heroku, Dotcloud, Stackato, OpenShift, CloudFoundry, etc?

The last two (OpenShift and CloudFoundry) are already open source PaaS solutions that you can use either on-premise or hosted externally. Read more on my post comparing these four providers. [http://appsembler.com/blog/paas- bakeoff-comparing-stackato-o...](http://appsembler.com/blog/paas-bakeoff- comparing-stackato-openshift-dotcloud-and-heroku-for-django-hosting-and- deployment/)

I can tell you from experience that building and supporting a PaaS is a lot of work, and I think it will be difficult to make it sustainable unless you are offering it as a hosted service.

The only other provider that I know that is not offering a hosted PaaS is ActiveState's Stackato, and they have 15 years of experience selling to enterprise customers.

</comment><comment><USER3> If it is released as open source, how do you identify potential clients for your services? And under a professional services model, they are clients, not customers.

How do you ensure that those downloading early versions of the software have a positive enough initial experience to commit to its use, in the absence of support...i.e. how do you get them to put up with perceived bugs, lack of features, cumbersome workflow, etc without some hand holding? It seems to me that a lack of upfront commitment contributes to few open source projects obtaining critical mass.

Products released for free start several disadvantages - the user has low expectations for value, support costs are unfunded, and the loose relationship between the developer and the user makes it difficult to have long insightful discussions about the user's needs.

Ultimately, the value proposition of the project you describe needs to fall within those typical of B2B, not ad supported smartphone apps.

The last question is, are you scratching your own itch as a developer with this project, or is it a startup idea?

Good luck.

<comment><AUTHOR> > If it is released as open source, how do you identify potential clients for > your services?

I think there's two parts to that. There's more traditional marketing, where you're offering a solution, which just happens to utilise your own open source product, and then there's engagement with existing users who have indicated, through support and discussion channels, that they're interested in the product but need something more.

> Products released for free start several disadvantages - the user has low > expectations for value

To an extent, expectations can be managed. In my experience, a professional- looking web site with well-written tutorial and reference material can make a big difference to the initial impression.

> support costs are unfunded, and the loose relationship between the developer > and the user makes it difficult to have long insightful discussions about > the user's needs.

But is that not mitigated by the offer of paid support? Then support costs are funded, and there is a stricter relationship between vendor and customer. Is that much different to the relationship with a customer you've actually sold the product to?

> The last question is, are you scratching your own itch as a developer with > this project, or is it a startup idea?

It started out as an itch while working for a previous employer, but it wasn't scratchable there. So now it's a startup idea.

We know what product we want to build, we're just not sure what kind of company we want to build around it. As it's still in development, we don't have to make the decision yet, but it's something we need to think about along the way.

<comment><USER3> _"there's engagement with existing users who have indicated, through support and discussion channels, that they're interested in the product but need something more."_

This heads toward what I was, perhaps inarticulately, getting at.

In order for your product to gain traction, that strategy requires users to suffer up the learning curve without your help, or it requires you to offer free support to non-paying customers.

It's a solid way to avoid getting to "No." I'm not convinced it's a solid conversion strategy and thus an efficient use of runway...at least in the free support scenario. On the other hand, a no-support strategy doesn't really sell what you want to be selling.

To me, as essentially a B2B solution, it's gotta' either worth money out of the gate, or considered a non-starter. If users can muddle along with it for free, then the value proposition of $10,000 a year in services is a tough conversion, particularly if it is targeted at small shops. If it is targeted at large shops, then it needs to be priced at $10,000 a month just to fund the level of support required.

To come back to my final question, are you going to use this PaaS to build the PaaS?

<comment><AUTHOR> > In order for your product to gain traction, that strategy requires users to > suffer up the learning curve without your help, or it requires you to offer > free support to non-paying customers.

That wasn't how I was looking at it. I was thinking of it more as being a free product for those people who can comfortably use it without support, and essentially a paid product for people who need the support. Isn't that the usual "open source for enterprise" model -- for example, Red Hat?

> To come back to my final question, are you going to use this PaaS to build > the PaaS?

I'm not sure how that question makes sense. It's a piece of software, not something we're deploying ourselves. If it was open source, it would probably be hosted (source, downloads, documentation and all) on GitHub. Of course we'll have 'dummy' apps we deploy with it for testing, but that's not the PaaS itself.

<comment><USER3> 1\. My understanding is that Red Hat started out selling Red Hat Linux on disks - the internet in 1994 was not much of a distribution channel for large pieces of software. I would add that the attractiveness of a free OS can justify a larger expenditure on support than most tools - i.e. Red Hat solved a big problem for a lot of IT organizations with deep pockets.

see: <http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/History_of_Red_Hat_Linux>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> When the market is commoditized and ready for standardization. Standardization that understands the practical difficulties of current development model would be a huge advantage. In your case, standardization of data access (RDBMS/NoSQL), multitenancy & stateless/stateful scaling. Standardization pushed for the sake of it will end up like SOAP (vs REST) or Entity beans (vs Hibernate).

</comment><comment><USER5> You mention developing a PaaS product, then you go on to describe a business model based around professional services (PS). By definition, they contradict each other. Also, a product-based business and PS are very different businesses and has different ways of scaling revenue and marketing.

Decide which is it first.

<comment><AUTHOR> Right, so in the case of releasing the product as open source, the product is not the business, it's something to base a PS business around. I see this as something similar to, say, 10gen with MongoDB.

By 'service' in this case I'm really talking about internal services that an IT department provides to developers, rather than something hosted by a third- party, and I use the term because it's analogous functionality. By having a product that you can run yourself, you can maintain a coherent system that works across the whole development runway, reducing deployment failures that are caused by mis-matched environments. (This is very much came from an itch that needed to be scratched.)

Because it's something for an in-house IT department to provide, just as they would provide code repository hosting and bug tracking, there would likely be a need for training, for consulting, and for integration with existing business systems.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I don't seem to be able to edit my post, so I'll add this clarification: it's a PaaS-like product that you'd host both internally and in the cloud to provide a homogenous platform for your developers across the entire runway.</comment>


Why New York Subway Lines Are Missing Countdown Clocks (2015) - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/11/why-dont-we-know-where-all-the-trains-are/415152/ <comment><USER3> > Having full-time software experts running the show turned out to be crucial. > Previous incarnations of the project didn't have a technical leader at the > MTA—just old-school senior managers who would try to wrangle the contractors > by force of will. The new in-house team, by contrast, was qualified to > define exactly what they wanted from software providers in terms those > providers could understand. They were qualified to evaluate progress. They > could sniff out problems early.

I think this is the most important topic in this article. Government projects cost so much and take so long because there is always a disconnect between the institution paying for the work and the institution doing the work. One can't reliably measure the other's capabilities and knowledge and so it becomes a murky relationship (one that is also easily exploited by persons on both sides willing to make their paychecks fatter).

<comment><USER4> As someone who works in the power utility industry - an industry that has slowly moved from monolithic, often publicly-owned monopolies to a competitive market where lots of functions are contracted out to service providers - <USER2> feel that a lot of this is symptomatic of that process.

In the 'old days' when we built lots of large infrastructure projects like the New York subway, various energy megaprojects, the interstate highway system, etc. nearly all technical functions were done in-house at the government or quasi-government agency responsible.

Now we have become 'leaner' and pared down many government agencies to project management only (sometimes just business management - projects is contracted out too), but it's not that easy to manage construction of a subway or a 500 kV transmission line if you don't actually have the base of relevant knowledge internally. Suddenly you have 25-year-olds fresh of out of engineering school being christened 'Senior Project Manager' and put in charge of a large, very complex technical project when 40 years ago, they would have been doing basic design and learning their trade as an engineer under the direction of a phalanx of senior engineers. Then we pat ourselves on the back for 'saving' loads of money by reducing headcount in the public sector when actual total cost of ownership has escalated.

The people actually doing the nuts-and-bolts engineering and construction work have no ownership in the project because the second that contractual completion is declared it's off to the next one.

Right now I am working for a power company that refuses to hire its own project or commissioning engineers, instead contracting management, oversight and quality control of its construction projects to a litany of 3rd parties. Unsurprisingly, it means very few if any people in our company have the expertise to understand what's going on when a project is off the rails. The result is endless delays while senior management wrings their hands and brings in yet more consultants to manage the other consultants.

<comment><USER5> "Now we have become 'leaner' and pared down"

This happens in the Private Sector as well. I work for a _manufacturing_ company with 6+ facilities (two major, third major greenfield in design and 3 minor facilities) We have 3 engineers for the whole company. We mostly just manage the contracted engineering firms. It sucks for me as a "junior" Senior Project Engineer because I rarely get a chance to learn what my contractors are doing, too busy managing them and coordinating. Naturally, in order to be a better PM I need to know their skills at least at a 500' level. Hard to learn to code PLCs when I'm too busy managing 5 PLC programmers on a project for a month or two, then moving onto something else that might not even have a PLC involved.

<comment><USER4> Early on in my career, a manager of mine told me about his first few years on the job after being hired by Ontario Hydro (at that time the integrated generation and transmission utility for all of Ontario) in the late 1960s. The first two years was pure training and basically an extension of your engineering degree except specifically applied to the typical problems and practices of the power utility.

Of course, in those days a utility job came with a generous pension, a seniority-based career track and an expectation that you would likely retire there, so anything invested in a young employee was just investing in the company itself.

Large engineering employers no longer feel the same social compact with the profession to train young engineers and make experts out of them. Not only do they not set aside time for employees to learn, there often aren't any seniors around for them to learn from because the company hasn't bothered to create a meaningful career track for engineers. It's promotion up to management or stagnation at entry-level pay. With little meaningful prospect of advancement in their technical career and no pension 'golden handcuffs', there's no incentive for employees to stick around. Once they become experienced, they split for the contractor they used to manage, creating a vicious cycle that drains the utility company of talent.

<comment><USER6> > anything invested in a young employee was just investing in the company > itself.

We often discuss the modern lack of perks you listed, but we rarely discuss this consequence.

I recently left a tech company and was surprised when engineering management showed no interest in learning why I had left. It makes sense not to worry about -me-, but why not worry about the workers who haven't left?

I concluded that since places assume you will leave within 3 years (I was at 3.5), they dont really concern themselves with trying to counter that and consider it normal, which becomes a self-prophecy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The countdown clocks have been be implemented more than 2 years after the OP article came out: "After 11 years, every NYC subway station finally has countdown clocks"

[https://ny.curbed.com/2018/1/2/16840622/mta-nyc-subway- count...](https://ny.curbed.com/2018/1/2/16840622/mta-nyc-subway-countdown- clock-installation-finished)

The OP article is still relevant for understanding the dysfunctions of the MTA.

</comment><comment><USER8> >You want fewer delays? You want realtime countdown clocks? CBTC is the answer

What crap. For nearly 100 years the subway has been just fine, and after 10-15 years of corruption and mismanagement we're expected to believe the only solution is a multi-billion dollar upgrade with technology that didnt even exist the last time the system was functioning properly?

I dont think lack of computer controlled trains is the problem here:

[https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/05/09/nyregion/subw...](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/05/09/nyregion/subway- crisis-mta-decisions-signals-rules.html)

[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/18/nyregion/new-york- subway-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/18/nyregion/new-york-subway- system-failure-delays.html)

>Signal problems and car equipment failures occur twice as frequently as a decade ago, but hundreds of mechanic positions have been cut because there is not enough money to pay them — even though the average total compensation for subway managers has grown to well over $200,000 a year.

Daily ridership has nearly doubled in the past two decades to 5.7 million, but New York is the only major city in the world with fewer miles of track than it had during World War II. Efforts to add new lines have been hampered by generous agreements with labor unions and private contractors that have inflated construction costs to five times the international average.

New York's subway now has the worst on-time performance of any major rapid transit system in the world, according to data collected from the 20 biggest. Just 65 percent of weekday trains reach their destinations on time

<comment><USER9> The subway hasn't been "just fine" for the past 100 years. Up until the '80s disinvestment was the norm, to the point where pieces of elevated track were literally falling on people on the streets below. It takes a long time to correct 50+ years of deferred maintenance, and we're not out of the woods yet.

Fewer miles of track is a legacy of that time period, as subway replacements for demolished elevated lines never came, and then elevated lines had to be demolished because they were a safety hazard.

As far as construction costs go, the problem is actually that the MTA is not involved in construction union negotiations _at all_ , and the firms are more than happy to oblige the unions and pass on the cost to their captive consumer. The barrier to entry for new firms is quite high due to byzantine NYS bidding rules as a result of '20s era reform, and even if you could have a new firm start up they'd be hiring from the same pool of workers; it's not as if specialized construction workers can be hired on visa.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york- subway-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway- construction-costs.html)

> At the heart of the issue is the obscure way that construction costs are set > in New York. Worker wages and labor conditions are determined through > negotiations between the unions and the companies, none of whom have any > incentive to control costs. The transit authority has made no attempt to > intervene to contain the spending.

<comment><USER8> Thanks for the insight. I will look into that law more. It doesnt excuse the political process that has kept it on the books though.

<comment><USER9> The main issue is that New Yorkers are extremely cynical and detached from the elections process, particularly on state and local elections which tend to take place on non-presidential years. Ocasio-Cortez and Gounardes showed that it is _possible_ to turn things around if voters are motivated enough, but for the most part they aren't, and party machine politicians on both sides would like to keep it that way.

<comment> barrow-rider > is possible to turn things around if voters are motivated enough, but for > the most part they aren't, and party machine politicians on both sides would > like to keep it that way.

Reminds me of David Foster Wallace...

> "If you are bored and disgusted by politics and don't bother to vote, you > are in effect voting for the entrenched Establishments of the two major > parties, who please rest assured are not dumb, and who are keenly aware that > it is in their interests to keep you disgusted and bored and cynical and to > give you every possible reason to stay at home doing one-hitters and > watching MTV on primary day. By all means stay home if you want, but don't > bullshit yourself that you're not voting. In reality, there is no such thing > as not voting: you either vote by voting, or you vote by staying home and > tacitly doubling the value of some Diehard's vote."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> "They even put out a video that gleefully shows off the worst stuff. Look at how broken it is! Look at how old!"

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mjx3S3UjmnA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mjx3S3UjmnA)

Well made video that helps understand the interlocks - if you like antique systems!

<comment><USER11> Interesting video. I'll confess I still don't understand why it's so hard to keep track of the position of subway cars in real time. I can think of any number of ways to do that more or less trivially. (For instance, they already have to run power on a third rail, don't they? What's wrong with time-domain reflectometry?)

Seems that using lots of inexpensive redundant sensors would achieve the necessary fault tolerance and avoid frequent maintenance shutdowns. It sounds like they have instead elected to implement a monolithic system with a lot of expensive hardware at both the station and car levels. I guess that's how they (don't) roll in New York.

<comment><USER12> > I'll confess I still don't understand why it's so hard to keep track of the > position of subway cars in real time. I can think of any number of ways to > do that more or less trivially.

That's the source of a lot of error in project estimates, since it is trivial to come up with plans _before_ considering the details.

Phrasing it as a software project: "I don't understand why it is so hard to find information on the internet. All of the pages are available through HTTP web servers, aren't they? What's wrong with just downloading them all?"

<comment><USER11> I don't follow you. How is keeping track of the position of a small number of subway cars in a limited geographical area anywhere near as abstract a problem as "finding information on the Internet?"

This is a relatively-trivial engineering exercise with any number of safe, efficient solutions. If someone says it will take a billion dollars to solve the problem, _that_ is the person you should demand proof from.

<comment><USER13> _> This is a relatively-trivial engineering exercise with any number of safe, efficient solutions._

Your comments here are another great example of how ironic it is to hear the word "trivial" used to describe solutions. Don't you think it's a little unrealistic that your "relatively-trivial engineering exercise" suggestions are capable of successfully tackling a problem so many parties have thought about? Have you considered that your insight is actually failing to account for a variety of unknown unknowns you might have about the NYC subway system?

Look at it this way: why do you suppose your suggestions haven't been implemented yet? Do you think the vast array of parties with skin in the game haven't thought of them (and are thus incompetent)? Do you think they simply aren't motivated to implement them?

I wouldn't be surprised if your proposals are technically sound (especially for greenfield rail construction). But I would be absolutely shocked if the problem is anywhere near as trivial as you're making it out to be.

<comment><USER11> _Have you considered that your insight is actually failing to account for a variety of unknown unknowns you might have about the NYC subway system?_

No. Whatever the unknown unknowns are, they're not going to be _that_ hard to work around. Keeping track of a few train cars isn't exactly the Manhattan Project, even if it has to be done underneath Manhattan.

The video suggests that the total budget for the CBTC retrofit was in the vicinity of $1 billion. I hope that I either misinterpreted it, or that the budget includes other improvements, because I doubt it cost that much (in 2018 dollars) to build the initial subway routes in the first place.

 _Look at it this way: why do you suppose your suggestions haven 't been implemented yet? Do you think the vast array of parties with skin in the game haven't thought of them (and are thus incompetent)? Do you think they simply aren't motivated to implement them?_

I think the vast array of parties with skin in the game have treated said "skin" as a target for optimization in itself. I'll readily admit they're likely better at that game than I am.

<comment><USER13> How can you say with any confidence that the unknown unknowns you have won't be very hard to work around? That's entirely the point of unknown unknowns - you don't know what you don't know.

<comment><USER11> (Shrug) I know how to figure out where some subway cars are and keep track of them for less than nine figures. I don't expect anyone to take my word for it, and I don't care if they don't; it's just an excuse for some meaningless chest-thumping on HN while waiting for Vivado to do its thing. :-P

If I lived in New York and had to pay for it, I'd probably find the question less interesting and more infuriating.

<comment><USER14> I would encourage you to submit a problem statement with your proposed method to TCRP research program [0,1]. Unfortunately the 2019 solicitation is closed, but the 2020 solicitation will open early next year. A better vehicle tracking method than the current block-level tracking is something that would be valuable to sub-surface transit system in the USA and if what you propose (or something similar) is feasible, the statement stands a real good chance of getting funded for a research project. And if the project is funded, you can even bid on the research work. I'm active on the TBR ADC040 subcommittee, if you have questions, hit me up (my twitter is on my profile) and I'll see if I can connect you to the right person.

I write this in all seriousness - this isn't a "if you're so smart why don't you do it" post, I'm writing this in acknowledgement that there are a lot of smart people on HN, and if there's a chance to improve US transit, I'm all for it.

[0] [http://www.trb.org/TCRP/AboutTCRP.aspx](http://www.trb.org/TCRP/AboutTCRP.aspx) [1] [http://www.trb.org/TCRP/TCRPOverview.aspx](http://www.trb.org/TCRP/TCRPOverview.aspx)

<comment><USER11> I hear you, but unfortunately, I have no insights that any random EE (or advanced hobbyist) with some DSP experience wouldn't immediately bring up as well. It's safe to say that anything I could suggest has already ended up in plenty of proposals.

It would be interesting to understand just why this is considered a $100M-$1B problem, though. I'm curious enough to do some more reading.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The countdown clocks really show the distance to the train, not the time it will take to arrive (it's more correct that it shows estimated time). I.e. it can be stuck at 5 min for 15 minutes. It would make more sense to actually show that distance in addition to the ETA.

<comment><USER16> The ETA tells the average passenger what they want to know. What good does knowing the distance do you? If the ETA is bad the analysis should be improved. There's little point in encouraging the passenger to try to outsmart that analysis. The designer of the system has much more information to work with.

Sure it would be be nice to supply that information in some open API somewhere though.

<comment><USER17> People can count stops. And they will learn what it means for their frequented stations.

At unfamiliar stations just be conforted that's it's monotonic :).

<comment><USER18> Time makes a lot more sense than stops: for example, at Columbus Circle in NYC, a downtown A train that's one stop away is about 3.5 miles out. A downtown 1 train that's one stop away is less than a half mile out. Except if the downtown A train is running local, in which case it's then about a half mile out.

Time, on the other hand, can be meaningfully displayed to a rider no matter what information they already know. (It's also fairly accurate in practice in my experience.)

<comment><USER15> It's accurate as long as trains are moving. As soon as they are stalled, that time stops reflecting the real one. So showing the distance at least gives a more appropriate info, instead of showing "5 min" for 15 minutes (which is annoying).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This is an old-ish (2015) but excellent article, the best summary of the myriad challenges with fixing the New York subway that I've read.

</comment><comment><USER20> Why hasn't some kid with a couple Raspberry Pies and a laser and sensor guerillaed up how to sense when the train is X distance from some stop and heading this way - with some mailing list of people to text when the train approaches?

</comment><comment><USER21> I live off the Carroll stop talked about in this 2015 article. We got countdown clocks last year.

<comment><USER22> Do people still stand around outside or do they utilize the new clocks for advice on train arrivals?

<comment><USER21> They don't stand around outside. You can see the ETA boarding before swiping, and again on the platform.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I grew up in NYC back when a normal family could live in Manhattan. I always wondered why they didn't suspend service between midnight and 5AM on weekdays for scheduled maintenance. Move half the maintenance people to midnight shift so avoid all the overtime they pay now.

Not mentioned in the article is that the NYC subway system is controlled by Albany, not NYC.

</comment><comment><USER24> I used to take the F train into the city every day for 2 years back when I lived in NY. That ride is something I miss very much... such peaceful downtime before wifi and all that.

<comment><USER25> And what decade were you in NYC? Because the F train of the past ten years is constantly overcrowded, delayed nearly every day, and often out of service on the weekends.

<comment><USER24> I lived in NY 2003-2006

<comment><USER26> Yep you left before it got bad.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Discussed at the time: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10566776](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10566776)

</comment><comment><USER28> Uneconomically high salaries, and uneconomic job security provide a powerful incentive to slow down projects.

</comment><comment><USER29> We don't need countdown clocks, we need door-to-door commutes at 200kph with no stops or train changes. The Boring Company should be able to drill around and under.

The Subway is like something from a bygone era:

> All track on the New York subway (and on most American rail) is broken into > sections, here about 1,000 feet long. An electric current is constantly > running in a loop through each section. When a train enters a section, it > short-circuits the loop, which allows the system to know that the section is > occupied. The signals behind it automatically turn red.

> Fixed-block signaling systems, in use since the late 1800s, keep trains from > getting too close to one another. The neat thing about subway signals, as > opposed to the ones you find on the road, is that they actually force you to > stop. When a signal is red, a footlong metal T called (appropriately) a > "train stop" protrudes above the track; each train car has a corresponding > "trip cock" on its wheel frame connected to the emergency brakes. If you > were to drive by a stop signal the train stop would hit the trip cock and > you'd screech to a halt.

<comment><USER30> Public transport will always be a loss business if you want to serve all areas and not just the rich. Private companies are always going to try to make as much profit as possible, this includes profit over safety if they can get away with it.

What we need is a reorganization of the public transport sector with competent long term planning and the funds to achieve it.

But as long as corruption, incompetence, cronyism and a complete lack of the public willing to pay for it. It won't happen.

<comment><USER31> Japan's train system is the envy of the world and is privatized. There are at least 10 different companies running public transportation in Tokyo alone. 3 to 5 in Kyoto.

<comment><USER32> Don't those companies also control a lot of details development arouns stations, which essentially subsidizes the trains?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Searching for Signal: The how and why of financial models for startups - <AUTHOR> http://paulbennetts.co/searching-for-signal-the-how-and-why-of-financial-models-for-startups/

<comment><USER2> This is a superb essay. I really like the focus on 30 line bottoms up spreadsheets for clarifying thinking and trying to avoid assumptions that are impossibly high.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks appreciate it!

<comment><USER3> Wish you had an RSS feed instead of signing up for an email newsletter.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry!</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is there startup that reviews pitch decks? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> You should just get an experienced designer to review it and help you create a good story.</comment>


Why Philosophers make formidable entrepreneurs (2010) - <AUTHOR> http://blog.samidh.com/2010/03/08/why-philosophers-make-formidable-entrepreneurs/

<comment><USER2> Anyone interested in how to put philosophy/psychology to use in business should check out Charles Munger's essays. He is Warren Buffet's partner with great set of talks on _good_ decision making.

This is one of my favorite talks from him: <http://www.rbcpa.com/Mungerspeech_june_95.pdf>

</comment><comment><USER3> Yes! Philosophy, imo, is the most important subject that anyone can take in college. It's the meta subject because it helps you figure out HOW to think about any other subject which is way more useful than WHAT to think about any particular subject (e.g. CS, biology, history).

<comment><USER4> I disagree with your comment completely. It's not that philosophy teaches us _how_ to think, and sciences teach us _what_ to think. Philosophy teaches us how to pose questions. As soon as we are able to address those questions the problem becomes science (e.g. natural philosophy--> physics, philosophy of mind--> psychology, etc.)

<comment><USER5> Saying that all philosophical topics are just embryonic scientific topics is just as reductive and rigid as dividing the two by "how" and "what".

Philosophy of mind is probably the dominant research area in contemporary philosophy, and I think you'd find a lot that doesn't overlap at all with empirical psychology.

<comment><USER4> >Philosophy of mind is probably the dominant research area in contemporary philosophy, and I think you'd find a lot that doesn't overlap at all with empirical psychology.

It's not really my area of expertise, but maybe the reason that philosophy of mind is such a big research area in contemporary philosophy is because we haven't figured out how to study mind yet. Once we figure out the correct _questions_ about things like consciousness, we should be able to address them scientifically (much like we are doing with perception, learning, etc. through neuroscience), or figure out why it can't be addressed scientifically, or come to some kind of other logical conclusion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> My undergrad used to offer an inter-departmental major between Computer Science and Philosophy. At first I thought it was crazy, but there were many overlaps: formal proving, digital logic and hardware, AI, and many more.</comment>


Beyond the type system - <AUTHOR> http://lucteo.ro/2018/06/17/beyond-the-type-system/ <comment><USER2> The purpose of a type system is to allow the programmer to more fully express their intent in a way that allows static analysis to reject code which runs counter to that intent. Not to alter the compiled code.

That there's no difference between a const ptr and a ref at runtime is irrelevant, because there's a significant difference at compile time.

<comment><USER3> A good type system can affect the compiled code through valuable static analysis, though. Recognising when optimisations are possible via type restrictions or techniques like monomorphising is an important part of modern typed compilers.

<comment><USER4> I'd prefer stronger methods like logic proofs and constraint or contract specifications. Compilers could use those even better to optimize and check the meaning of the program. Types are very limited logic constraints after all.

While at it, you could ditch some of the old language.

Ultimately, everything is just some place in memory, cache and/or CPU register.

<comment><USER5> Dependent types can encode constraints and require proofs.

<comment><USER4> Yes they do. In a supremely roundabout way typically making for ugly fat proofs for anything high order. Sometimes, rarely, they make proofs cleaner and more direct than high order logic.

Plus there is the potential undecidability if you want to use automated type deduction. Hard to spot where the types have to be so to speak reified with bad error messages.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> >The type of %1 is %struct.MyType* and not %struct.MyType [1]. In the case of references and pointers, clang actually transforms them into double pointers. This is the first indicator that lvalues (all these C++ variables are lvalues) are translated into pointers.

This statement can confuse those who never did assembly. The fact is that CPU has only few fixed-size registers and there is no such thing like struct/array value without an address [2]. So, when you write "struct MyType v", it will have an address on the stack, which will be loaded into the register for further access. But naming it a pointer (and a pointer to it a double pointer) is vague move. It is like naming an array a pointer too, since you have to know head address to index elements beyond it. "v" is an address at low level, but not a pointer, and while author is technically right, the terminology is mixed and thus misleading.

[1] author wrote * here, but probably meant none.

[2] unless it is small enough to be completely optimized into registers.

Edit: punctuation

<comment><USER7> Even if the structure is not small enough, unless the address does not escape (which can be common for local objects), the compiler is free to split it up in its constituents and only store some (or none) of its constituents in memory, which doesn't even need to be contiguous. I think this optimization is called scalar replacement of aggregates.

/pedantic

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Interesting.

In assembly and pre-ANSI-C, only (roughly) register sized things could be values. So you had a split of things that lived in registers and things that had to live in memory (everything that had the potential for being bigger, structs, arrays).

OOP decided that everything should be like the things in memory.

FP decided that everything should be like the things in registers.</comment>


Brad Fitzpatrick (of LiveJournal, now at Google) Talks About Programming - <AUTHOR> http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2009-11-07-n67.html

<comment><USER2> "Seibel: Do you have any advice for self-taught programmers? Fitzpatrick: Always try to do something a little harder, that's outside your reach."

</comment><comment><USER3> His interview in Coders at Work was one of my favorites.

<comment><USER4> Agreed. When it started off I felt he came off a bit .. brash but by the time I finished reading through the interview I really enjoyed his thoughts and him in general.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> "In practice, nothing works." Nice quote, but it would have worked better preceded by "In theory, everything works." :-)

<comment><USER6> " I think it's really important to know the whole stack even if you don't operate within the whole stack."

Another nice quote. Especially if you're hiring.

<comment><USER7> True, but reading job interview questions, it seems to me that whether or not they require applicants to know the whole stack is one issue. How they think they can find that out is an entirely different and much more difficult issue.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If you really wanto to "go low level", I can recommend to write progs for NES(6502)/Genesis(68000) - the hardware is simple, processor - simple, and there is a plenty of open source emulators which are in fact a great documentation for target machine.

Modern PC's unfortunately are so complicated...</comment>


Gmail messages 'read by human third parties' - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-44699263 <comment><USER2> Short version: you let a travel site "Access and read your emails", ostensibly to have it scan for automated flight booking emails, etc.

You forget to remove the permission because you're going through the airport and (if in USA) getting the royal TSA treatment.

Later on, someone human from the travel site can sift through the emails. In theory, they might need to if you call them and say "I need to know my flight info", but for most uses, that never happens. But you never removed the permission, so they get to read through it.

Not really the fault of GMail as such, though they'd be wise to get out in front of this by introducing a default 3-month self-expiration on mail access. Wouldn't eliminate, but would limit this issue.</comment>


Can a keto diet reverse diabetes? - <AUTHOR> https://nutrita.app/keto-diet-reverse-diabetes/ <comment><USER2> If you want to reverse diabetes you need at least some fasting. Keto can do a heck of a lot to help, however the incretin effect will cause insulin levels to increase during mealtimes sabotaging the necessary reduction in insulin resistance for your liver and pancreas.

Dr. Jason Fung, a kidney specialist, runs an intensive dietary management program in Canada and has written a book called "The Diabetes Code" that describes the methods they use to reverse Type 2. I would recommend that anyone with Type 2 diabetes read at least that book and maybe also his other book called "The Obesity Code."

<comment><USER3> Hi foxyv, I'm the co-founder of Nutrita and wanted to say your comment is spot on. Dr.Fung and his IDM clinic are getting amazing results. We're big fans of theirs

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> 'Reverse' is quite a strong term to use in this context. I do not find 'reverse' in the medical dictionary, but when medical articles talk about reversing alzheimer's, for example, that means undoing the damage that it has already done to the central nervous system. Can a keto diet undo the damage that diabetes has already done to someone's blood vessels, nerves, eyes, kidneys, etc? Better verb for what diet can do for T2 diabetes would be 'treat' or 'control;' If 'reverse' means something more than 'treat' or 'control', what is the bonus extra? Is there any reason to think that additional damage does not accumulate atop that previously done when blood glucose increases because treatment is discontinued or control by diet is otherwise insufficient.

<comment><USER5> I see what you mean but I didn't have a problem with the non-technical usage of 'reverse' taking it to mean 'reverse the progression' of type-2 diabetes. Perhaps 'neutralize' would be a better choice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> [https://www.reddit.com/r/keto](https://www.reddit.com/r/keto) has 910,000 subscribers who will give you mountains of anecdotal evidence backed up by their lab work and tales of their doctor's astonishment.

If you aren't a DIY type, this medical services startup doing it professionally... [https://www.virtahealth.com/](https://www.virtahealth.com/)

Keto's not for everyone and not everyone needs it, but a substantial about of people in the sugar-addicted USA would benefit.

It solves a wide variety of seemingly unrelated issues from joints to plantar fasciitis to skin problems.

</comment><comment><USER7> If you need a good source of real facts about nutrition, I highly recommend nutritionfacts.org which is non profit and lead by a real expert in lifestyle medicine.

Regarding this topic checkout [https://nutritionfacts.org/2016/11/22/how-a- low-carb-diet-is...](https://nutritionfacts.org/2016/11/22/how-a-low-carb- diet-is-metabolically-like-being-obese/)

How can a post that recommends bacon as a "healthy source of fat" be taken serious, when the WHO is warning us about the carcinogenic effects of processed meat?

<comment><USER8> Lol @ nutritionfacts.org.

That dude cherry picks studies just as much as the people he criticizes.

<comment> castle-bravo You have to give Dr. Greger credit for the sheer volume of material he goes through and how jam-packed his videos are with citations. He does a better job at performing credibility than any other diet doctor out there.</comment></comment></comment>


Is This Why TED Talks Seem So Convincing? - <AUTHOR> http://priceonomics.com/is-this-why-ted-talks-seem-so-convincing/

<comment><USER2> This reminds me of something else -- the idea that the reason kids don't learn in school is that the material is given a dull presentation. Or that teachers are too secure in their jobs and so they aren't energized enough to engage students. If it turns out to be based on a myth, it would be best to find out before wasting a lot of resources and causing serious damage to the teaching profession.

</comment><comment><USER3> TED is edutainment, at best. The adult version of The Magic School Bus with less science.

</comment><comment><USER4> The biggest problem with TED is that people leave the talks thinking they understand more about a topic than they actually do. There's a big difference between having a general sense of the problems a field is dealing with, and actually understanding it well enough to apply it to anything.

I think the first is great when it comes to public understand of science, if you can do it well. The second is a bit problematic when people are left with a misleading impression of what they know.

<comment><USER5> First thing. That is people's problem, not directly TED's.

And TED's talks are not focus on science divulgation. All TED talks can basically be stored in either the 'Look what I'm doing' bag or 'This is what happened to me' bag.

I have yet to see a talk where the main focus was to teach a concept rather than explaining it very superficially in order to introduce an idea based on that concept.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Given the choice between a lecture in which I am more engaged, learn more (however slightly more), and am fundamentally just enjoying myself more or the alternative: give me the fun lecture every time, if only because I will keep coming back for more and not be afraid I am going to pass out mid-sentence.

</comment><comment><USER7> I wonder if the test was given after a longer period of time, how would it effect the results of both groups. Hypothesis being that the TED group would retain more over time relative to the dull lecturer group.

</comment><comment><USER8> Looks like something that would make a great TED talk.</comment>


Putin signs law making Russian apps mandatory on smartphones, computers - <AUTHOR> https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-russia-internet-software/putin-signs-law-making-russian-apps-mandatory-on-smartphones-computers-idUKKBN1Y61Z4 <comment><USER2> In software, we're running through the same mistake/learn process we went through with physical infrastructure over the last 300 years. I imagine like all things software, this process will be 1000x as fast, but I do worry the pains and errors will similarly be 1000x as consequential.

<comment> dawg- How so?

<comment><USER2> In this case, a state is forcing platform providers to build in side-doors for domestic players.

The analogue counterpart could be... Import tariffs to bolster certain domestic companies at the expense of the middle class. Or... Subsidized production of XYZ at the expense of a real marketplace. (Recent/contemporary examples.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> All they have to do is get it shipped from the dragon in their neighborhood called Ali Baba.</comment>


How myGengo Scaled Up Their Servers (a real startup's story) - <AUTHOR> http://mygengo.com/talk/blog/server-power-ups-that-worked-for-us-handling-10x-traffic

<comment><USER2> I hadn't considered raiding EBS volumes. One problem could be the ability to do snapshots. But here is a decent article on using XFS to make your own snapshots. (<http://alestic.com/2009/09/ec2-consistent-snapshot>)

</comment><comment><USER3> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2196997></comment>


'Biohacker' implants chip in arm - <AUTHOR> http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/11/04/biohacker-implants-chip-in-arm/?intcmp=features

<comment><AUTHOR> Putting something that big under your skin can't be good. I would also imagine flying will be a nightmare.

Then there is just the risk of infection, and the scars... And I can't see girls thinking the scar from where you had your arm amputated because you stuck something stupid under your skin with self surgery and had an allergic reaction, or infection is considered "sexy".</comment>


Awesome research from Microsoft - <AUTHOR> http://research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/default.aspx?id=154568

<comment><USER2> actual title: "Self-Certification: Bootstrapping Certified Typecheckers in F* with Coq"

</comment><comment><USER3> All this coq 'n agda stuff won't produce anything of practical value to software engineering before the singularity arrives. Haskell is already too much for practical work, ocaml's near the perfect typed language point.

<comment><USER4> Haskell is already too much for practical work?

No.

I use it as my main scripting language.

<comment><USER3> Have you tried ocaml. Haskell keeps moving, takes much longer to get to grips with, and most users don't use all it's features (which keep growing). Meanwhile you can get your head around all of ocaml pretty easily and it gives you no surprises. Ocaml is for coders, haskell's for grad students.

<comment><USER4> I haven't tried it, but sounds like I should :)

<comment><USER3> Yea, along with prolog, it's one of the hidden pearls of programming</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Google Banishes Nicholas Carr From The Index - <AUTHOR> http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2009/06/banished.php

<comment><USER2> There is now a comment on this blog entry purporting to be from someone on the Google web search team claiming that the site was removed because it had been hacked and that Google had attempted to contact the author.

<comment><USER3> The 'hack' must be very, very minor: I can still visit with Chrome, which supposedly checks Google's 'Safe Browsing' blacklist.

Maybe it's just hidden spam links? In which case, index-removal seems an extreme way to get the owner's attention.

<comment><USER4> Hi there,

I realize neither this comment nor the one on Nick's blog from my Google colleague Greg are authenticated, so you'll just have to trust me that I'm me :).

We do often remove entire domains from our index when there's evidence of hacking and/or malware... not to be mean, but rather to protect both visitors to that site and the site owner (from angry visitors). We can't be sure that the hacked links aren't or won't soon become particularly malicious (e.g., phishing sites), nor can we be certain that the server hasn't been or won't soon be more substantially compromised (with drive-by malware installs, etc.), so we fall on the side of caution.

We do make a good faith effort to contact the webmasters affected... \- Through e-mail addresses we believe to belong to that webmaster. \- Via our free Webmaster Tools service, where webmasters can sign up and opt to get e-mails from Google on just such occasions as this.

For more info, you can check out our most recent blog post on this topic: [http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/02/best- prac...](http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/02/best-practices- against-hacking.html)

Hope this helps! Believe me, we want good content back in our index as soon as possible, too :)

<comment><USER3> Thanks for the response and link.

The "could get worse" standard is a slippery slope, unless the evidence suggests a very specific serious compromise or foreign active content. (Exiling a site because a few evil links appear in its comment threads, for example, would put almost every site at risk of removal. Indeed, that standard risks gaming by a site's rivals, using comment forms rather than 'hacks'.)

Also, looking at Carr's last comment, even though he's removed the bad links, he doesn't know what compromise allowed them to appear. So his site is _still_ in the "can't be sure... won't soon become particularly malicious... [or] substantially compromised" category that justified its initial removal.

Your deep and sensitive checks for problems are definitely a public service... as long as the standards are clear and communications effective. Maybe notification should occur via a site's own comment functionality in addition to email? No details for third parties to exploit -- just a "please check Google Webmaster Tools" note.

<comment><USER4> Hey Gojomo, appreciate the input!

I definitely hear you on the slippery-slope issue, and perhaps I could have worded my initial note more carefully. We have reasonably conservative heuristics in place to assess whether a site has been actually hacked vs. just someone adding, say, a link to a nasty site in a comment. Also, in our experience, once a site or server's been compromised, there's a good chance that, well, where there's smoke, there's fire.

Regarding giving more information... I believe we do generally show specific examples re: hacking and malware via our Webmaster Tools, though I can't say for sure what we presented in Nick's case. Generally, we've seen that webmasters are able to catch the root vulnerability (via their own unpatched software or via their server), which prevents the same problem from recurring. (and speaking of unpatched software... from my own spot checks, that seems to be one of the most major culprits!)

Lastly, re: your suggestion about notification on the site's comment functionality itself... that's a fascinating idea! I think that it'd be a bit challenging to implement, given the diverse array of registration requirements, captchas, etc. (our bots are smart, but not as smart as humans!), but I know that our team is looking into more ways that we can let webmasters know of issues more effectively. Thanks for the suggestion!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The comments on the article explain why, Google detected that the site had been hacked and had email the author of the site.

<comment><USER6> Nitpick: The host itself wasn't hacked. Part of his website had a vulnerable MT installation that allowed spammers to insert spam into that part of this website.

<comment><USER7> That much is still unknown, he replied to say he was unsure how the links got there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Curious, the search <http://www.google.com/search?q=roughtype.com>

Brings up all sorts of URL's that contain the string roughtype.com but are not the site itself.

It's frightening, especially since we have no way of knowing what else is being filtered out and for whom.

I would tend to give the big G the benefit of the doubt; it's a mistake or he got on the wrong side of the algorithm, or his site was infected with malware. (that last one does happen see <http://blog.oddhead.com/2009/06/22/un-hacking- my-blog/> )

But still, it is the reputational equivalent of logging in to your brokerage account to find out it's empty.

<comment><AUTHOR> No way to know for sure, but it most likely occurred because of this: [http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2009/05/for_whom_the_go.ph...](http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2009/05/for_whom_the_go.php)

<comment><USER9> Why do you assert that it "most likely occurred" because of this?

Do you have any data?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Wow! This is crazy. A similar thing happened to my friend Matt Harrison a while back. Here are the relevant links: \- <http://panela.blog- city.com/burninated_by_google.htm> \- <http://panela.blog- city.com/back_in_google.htm> \- <http://panela.blog- city.com/google_hates_me.htm>

As Matt explains, he was re-added to the index with no explanation. Perhaps Nick Carr will have a similar redemption.

<comment><USER11> As indeed he has (see last comment on OP link).</comment></comment>


Survivor Library: How to Survive and Prosper Without Modern Technology - <AUTHOR> http://www.survivorlibrary.com/ <comment><USER2> Besides the irony of digital files, there's the fact that these just seem to be scans of old books. That sounds nice in theory (wasn't technology in olden times simpler and therefore easier to get going after the collapse of civilization?) but the problem is that the materials described might not be that easy to find in the modern world (even without an apocalypse). I once tried to build some devices described in a 1920s electronics book but was stymied by the complete unavailability of many components.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Just for the record, I posted this because I heard about it on NPR and it sounded kinda cool. But I was very disappointed when I actually dug into the details. It doesn't seem to be well curated (do we really need twenty books about double-entry bookkeeping?) and it also has some serious gaps (no books on metallurgy, for example). But it's still a cool idea. Someone ought to do it right.

FYI, the answer they gave on the radio about the irony of having this sort of thing on-line was that people were making copies on laptops that they were keeping in faraday cages and could charge with solar panels. That would allow the information to survive the EMP apocalypse.

</comment><comment><USER3> The carrying capacity (of hunter gatherer humans) of the Earth is 100 million at peak biodiversity (which it is not). The human population is 7.3 billion. That means that any notion of "surviving without modern technology" is absolutely 100% predicated on you having the privilege to do it while the rest of the population continues to live in cities. It is a self deception much comparable to Marie Antoinette's "rustic" retreat at Versailles.

<comment><USER4> Umm, can you cite something supporting your assertation that Earth's carrying capacity is 100 million humans?

<comment><USER5> Take the population today, and remove modern agriculture. Take the food supply down to what it would be per-acre without fertilizer. Then lower it again for lack of irrigation in many areas. That's a start.

<comment><USER6> I think the point is that "100 million" is an extremely suspicious round number, and smacks of pulling a number out. It could be an "Everest" number ([http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00031305.1982.104...](http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00031305.1982.10482782)), but that seems highly unlikely.

<comment><USER7> Well according to Wikipedia ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_human_population](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_human_population)), world population in 1800 was estimated at one billion. It was estimated at 400m in 1000 AD.

So yeah, not sure where that 100 million comes from.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I can highly recommend the book The Knowledge by Lewis Dartnel. It has a similar goal: how to rebuild a society after some sort of apocalypse. It's more of a discussion and less of a how-to but there is a little of both

</comment><comment><USER9> Laptops seem to last less than 10 years and PCs less than 20 years. If we assume that the catastrophe takes out chip manufacturing plants so that no new laptops are forthcoming, what can the survivalist do? Perhaps buy many laptops, but I'm not sure what the unused shelf-life of them is. At the very least they should remove the CMOS batteries from them for long term storage..

A related question is how to preserve library machines long enough for civilization to restart.

</comment><comment><USER10> I'm assuming the poster is pointing out the irony

<comment><USER11> I thought the "Buy Survivor Library on Disc" [1] link was a bit funny ... if you don't have electricity, you better make sure your laptop is charged when the end comes (unless of course it's EMP'd by the sun).

Where's the link to buy "Survivor Library" on paper? How do I get a subscription to receive new and updated pages once a quarter? Does anyone remember getting manual updates from Microsoft, etc for their products where you had to manually go through the whole manual and insert and/or replace pages?

[1] [http://www.survivorlibrary.com/?page_id=2909](http://www.survivorlibrary.com/?page_id=2909)

<comment><USER12> There's a page that talks about why it's not available on paper [1] (why it's not on the same domain, I have no idea.)

They don't mention thermal printing which I think about every time I want to print an eBook but then get too lazy to look into it. Is thermal printing on standard size paper a viable thing these days?

[1] [http://www.eastcarolinapreppers.com/?page_id=2601](http://www.eastcarolinapreppers.com/?page_id=2601)

<comment><USER13> Some fax machines used rolls of full width thermal paper, I'm not sure how that would compare. My guess is for printing text, paper cost is going to outweigh toner cost by a significant margin, and thermal paper is more expensive than plain paper.

Thermal paper also requires more attention to environmental conditions of storage, if it's stored in a hot place, good luck reading it. Otoh, storing it on a roll might be somewhat useful.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> So the most modern take on "Ethics" in the library is from 1916. And there are no books on law, something that may be handy if you want to organize people in this new and heavily armed society. I thought this might be due to copyright issues, but they do have scanned copies of firearms manuals from 2002.

No copy of the US constitution?

</comment><comment><USER14> I'll wait for the print version.

<comment><USER15> I just memorized it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Haha Ron Burgundy came to life and made a website!!

EDIT: oops yes I meant Ron Swanson :)

<comment><USER17> Ron Swanson?

<comment><USER16> Oops, yes corrected</comment></comment></comment>


Jimmy Wales gives up administrative privileges after community backlash - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2010/05/16/wikipedia-founder-gives-up-control-of-site-over-fox-news-kiddie-porn-scandal/

<comment><USER2> Fwiw, Wales posted a comment on the CNET version of this story, alleging that the Fox News article that all these stories are based on (incl. VentureBeat's) is misleading: [http://news.cnet.com/8618-1023_3-20005082.html?communityId=2...](http://news.cnet.com/8618-1023_3-20005082.html?communityId=2108&targetCommunityId=2108&blogId=93&messageId=9385146)

</comment><comment><USER3> Those "pornographic" images undoubtedly exists on articles like Sexual intercourse and other articles concerning human sexuality and sexual acts.

In light of the context in which images has been placed, there has been nothing pornographic about it.

Even so, I am not sure what irreparable harm can be done to kids accidental catching a glimpse of human sexual reproduction. As long as adults respond appropriately to the potentially misleading information that porn has exposed kids to, any harms that is done is prevented.

I would be far more concerned about my kids visiting actual hardcore porn sites rather than reading mundane scholarly wikipedia article about human sexuality, benefit/harm to society, STDs, and other such useful information.

<comment><USER4> If you read Wales' User_talk pages on Wikimedia, you'll see that there's more to it than just topical illustrations of human sexuality articles:

* There were "trolling" images of porn on random articles

* There was/is a "pornography project" that was/is creating a "Who's Who" of porn stars under the rubric of the encyclopedia

* It was perceived by Wales that it was becoming difficult to use the encyclopedia without potentially tripping over graphic pictures

At the end of the day, Wikipedia isn't about providing a commons for people to store all the world's information. It is to build and maintain the world's best encyclopedia. There are tradeoffs involved in building an encyclopedia.

For what it's worth: while I won't have a temper tantrum either way, I'm not OK with my kids seeing porn in Wikipedia. I think the project is more useful if it is making a good-faith effort to limit graphic sexual images.

<comment><USER5> Wikipedia is at the same time full of articles on all sorts of human depravity which presumably you don't want a young child reading about.

I would suggest that maybe what parents deem acceptable for their kids to consume unsupervised isn't such a great standard for what's worth studying and cataloging.

On a related note, age-appropriate forks of Wikipedia might not be a bad idea considering students are, as you point out, such a large portion of its user base. Just leave the original one alone.

<comment><USER4> Or, the porn partisans can create a porn-friendly fork, and leave the original alone.

The question is, is the encyclopedic value of graphic sexual imagery worth the cost, which is reduced accessibility of the whole project. Wales' answer, which I agree with, is "no".

At the heart of every debate about Wikipedia policy, I see the same notion: that because Wikipedia is on the Internet, and because it's open to everyone to edit, and because it's powered mostly by editors unaffiliated with the project, it "belongs" to everyone. _But it doesn't_. It's not a democracy! It has an agenda: building the world's greatest encyclopedia. It's rational and consistent for the project to trade openness for accessibility and quality.

There's a whole rest of the Internet for the stuff that doesn't make the project's cut.

<comment><USER2> Why cut just the porn, though? It's not even the most offensive. I'd say _gore_ is the most universally offensive thing on Wikipedia, and there are some pretty gory articles about medical conditions. So much so that I sometimes disable images before reading some of those sections of the encyclopedia. And there have been perennial debates about whether Wikipedia is limiting its educational reach into the Muslim world by unnecessarily including Mohammed images (and there are similar examples of Wikipedia's inclusion of blasphemous or otherwise offensive content from the perspective of other cultures).

My view would be that it makes more sense to _produce_ all the content in one place, as one large project that's all-inclusive and has no offensiveness standards, and then repackage subsets (no-nudity, no-blasphemy, no-Tiananmen, etc.) if doing so would aid distribution of the result, or maybe subsets for other reasons too. I.e. the primary focus of Wikipedia as a project should be producing the encyclopedia, not distributing it--- the great thing about open content is that anyone can distribute it in any form they want. It'd be great if there were third parties dedicated entirely to distributing nicely repackaged and curated versions of it, including, say, a version that school libraries would feel comfortable installing on their machines.

<comment><USER4> Gore: I agree! Some pictures of gore remove more value than they add.

Educational reach into the Muslim world: I don't care.

Your suggestion about an encyclopedia project that produces content to build other encyclopedias with --- a meta-encyclopedia? --- is sensible. You should start that project. I don't think it's Wikipedia.

<comment><USER2> Well, Wikipedia _was_ intended to be that project from the start (I've been involved with it since 2003, and that was clearly the intent at the time). A lot of people have started using wikipedia.org as their primary encyclopedia, but I think that's just because nobody's built anything else out of it, so your only choice currently is to read the online snapshot of raw meta- encyclopedia, complete with obvious "work-in-progress" banners everywhere.

Admittedly, it's unclear where it currently lies. Since wikipedia.org's gotten so many viewers, there's a significant number of Wikipedians, and probably the majority of the official folks at the Foundation, who think a reader-centric encyclopedia ought to be a priority. I personally think readers should be secondary, and producing raw content should be Wikipedia's main mission, with some other organization (not Wikipedia or owned by Wikimedia) taking on a reader-centric project of forging that raw content into nicely curated final products. I'd guess most of the old-school (pre-2007 or so) Wikipedians think similarly, but it's quite possible we'll lose out. A bit on a related conflict here: [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Conflicting_Wikipedia_philoso...](http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Conflicting_Wikipedia_philosophies#Eventualism_vs._immediatism)

And sure, you might not care about educational outreach into the Muslim world. But other people don't care about educational outreach to kids or adults who're offended by nudity (I personally don't care much more about nudity than I care about Mohammed images, though I dislike gore and spider photos). People generally have lots of opinions on which kinds of cultural norms are more important to respect.

<comment><USER4> I only have one point to make in this discussion, which is: Wikipedia doesn't have to host content for the sake of hosting content. It can make tradeoffs to achieve its mission, which is to build the best possible encyclopedia. It is reasonable to talk about cost/benefit for things like graphic sexual images.

That's all I've got here.

Maybe it's worth it to host graphic sexual images. I doubt it, but we'll see where the consensus develops.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Isn't the easy solution to require logins for particularly adult content (even if it only requires login for part of the content of an article) in the same way YouTube does? You could also enable "mouse-overs" for authenticated users so they don't see potentially "offensive" images straight away.

<comment><USER7> That actually sounds like it would be fairly easy to add to the wiki software, and practical as well. You could even just add a cookie to remember people's preferences about adult images, the way Google Image Search remembers your "SafeSearch" preferences for a while even if you're not logged in.

<comment><USER8> This isn't easy to add actually. The mediawiki software, last I checked, doesn't have this capability and adding it would be a royal pita.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> For being an Objectivist, Jimmy Wales sure was fond of censorship... [/AndrewRyan]

<comment><USER10> Sorry, did you mean to say he was fond of complying with the law?</comment></comment>


Ask HN: The signal/noise ratio of YouTube is abhorrent. Channel recommendations? - <AUTHOR> The suggestions I get from YouTube feel like the proverbial Idiocracy variants of all my interests. It's managed to tell I'm interested in climbing, training, video games, and some other things but I get the equivalent of junk food recommendations for each interest that I have.
Examples of how astray it is: Training: (tired) cheat days, who's natty or not, YouTubers with insane incomes buying things for their own exercise needs, athletes trying other sports and failing "comically". What'd be interesting: discussions of mentality, keeping a positive attitude in spite of injury, balancing life and trying to be really good at a time consuming hobby. Video games: things you missed in Bloodborne, e-sport gamers playing games they're bad at. What'd be interesting: symbology in level design, parallels between games and politics/history. For instance, Abe's Odyssey and slavery.
What channels do you subscribe to and why? <comment><USER2> YouTube is an engagement engine, their KPI is how much time you waste. People make their living gaming it, so you will not be successful for any length of time curating YouTube to recommend useful things.

You need to look from outside the platform in an in-scope forum. Look for climbers on Twitter or on some forums, etc. I've found in a new area that if look at a good book, use the author as a jump point to find Twitter people with useful info. Publishers force authors to tweet and there is good material there.

There's also hints you can use to assess content. If you see the wide eyed YouTuber face, skip, for example.

</comment><comment><USER3> I've never thought of looking at YouTube's front page for suggestions. I think I saw it once, yup, very Idiocracy! I never have subscribed to anything. Some fav channels are MonoNeon[0], Knower[1] and Scary Pockets[2] (music), Chess24 (chess) and the fairly defunct Vi Hart channel (maths/art/?).

It's frequently been asked on here before what peoples' fav channels are. One search:

[https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...](https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=channels%20youtube&sort=byDate&type=story)

I think the best channels I learnt about from HN were the magnificent Every Frame A Painting[3] and Captain Disillusion[4], god bless 'em.

[0] [https://www.youtube.com/user/TheMonoNeon/videos](https://www.youtube.com/user/TheMonoNeon/videos)

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/user/LOUISGENEVIEVE/videos](https://www.youtube.com/user/LOUISGENEVIEVE/videos)

[2] [https://www.youtube.com/c/ScaryPockets/videos](https://www.youtube.com/c/ScaryPockets/videos)

[3] [https://www.youtube.com/c/everyframeapainting/videos](https://www.youtube.com/c/everyframeapainting/videos)

[4] [https://www.youtube.com/c/CaptainDisillusion/videos](https://www.youtube.com/c/CaptainDisillusion/videos)

</comment><comment><USER4> Subscribing to channels makes recommendations worse, not better. What I've found is that logging out of YouTube and aggressively deleting cookies while browsing videos from external sites like reddit is the best way to watch content on YouTube.

The problem is that their recommendation engine is a feedback loop that is really bad at showing you anything new.

</comment><comment><USER5> Very good question!

I never really figured out how to find the good stuff on Youtube, so I simply don't use it that much.

About 75% of the good stuff I have found was documentaries ripped from regular TV channels.

</comment><comment><USER6> Unfortunately YouTube's algorithm is optimized to encourage the maximum amount of viewing time and ad views on the platform, not the most interesting videos for an individual. Symbology in level design does not encourage binge watching (or ad revenue) in the same way as comedy fails. To optimize for your interests, find channels and subscribe directly.

</comment><comment><USER7> actively search, don't passively consume the algorithm

</comment><comment><USER8> While I can't help with recommendations for all of your interests, for climbing I recommend Magnus Midtbo, Adam Ondra, and Daniel woods and co "mellow" channels. Usually from those three I can find high quality climbing content via recommendations.</comment>


What I learned by interviewing 23 startups  - <AUTHOR> http://scobleizer.com/2011/05/09/what-i-learned-by-interviewing-23-startups-in-past-few-weeks/

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting quote:

"the most interesting set of companies is being built around smartphones and here, for the first time, Apple's iOS doesn't have the coolest apps"

And he goes to list a few Android-only apps that he seems to think are leading the way.</comment>


VCS performance tests (hg,bzr,git) - <AUTHOR> http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/jst/archives/2006/11/vcs_performance.html

<comment><USER2> (NB: This was from 2006.)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> his blog seems to have a lot of posts on the subject <http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/jst/></comment>