Trump's sweep could be a big setback to Tesla and Elon Musk - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/11/09/trumps-sweep-could-be-a-big-setback-to-tesla-and-elon-musk/ <comment><USER2> He doesn't seem totally opposed to renewable energy sources:

"It should be the goal of the American people and their government to achieve energy independence as soon as possible. Energy independence means exploring and developing every possible energy source including wind, solar, nuclear and bio-fuels. A thriving market system will allow consumers to determine the best sources of energy for future consumption."

From [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-president- ele...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-president-elect-trump- views-science/)

<comment><USER3> if you have been paying attention to what he says, then you would have heard that he is incredibly against renewable energy sources, especially wind (he has a major grudge against wind farms ever since his battle with them in Scotland)

[http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-loses-battle-to-stop- wind-...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-loses-battle-to-stop-wind-farm- near-his-scottish-golf-resort-1450275439)

[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/22/trump- re...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/22/trump-resumes- fight-against-windfarm-near-his-golf-course)

it is notoriously difficult to pin down what Trump stands for because it really depends on the day and time and situation since he only truly cares about himself and only thinks about what will benefit him. but his pronouncements against renewables and his penchant for "clean" coal, opening up drilling on public lands, fracking, etc. is crystal clear

<comment><USER4> > _it is notoriously difficult to pin down what Trump stands for..._

> _he only truly cares about himself and only thinks about what will benefit > him... and his penchant for "clean" coal is crystal clear_

Which is it? It's hard to pin down what he stands for, or is it crystal clear?

<comment><USER5> You should put the "..." in brackets or even replace it with the original text, because you edited out the word "but".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> It talks about Tesla, but I'm not really sure how much oil prices can really decline. I would be more worried about SolarCity and solar in general. Trump says he wants to expand coal, nat gas, etc.. and cheaper prices for those (and perhaps discontinuation of credits for renewable energy) would discourage new solar installations.

What would be really sad is if this policy change causes bankruptcies in renewable energy companies... it would take a while to rebuild that, even if the policies are restored later on.

<comment><USER6> Natural gas would have to be really cheap in order to beat spot prices for solar on sunny days, especially in the southwest. It's still good for peaker plants though. Coal, on the other hand, I don't see being profitable unless Congress starts taxing solar directly, since it still can't beat solar spot prices and it's categorically unprofitable to run coal plants as peakers.

<comment><USER7> If we harvest Methane Hydrate deposits undersea and pipe them into coastal cities, then natural gas could become essentially free. That would be hard to beat.

<comment><USER6> The capital costs though...and if you ignore capital costs, sunshine is free.

<comment><USER7> They're huge and convenient. Capital costs paid once; gas flows for centuries. It'll amortize to almost nothing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is based on completely the wrong premise, Tesla is an unsubsidized car company. Even if the Solar City deal goes through and the value goes to $0 within a year Tesla will still be a great thriving company.

Not only is Tesla a shinning example of American manufacturing (a main Trump tenant), they create cars that are better and more performant then competing gasoline cars, they do it at much higher margins.

Tesla is hopping to produce about 500k cars within 2 years while the average automobile manufacture produces about 10MM cars per year. And they plan to do it at a 20-30% margin.

Even if gas prices go down by 75% they would then only match the price of fueling a Tesla, which in itself would be an incredible feat given how subsidized oil already is.

<comment><USER9> > Not only is Tesla a shinning example of American manufacturing (a main Trump > tenant)

Except that they use a ton of automation. I'm very curious how this will play out under Trump. Because even if he does all the things he's been talking about (pulling out of trade deals and raising tariffs) and even if it has the intended short-term effect of bringing more manufacturing back to America, there will be a lot of automation and it probably won't look very much like it did in the pre-globalization good-old days that his base wants to revert to.

What then? They'll need somewhere other than trade deals to point the blame.

<comment><USER8> That's a good point though they still employ a lot of people.

It'll be interesting when people start trying to deal with the job loss from automation. I'm not sure how you can practically restrict the use of software and robots.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Counterpoint: [https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2016-11-09/trump-c...](https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2016-11-09/trump- cannot-halt-the-march-of-clean-energy)

</comment><comment><USER11> I think Tesla will do okay, they've got a solid product that stands on its own.

What I'm worried about is rooftop solar tiles. One of the thing that can make it cheaper than a traditional roof is that the whole thing will qualify for solar subsidies. If that goes away it could make things incredibly difficult for Solar City.

<comment><USER12> I guess it depends on whether you think that net metering is a subsidy and whose eyes are beholding the payments. Those tiles are generating electricity, why shouldn't they get paid same as large generators?

<comment><USER13> My understanding is that the extra complexity of the network to support a multitude of small generation points precludes most of the gains from the extra energy supply.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> > he will roll back regulations on fossil fuels

Does it mean no more subsidizing fossil fuel companies?

</comment><comment><USER15> I was really surprised by TSLA not taking a very rough and immediate hit. It took a slight hit after a while though,

</comment><comment><USER16> Awesome! Another reason for outrage. That's exactly what we need.

At this point, shouldn't he be trying to get the 'other' half of the country on his side instead of pissing them off further?

</comment><comment><USER17> On the plus side for Tesla, though, there's probably going to be fewer liberals buying cars from the Rust Belt states.

</comment><comment><USER18> Hey Elon, just move all your assets and manufacturing to Europe!

</comment><comment><USER19> More typical anti-trump propaganda. Tesla is a private company. Trump supports free market and private business. He even went as far to say he wants to improve our efforts in space.

This is also from the Washington Post. The mainstream media has zero credibility at this point.

<comment><USER20> Trump received a 40-year, $120 million full tax abatement from NYC for the Grand Hyatt (Newsweek 6/17/90) . He sought a residential tax abatement for Trump Tower, an abatement designed for low- and middle-income housing (NYT, 8/6/1983), and an abatement for another luxury tower, Trump Palace, and for Trump International Hotel (NYT 7/17/94). He sought a $356 million low-interest loan from the federal government for the West Side Yards, received a $34 million tax abatement in Florida, and had the assessed value of a Las Vegas property lowered from $180 million to $8.6 million (LA Times, 5/11/2011).

<comment><USER19> please explain to me how this has anything to do with tesla

<comment><USER20> Well, if you read the article, it mentions the tax breaks that Tesla buyers get, and that the "future of these tax credits may come into question based on Trump's opposition to the government picking winners and losers."

How is constantly seeking government hand-outs capitalism? How is taking those hand-outs not allowing the government to pick winners and losers?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> If Tesla's not competitive, then it's not competitive. I'm glad to see the government involvement being reduced. Let the free market handle things.

<comment><USER22> Letting the free market handle things works, IF your only goal is economic. And while that is important, there are bigger pictures to worry about. Like, preserving a habitable planet.

<comment><USER19> yes because we can undo china and india's record breaking smog and pollution. /s

<comment><USER23> Assuming manufacturing got moved back to America then yes, it can be solved.

<comment><USER22> Even if not, giving up on doing the right thing just because other countries aren't helping is a very short-sighted approach to worldwide leadership. We can lead the efforts towards a better world.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Highlight 2014 – UI Animations - <AUTHOR> http://beautifulpixels.com/highlight/the-highlight-2014-ui-animations/

<comment><USER2> If you haven't seen Bvckup 2, it's easily one of the best designed Windows apps of not just 2014, but recent years - [https://bvckup2.com/wip/](https://bvckup2.com/wip/). Lots of thoughtful little details - one beautifully fluid UI that still looks and feels native.

<comment><USER3> Absolutely. However isn't it strange how rarely you see such a polished Windows application? I'm a Mac user so maybe I'm missing a lot of gems in the Microsoft world, but apart from Metro Apps, which brought pretty defaults, there seems to be a lack of apps with similarly thoughtful design.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> To anyone interested in experimental UI animations in web apps this is a must- bookmark: [http://tympanus.net/codrops/](http://tympanus.net/codrops/)</comment>


The Internet Is Alive And Well (As An Investment) - <AUTHOR> http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2009/07/the-internet-is-alive-and-well-as-an-investment.html <comment><USER2> i just saw this comment from gary vaynerchuk on my facebook feed:

"Come on People - the modern internet that we all know is 15 yrs old, it hasn't had sex yet! Can we stop the debate - It will WIN! All this talk about if it is still a good place to invest money or if you can still build big businesses is INSANE..the answer is YES! Sorry TV and Newspapers and magazines you are in TROUBLE!"

</comment><comment><USER3> spin off question: Does an internet company ad wealth to your life if you do not have an internet connection?

<comment><USER4> Sorry, but what are you talking about?

<comment><USER3> I'm not sure. I'm not questioning Fred's writings but trying to tackle my own suspicions about investing so heavily in software that exists in something we call a "cloud", something we can not hold, something that can vanish just as easily as it can be created out of thin air. I'm trying to question how we value the purely digital as investments.

<comment><USER5> You make it sound like only physical items are worth investing in.

Did you invest in your education?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Writing Room and Content Query API, ideas for reshaping Content Management - <AUTHOR> https://blog.prismic.io/Ux-QjgEAAGMGit8h/writing-room-and-content-query-api-a-different-approach-to-content-management

<comment><USER2> Yeah I've been thinking about this kind of an approach for a while - the idea of making a content management system that is just a content store that is accessed via API. Like it.

The largest obstacle for me to adopt such a system is that it requires me to bet my company's content on your system being around. I've looked at, for example, Webpop which is different but has some similar ideas - but I can't get away from the fact that Webpop may or may not be around in a year, so betting on it isn't something I would want to do.

That's what continues to push me to Wordpress and the like, although recently I've been spending more time with static web generators like Harp and DocPad. Those have a similar issue - my boss saying to me "Well, I know we can find Wordpress developers, but will wevbe able to find a Harp developer?"

<comment><USER3> It exists: Apache Jackrabbit + Apache Sling

I work with Adobe Experience Manager (former Day CQ) and the way the content is managed is the best, I have experience with. Of course, it does not mean, the product is perfect. But the concept feels right.

<comment><USER4> Yes, it looks like the same idea as Jackrabbit / JCR. I hope they've done their homework and understood the advantages and limitations of that API. I always found it a pain to work with, and that's probably the reason it never took off.

I really, really hope they succeed, but they've bitten off a difficult problem. It's not hard to design a simple content management API. What's hard is making it general enough to handle many situations without getting too complex.

<comment><USER3> Yes, the JCR spec is not easy to implement. But with a mature implementation, you can create your CMS convention driven. Those conventions can be as narrow as you need for a simple CMS. And when you want offer more, you are not limited by the content repository but only by your conventions, which you can widen at any time. I hope, more people will look to JCR as an option, because it solves the content repository problem very well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I've been playing with Prismic.io during this beta period and think it looks like an awesome product with great potential, but I just can't bring myself to actually use the writing side of it for any length of time.

Is there a way to turn off all the skeuomorphic design elements? Paper background? Lots of sliding panels, it's really hard to navigate around and very busy, even on a big screen. I think they need to completely cut it back and simplify, and I'd use it in a heartbeat.

The API based separation is a good idea for real sites (vs blogs), I think it will catch on and is a much better design than the all in one CMS design behind things like Wordpress, Drupal or Ghost.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback, this is something we are actually working on. Keep tuned :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This feels like advertising.

</comment><comment><USER7> question about the screenshot here [https://prismic- io.s3.amazonaws.com/wroom/6018bdb7cc0be70b68...](https://prismic- io.s3.amazonaws.com/wroom/6018bdb7cc0be70b6876eff6a2d7f90411448e05.png)

what do you call that facebook-esque feed story? Is there an open source template that one can use in their projects?

is it using yahoo's PureCSS?

<comment><USER8> We call it the "activity". It exists in two different fashions: you can view the one of the whole repository, or just focus on the one of a given document.

For your front-end, you can use absolutely everything you want! Open-source template, or anything; I usually use Bootstrap3, because I'm a huge fan myself. :)

And to answer your last question: we're not using Yahoo's PureCSS in the writing-room.</comment></comment>


Scientific Involution across Three Generations of Nuclear Weapons Science [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www.gwern.net/docs/2005-gusterson.pdf

<comment><USER2> I think it would be at least polite, if you're going to link to what has every appearance of an unauthorized copy, hosted on your own website, of a copyrighted work, to give the context of the original publication. This is a chapter in this book:

[http://www.amazon.com/Pedagogy-Practice-Science- Contemporary...](http://www.amazon.com/Pedagogy-Practice-Science-Contemporary- Perspectives/dp/B008SM1T6Q)

<comment><USER3> Good catch. Being a selected chapter in an otherwise obscure book(to me, pardon) i would have never known. It looks like the root site is littered with various articles, origin unknown, at least after a quick browse. Still, Since the title mentioned 'Involution' on a site about tech/startup growth, i am curious what the poster wanted to point out, if at all.

<comment><USER4> It seems interesting in itself, but perhaps gwern had an analogy with semiconductor progress, given yesterday's front-paging of the 5nm and 7nm goals.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, that's one reason I bumped it up in my submission queue: nuclear bombs are an unusual area of engineering/science - a field which has basically perfected its craft as far a it will be permitted by the surrounding society, and is experienced that rarest of things, the endgame of a field.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Katie Bouman, the computer scientist behind the first black hole image - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47891902 <comment><USER2> Congratulations Katie! It's beautiful to see something that I hoped would be real, especially after seeing Interstellar's gorgeous rendition. And may you inspire hundreds of thousands of girls to enter the fields of science and technology.

</comment><comment><USER3> from her paper: [https://arxiv.org/abs/1512.01413](https://arxiv.org/abs/1512.01413)

> Very long baseline interferometry (VLBI) is a technique for imaging > celestial radio emissions by simultaneously observing a source from > telescopes distributed across Earth. The challenges in reconstructing images > from fine angular resolution VLBI data are immense. The data is extremely > sparse and noisy, thus requiring statistical image models such as those > designed in the computer vision community. In this paper we present a novel > Bayesian approach for VLBI image reconstruction. While other methods often > require careful tuning and parameter selection for different types of data, > our method (CHIRP) produces good results under different settings such as > low SNR or extended emission. The success of our method is demonstrated on > realistic synthetic experiments as well as publicly available real data. We > present this problem in a way that is accessible to members of the > community, and provide a dataset website (vlbiimaging.csail.mit.edu) that > facilitates controlled comparisons across algorithms.

What strikes me as really amazing is the cross functional nature of these modern achievements. I did not realize that this image was created with statistical image models and a Bayesian approach.

Also, this link included -> [http://vlbiimaging.csail.mit.edu/](http://vlbiimaging.csail.mit.edu/) introduces the field and offers a good explanation for those interested in learning more:

> Imaging distant celestial sources with high resolving power requires > telescopes with prohibitively large diameters due to the inverse > relationship between angular resolution and telescope diameter. However, by > simultaneously collecting data from an array of telescopes located around > the Earth, it is possible to emulate samples from a single telescope with a > diameter equal to the maximum distance between telescopes in the array. > Using multiple telescopes in this manner is referred to as very long > baseline interferometry (VLBI).

<comment><USER4> >large diameters due to the __inverse __relationship between angular resolution and telescope diameter.

Not trained in this field, but this reads like a certain mistype. Shouldn't resolution _increase_ with telescope diameter?

<comment><USER5> No. Angular resolution is essentially the angular distance between two points that are still resolved as separate points. So if your resolution increases, angular resolution decreases, because you can resolve two points that are closer together.

<comment><USER4> Thanks. I read the Wiki on the matter; should have gone straight there instead of asking. After understanding what it is, _angular resolution_ does make perfect sense a term, but at first glance was certainly a bit counterintuitive.

<comment><USER6> I think the reason it's confusing is that the way that bit in the article is worded does little to imply that you want a LOW angular resolution, and it doesn't directly mention resolution in and of itself (which is understood to have an inverse relationship with angular resolution, as it is directly affected by diameter).

It took me several rereads and reading the comments here to understand that we want low numbers for angular resolution.

I suppose it's fairly obvious for one well-versed in optics, but to the layman (like me) it's initially opaque.

<comment><USER4> Yea. Measured in radians/degrees a lower number is a "higher pixel resolution."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> She also has a newer paper, which gives a glimpse on what the people of EHT are up next:

Reconstructing Video from Interferometric Measurements of Time-Varying Sources [https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.01357](https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.01357)

So maybe we will also see a video of a black hole, soon.

</comment><comment><USER8> I see a lot of mention on various forums about the storage they used (5pb) but am just wondering if anyone know what kind of backend they used to house this? From what I saw there were too many disks - in the wrong type of enclosure - to be running on a single server, which suggests multiple physical servers. I've seen a prior CERN research paper on gluster and ceph (iirc) and am just wondering if anyone in the know could enlighten me?

<comment><USER9> The WaPo article also references a few of the interesting issues they had:

"Then they spent the two years parsing literal truckloads of data, some of which had to be shipped on hard drives from the South Pole and defrosted outside a supercomputer facility at MIT."

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2019/04/10/see- black-...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2019/04/10/see-black-hole- first-time-images-event-horizon-telescope/)

I'd love to read more about this if anyone has an article with more details.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Katie gave a TED talk:

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

<comment><USER11> It is an interesting presentation, but I do NOT understand Katie's explanation about how they were going to minimize the bias [to "see" already predicted black hole visualization] while creatively interpreting inputs from sparsely placed telescopes around the earth.

Do you understand Katie's explanation?

<comment><USER12> Disclaimer: this is based on watching the talk and some basic machine learning knowledge. Im no expert.

They have a sparse set of data that is part of an image. They have trained a model to look at the sparse set and make an educated guess about what the full image looks like. They do this by feeding it full images.

The full images you feed into the model thus have an effect on the final image generated. In order to see how large that effect is, they trained different versions of the model with different sets of complete images. Some were images of what we thought a black hole looked like. There is potential that this heavily influences the model and ensures that the output looks like what we expect it to, even if that isnt actually true.

They also trained the model with non-blackhole images. Since the output of the model was approximately the same, this indicates that the resulting output picture doesnt look like what we think a black hole looks like just because it was trained with black hole images. It likely really looks like that.

The model doesn't need to be told what a black hole looks like. The sparse measurements combined with knowledge of how sparse data can be combined to form a generic image is enough. The model learned that the sparse data is not likely pure noise, instead there are shapes and lines and gradients that relate the sparse data points to each other.

Her analogy of sketch artists is good. If you have a functionally complete description and give it to 3 sketch artists from different cultures who are used to different looking people, they will still draw the same person. However if your description isnt actually detailed enough, their sketches will significantly differ as they use their existing knowledge and bias to fill in the gaps with what they think is likely.

<comment><USER13> Not OP, but I too am confused. I understood the sketch artist analogy but that didn't seem related to this point:

>They also trained the model with non-blackhole images. Since the output of the model was approximately the same, this indicates that the resulting output picture doesnt look like what we think a black hole looks like just because it was trained with black hole images. It likely really looks like that.

If you are feeding non-blackhole images in and getting blackhole results out, wouldn't that be indicative of an over-trained model? Her other analogy was we can't rule out that there is an elephant at the center of the galaxy, but it sounds like if you feed a picture of an elephant in you'll get a picture of a blackhole out?

<comment><USER14> From what I understand, the training input images are just to establish the relationship between sparse data points and full image, regardless of subject matter. Since they were getting the black hole picture out of the trained model regardless of how it was trained, it's likely that the model was producing accurate results of what the "camera" was pointed at. If they had pointed it at an elephant, the model would have produced a picture of something elephant-like because it was somewhat accurately reconstructing a full image from sparse data points.

<comment><USER11> > getting the black hole picture out of the trained model regardless of how it > was trained

Did they try to feed random noise into their trained image builder?

I suspect that the output of that trained image builder is always the same "black hole", even with random noise as an input.

<comment><USER12> Probably not with random noise. With random noise there is literally no connection between pixels. With any actual picture there are connections. Like for instance a pixel is more likely to be the value of its neighbor or nearly so than any random value. This follows from the fact that the pictures are of actual objects with physical properties that determine the value of the pixel that maps to them. Most of the image can be characterized by continuous gradients with occasional edges.

I think if you trained with random noise you would get random noise output.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I just want to see what she named her jupyter notebook. 'black_hole_v4_new_FINAL.ipynb'

</comment><comment><USER16> [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katie_Bouman](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katie_Bouman)

</comment><comment> streb-lo Serious question HN:

If Katie was a man do you think people would be going through git histories and their published papers trying to determine if she is being over-credited for her achievements?

<comment><USER17> People are already doing this on Reddit[0][1], and it's pretty silly because they obviously have no idea how Github or scientific research works. There's an effort underway to undermine Katie Bouman's contributions and it's absolutely ridiculous.

Edit: I just checked Twitter, apparently there are thousands of idiots who believe this "850,000/900,000 lines written by Andrew, therefore he wrote the algorithm" narrative. It's amazing how willing people are to eat up a low- hanging narrative as long as it confirms their world-view. All it takes is a very crude understanding of how software development works to see through this narrative.

[0] [https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/bbykvf/ka...](https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/bbykvf/katie_bouman_should_not_be_getting_credit_for_the/)

[1] [https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/bbuvff/this_is_andrew...](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/bbuvff/this_is_andrew_chael_he_wrote_850000_of_the/)

<comment><USER18> This[0] comment seems to be another in that vein, though it seems to have more details, even if it repeats the 850k lines stat which doesn't really hold up.

[0] [https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/bbql1i/this_is_dr_kat...](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/bbql1i/this_is_dr_katie_bouman_the_computer_scientist/ekmy2su/)

<comment><USER17> The analysis you linked to seems to be vastly misrepresenting Andrew Chael's contribution. Quote from the link:

> Andrew Chael wrote 850k out of the 900k lines of code. He was also the > leader of the project. Michael D. Johnson wrote 12k lines of code. > Chanchikwan wrote 5k lines of code. The woman? Only wrote 2.4k lines of > code.

It's a little bit unbelievable that the author of this comment (/u/dragonballcell) nailed all of these fine-grained details (red herrings, perhaps?) and yet glossed over an incredibly important _and_ superficial/trivial detail: that Andrew Chael did not "write 850k LOC", he generated _hundreds_ of thousands of lines of data and committed them to the repo. Needless to say, I think this whole drama is incredibly pointless.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Was making a photographic image the main aim of the project? Or is the image just a byproduct?

I mean hard to imagine such a large project being taken up, for the benefit of public being able to see a picture of the black hole.

Would this kind of multi telescope effort be capable of producing surface images of extra solar planets for example?

<comment><USER20> It wasn't a photographic image (they're using radio waves, not visible light). This is a visual representation of the radio waves.

And yes, this is one way of representing the data. I'm not sure exactly what your question is though, as actually getting this data is really important to confirm a variety of theories and also to potentially open up new avenues for investigation. And this cost orders of magnitude less than Hubble, whose purpose was also to generate photographs, seeing as how they simply connected together existing radio telescopes.

The point was to demonstrate that this technique is feasible. Now they can use it to image all sorts of other stuff and learn lots more.

<comment><USER19> Question is, what did the project aim to achieve? Take a picture of the black hole?

Or gather data that will help us study blackholes?

Because the press is largely focusing on the picture and not telling much else detail.

And is Boumans contributions to do with the making of this image?

<comment><USER21> I'm confused. Given that "images" are just data, how is taking a bunch of data about a black hole and combining it into a single "picture" of a black hole not also gathering data to help us study black holes?

As I understand it, the notability of the project is that it found a novel way to process data from coordinated data collectors scattered around the earth into a single coherent data set (with more resolution than any single collector could gather).

<comment><USER22> It also appears to have confirmed some of Einstein's theories (from what I understood)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Relevant repository - [https://github.com/achael/eht- imaging](https://github.com/achael/eht-imaging)

<comment><USER24> > [https://github.com/achael/eht- > imaging/graphs/contributors](https://github.com/achael/eht- > imaging/graphs/contributors)

Huh, I wonder how accurate this is. All the code is beyond me in any case, I'm in no position to judge the relative value of any of it.

<comment><USER2> This is deeply offensive. I'm the owner and founder of my company and I haven't written any meaningful code for our core products in 10 years. Our github repo has barely a scratch from me in it. Does this make my work, my hard long hours in managing my team and designing the product, worthless?

<comment><USER25> It's offensive and frustrating. I don't understand why people have to try and pull holes in this kind of celebration like there is some conspiracy to promote Katie at the cost of others.

If I read it right, she mentioned and praised her team as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Hacker's News is so sexist they can't just find the joy in this algorithm genius' success. She solved one of those hard technical problems we always talk about, and the world is richer for it.

</comment><comment><USER27> Redirect your confusion towards that unprofessional media outlet. What Dr. Bouman has to do with this? Read or listen to her interviews, she always highlights that it was a team effort.

</comment><comment><USER28> Mega Science projects are always huge collaborative efforts. This remarkable scientific achievement is now unfairly focused on an individual. Lets compare this with a couple of other mega science discoveries. The gravitational waves detection discovery was not attributed to any single individual. The collaboration got the credit for it. Back in 2012 when ATLAS experiment at CERN announced the discovery of Higgs boson, the collaboration spokesperson Fabiola Gianotti made the announcement through quite an impressive presentation of the results. Yet the discovery was attributed to the whole collaboration. In both these occasions no Eureka moment photographs were publicized and stole the credit.

In particle physics, these practices evolved over decades, when specific individuals tried to claim credits for discoveries in an unfair way(Nobel dream by Gary Taubes gives a beautiful account of this). Many particle physics collaborations now have detailed constitution and guidelines on what images/graphs they can show to the public. Someone who first made the first Higgs mass plot which shows a 5 sigma evidence of Higgs observation could not have leaked that plot on social media.

However this narrative is inspiring and perhaps motivate many young woman to take up careers in science and promote a more welcoming atmosphere for women in STEM.

</comment><comment><USER29> Slightly off-topic - is anyone able to identify the software used in this photo of the first time seeing the black hole?

[1] [https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/190410153403-katie- bo...](https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/190410153403-katie-bouman-mit- graduate-student-black-hole-super-tease.jpg)

<comment><USER30> At a glance the graph UI looks like matplotlib's.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> BBC covered it more as a team effort for this BBC4 doc I watched last night.

[https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m00042l4/how-to- see-a-...](https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m00042l4/how-to-see-a-black- hole-the-universes-greatest-mystery)

</comment><comment><USER32> How come she is everywhere on the internet but not at the presentation panel on live conference that was yesterday?

Jeez why the downvotes? It's a legitimate question I had.

<comment><USER10> " 29-year-old computer scientist"

She's not an astronomer?

<comment><USER33> She is definitely not an astronomer. A lot of highly specialized and talented people who aren't astronomers or physicists are are critical to the success of big science projects.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> from april 2017: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIvezCVcsYs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIvezCVcsYs)

</comment><comment><USER35> It's so awesome! I thought it was kinda cool that it actually looks a little bit like the one from Interstellar.

<sarcasm> I just wish they had used a camera from this century </sarcasm>

</comment><comment><USER36> Is this the correct repo?

[https://github.com/achael/eht- imaging/graphs/contributors](https://github.com/achael/eht- imaging/graphs/contributors)

I didn't realize this was public code.

It looks like one "achael" is the author of this, though.

</comment><comment><USER37> What many people here committing is logical fallacy of Tu Quoque[0]. Just because people wrongly attributed disproportionate credence of such creativity, fame, and inspiration to Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and all, it doesn't mean they must be mute to such continued disproportionate bias of limelight and recognition when add another one adds to the list. _We are always allowed_ to correct ourselves whenever we find such bias regardless of it emanating from some implied message of jealousy or butt hurt attitude because a minority section has achieved. This is why I like HN( and back in the day, Quora). They are so beautifully intelligent minded that they won't even leave git histories and published papers. This, I have seen on many submissions here.

Never have men at large objected to such bias when women have cited theories and concepts discovered by men to publish papers and win medals in the field of mathematics. That is something naysayers should ponder over.

All the documentaries, autobiographies, and famous books that peered deep into the lives of those inspirational people always give proportionate credit to those contributors of success either by these people or the authentic researchers. Katie was no less enthusiastic when it was her turn.

But these news agencies play with people's emotions, desires,aspirations, etc. These news agencies are capitalistic and optimize over consumerism. These news agencies are shameless whores to betray the principles of intellectual honesty and journalistic ethics in dissemination of facts by kowtowing to the appeasement of the disgruntled - who happen to be majority of their viewers.

But? We, the layman, are hapless to (1) gain knowledge from immediate sources (2) draw immediate conclusions from these sources. We can't be blamed for not putting efforts to gain complete picture or check the veracity of middlemen called the media. We run forward the self fulling prophecy originating from media. The trust was put in reputed media and that is why the media should care for its reputation. That trust was put in the media because it was touted as fourth pillar of democracy who can't commit hypocrisy in its main endeavors to expose the truth.

Whereas otherwise, the organization Katie Bouman is working, official representatives such as MIT blogs, and TED talks have all credited to the development of original algorithm, though when it was at nascent stage, to THE Katie Bouman, _while at the same time to her team for handling in subsequent parts._

I salute her. With relevant degree and using her education in imaging black holes, she set the discourse of the main branch that others picked up. If the idea and algorithm germinated in her mind, she should get credit for it, simple. All she needed is few people to delegate implementation of her ideas or modify it for sustenance. If somebody furthered her ideas enough that it can be versioned as 2.0 or 3.0, then they get equal credit and status as her in final mission[1]. She can patent her invention rightly for conjuring the initial stages of algorithm using all of her own cognitive capabilities.

 _But we should go only so far._ Even women aspirants will get disheartened and show recidivism by wrongly strengthening the bias that they are somehow less capable in attaining pinnacles of STEM, when they learn that the achievements of women in reality is not what media portrays. This is why I consider the twitter photo of her being placed aside Margaret Hamilton as the efforts are no way comparable _ceteris paribus._

Moreover, if lack of minority role models is enough of a reason to discourage that aspiring minority from their passions, then it would be no less effective in discouragement of non-minority's passions when there is lack of attention and acknowledgement to non-majority's achievements. I mean how did Katie meander through her success to begin with, if there were no role models to her in the field she is working, in the first place?

People say that men had plenty of men in annals of history to look up to, but I'd contend that women aren't in anyway stopped to take inspiration and pique their curiosity in men's achievements just like men take inspiration from Marie Curie or Hedy Lamarr apart from the sea of men.

[0]rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

[1] I mean Prof Falcke.

</comment><comment><USER38> The Chinese military used a similar method to find US spy planes - they used background signals from e.g. cell phone towers and looked for the area where there was a "blank spot" \- which was the spy plane's absorption of the spectrum.

<comment><USER39> This is a popular hypothesis, but how exactly do you think it may work? It's not like you can see a "blank spot" by looking _from_ radio sources, you'd need to put your antennas in a position where the plain will intersect your line of sight to the transmitter. And not just one, but _massive_ number of lines if you plan to track it and deliver a missile there.

It sounds pretty improbable and I believe it's just an urban myth.

<comment><USER38> Why let the facts get in the way of your unexamined beliefs?

References a paper from 2009 (classified research could well have been much earlier):

[https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-u-s-navys-next- hawkeye-...](https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-u-s-navys-next-hawkeye- plane-can-detect-stealth-fighters-51023944fcbe)

Guess what emits UHF/VHF? Terrestrial TV stations and 900Mhz and 700Mhz cell phone towers , like Sprint and Nextel used to operate in the USA before their spectrum was traded/sold back to the government.

China claims can track F22 fighter even in stealth configuration: [https://news.yahoo.com/stealth-no-more-china- claims-02470090...](https://news.yahoo.com/stealth-no-more-china- claims-024700905.html)

And this is what is publicly released for public consumption...

<comment><USER40> It's well known that low frequency radars can detect stealth airplanes. But it's difficult to target a missile using them, and they're too big to put anywhere but on the ground.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I've read comments on Hacker News for many years, often finding them a useful source of additional information and insight into details from whatever the linked piece is. Sometimes these threads are full of only subtly veiled hatred and leave me with a feeling of disgust. This thread is one of those.

There have been countless threads over the years where a man gets the credit for something a team has worked on and there is practically never any comments about this. For once a woman gets credit and this thread is full of people complaining that there was an entire team.

Yes, there was a team, but that doesn't matter. For once a woman is getting credit for the great work they've done and this should be applauded. Stories like this help bring more women into STEM fields. Anyone who is complaining about the lack of fairness in this is making themselves look ignorant by ignoring the last thousand years of scientific progress.

<comment><USER42> In my experience this is common for this type of news about "prodigies" on HN. I remember the same types of reactions a few years ago about an article about a child who made the headlines (it even prompted a response by pg IIRC). Was it Malala? I can't remember.

I think it's just that many people feel threatened or inadequate when they (naturally) compare themselves to these people. It's tempting to put them down so that we feel better about ourselves. I think most of us here on HN like to think that we're clever but when people like Katie Bouman get under the spotlight suddenly most of us realize that we're not such hot shots after all.

It's probably worse when it's a woman/child/minority/... because it gives us the convenient excuse of "this is probably a PR stunt" to dismiss them. It's lazy and it's intellectually dishonest but it's also very human unfortunately.

<comment><USER43> I would hope that isn't it. While her trajectory might be uncommon it isn't abnormal. This is the kind of thing you are supposed to do with a PhD from MIT.

<comment><USER44> But the amount of hours worked are probably insane. I wouldn't be surprised if she was in her lab 12 hours a day for her whole post-doc or something like that.

Many people are intelligent enough, but are not going to work hard enough.

<comment><USER26> Reading about this reminds me of Dawn Wall. The guy who climbed it was absolutely one of the best climbers in the world, but the reason he was the one to succeed was because he was the one of those best climbers who spent seven years obsessed with a single wall.

She became interested in this problem in _high school_ and stuck with it all the way through. She is a genius, and also the genius who did the work that let this happen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Title ought to reflect the fact that this woman has a doctorate from MIT and should rightfully be addressed as _Dr._ Katie Bouman.

<comment><USER46> Her name is Katie Bouman. She can also be addressed as Dr. Katie Bouman.

<comment><USER45> Sure.

But in a published headline, one _ought_ to be addressed by their formal title.

Differences exist between casual conversation and publication. A distinction I shouldn't have to point out as one that exists.

<comment><USER20> In the headline? They call her "Dr" just a few sentences into the article. The rule of headlines is to use as few words as possible, and every one of them should be necessary. I've never heard that formal titles MUST be used in headlines, and indeed in practice this doesn't seem to be the case. Shaquille O'Neal has a PhD and I've never seen him referenced as Dr. Shaquille O'Neal, in a headline or otherwise (and no, I'm not joking, this is apparently real).

I don't think this is an attempt to minimize her accomplishments, unlike many of the comments here in this very thread.

<comment><USER47> I agree with you, however the difference is that her Dr is relevant to the article, and Shaq's Phd usually isnt.

<comment><USER20> Neil deGrasse Tyson has a PhD in astrophysics and isn't typically referred to as "Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson" in headlines either. Same for Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, and many others. Titles simply tend to be dropped in headlines and casual conversations; they certainly aren't universally used, or even close to it.

<comment><USER45> Are you at all, in any way willing to entertain a viewpoint that suggests that those gentlemen have their titles dropped possibly because they have become synonymous with their crafts and a lifetime of achievement that-at least in the case of Dr. Sagan has spanned generations (Dr. deGrasse-Tyson's work and personality on the cusp of enjoying the exact same), and their names closely associated with a deep personal connection to the dissemination of science as a form of consumable entertainment (that also happens to inform) and that this maybe serves as an important distinction between someone who is appreciating their first bit of notoriety for their scientific accomplishments?

I personally think they should all be addressed by the titles they've worked lifetimes to earn, that _anyone_ who holds a formal title such as Doctor should be addressed as such in a non-casual/non-informal environment, but I'm also willing to entertain that this is a possibility for why the difference may exist between Dr.'s Sagan, deGrasse-Tyson, and Bouman. And yes, there are probably, most likely others that are far less nuanced and charitable.

Would you be willing to entertain that viewpoint?

<comment><USER48> "Are you at all, in any way willing to entertain a viewpoint that suggests that those gentlemen have their titles dropped possibly because they have become synonymous with their crafts and a lifetime of achievement that-at least in the case of Dr. Sagan has spanned generations (Dr. deGrasse-Tyson's work and personality on the cusp of enjoying the exact same), and their names closely associated with a deep personal connection to the dissemination of science as a form of consumable entertainment (that also happens to inform) and that this maybe serves as an important distinction between someone who is appreciating their first bit of notoriety for their scientific accomplishments?"

Nope.

I think you are now beating a dead horse with this argument.

<comment><USER45> May I take it with me to the grave. I think someone who is, in fact, a doctor ought to be addressed as such. Regardless of their gender.

Apparently that is a problem for some in this community which is a damn shame.

<comment><USER20> Eh, I think it's kind of pretentious to demand using a special title when referring to people like this. It's just a degree. I don't demand people refer to me by using my work title in front of my name and I've been doing this for a lot longer than 5-7 years. The people I've met who correct you on how to address them by their title invariably come off as (and usually are) arrogant assholes.

Titles in general seem quaint and obsolete to me (and to many others). Seems like a relic from centuries ago, like from monarchies. I don't see why not participating in this is a "problem" or a "damn shame".

<comment><USER49> The title of Doctor witnesses that the owner advanced humanity's knowledge, and often turned the impossible into possible (as here). It's not "just" a degree. It's also not inherited. That you compare work titles with that suggests you have no idea on what you're talking about.

One can make intelligent arguments about the use of such titles. These aren't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Her story is trully inspiring! She seems like a really likable person, has been hard working, with great results, making a major contribution. The photo with her and the hard drives is amazing and I am sure she will inspire many to enter science.

However, I think to call her "the woman behind the first black hole image" is a hyperbole. It makes it sound as if she was _the one person_ responsible that all this came about. -- But that is not the case. Arguably, there are others who have contributed as much if not more. This is what makes me somewhat feel that this focus on her is not quite fair.

Coverage in mainland Europe has been different so far: Prof Falcke gets a lot of credit for the image/project. Falcke is heading one of the major teams that contributed to the project. In fact, many here attribute the conception of the project to him. But how many in the English speaking sphere have heard or will ever hear about Falcke? Why is that?

My personal guess is that the reason for this is: 1) The Anglo-american media were looking for inspiring EHT scientists from the English-speaking world. 2) Bouman fit that description best.

So, imv, something like "The inspiring story of Katie Bouman" and some credit to some of the other major figures like Falcke would have been fairer.

<comment><USER51> > This is what makes me somewhat feel that this focus on her is not quite > fair.

Thought experiment: if you saw an article titled "Jony Ive: The Man Behind The iPhone" would you be commenting on how unfair it is to single him out? After all, he just designed the thing, a huge team of people built the software and the hardware that actually made it possible.

<comment><USER52> Yes, absolutely. I've made comments before to the effect of: I cringe hard enough to actually feel physical discomfort every time a headline refers to a team effort of SpaceX as "Elon Musk's Rocket."

<comment><USER53> Ok, how about "Turing: the genius that cracked the ENIGMA code"?

<comment><USER54> I would start by informing them that ENIGMA was actually broken by Poland, and they invited the British two weeks before the German invasions to show them how it worked and give them a prototype enigma breaking machine. They didn't want the technique and knowledge in how to break enigma to be lost after Germany invaded. The French also got a copy, and it was actually the French intelligence service that had gathered the initial data and it was unknown to them that this enabled the polish to break ENIGMA.

What turning did was to take the initial prototype they received and build a even more powerful and refined version. In particular he improved the technique so it broke the naval version of enigma which was more complicated than the army version that the polish had broken earlier. This was in part possible because the British had captured a working naval enigma from a German submarine.

(A lot of this comes a book called The Code Book by Simon Singh. The last chapter on modern ciphers is a bit dated but the chapters on enigma was quite good.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> Here's a HN story from a while back titled "The Man Behind Windows PowerShell"[0].

Of the 129 comments on that story, _not one_ discussed how software development at Microsoft is always a team effort. Or checked any repositories counting LoC to quantify the value of his contribution.

Meanwhile, in this thread, I see 6 of 73 comments as of now _not_ discussing a woman's relative contribution to a team effort, and how she does or does not deserve praise.

[0]: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15250349](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15250349)

<comment><USER56> Not really a fitting comparison. Snover is describing himself as inventor of power shell, he pushed the project against resistance of his peers/superiors in Microsoft and implemented the first prototype. Without him it simply wouldn't exist.

<comment><USER26> Without her, this wouldn't exist.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> Is it me or is the article written like for 5 year olds? It feels like I am reading a child book.

However, this is such a great achievement. Would be awesome to learn more about the algorithm.

<comment><USER58> Because it is. If it reads like a child book they did a great job. If you studied journalism you'd know making it as easy as possible for all audiences is a key skill each journalist needs to have. It's not a science journal that it needs to be full of jargon. It's meant for general audience and they did a great job. If you want a hard piece go read the journal papers that got published.

<comment><USER59> There are degrees of this. If you compare science reporting against the mainstream financial news it is like chalk and cheese. If the numbers represent money, technical jargon is everywhere, if the subject is scientific, even the numbers are considered scary, never mind a technical discussion around them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> It doesn't really work like this. It's a team of scientists that make these contributions, not one person.

<comment><USER61> And nobody is saying that it was done by one person.

It specifically lists the teams in the article.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> THE woman? I am not sure how other women team members should feel about the article. Or even men. She may made important contribution but so did many others. Attributing the credit to a single person in such a large scale project is not fair to any team member. I am sure it is not her fault but whoever pushed to have BBC publish a story like this is hurting the science endeavor overall more than helping it.

<comment><USER63> We see articles about 'the man behind' stuff all the time. Just go to Google News and search for 'the man behind', you'll see pages and pages of them just for the last few weeks. In fact, check out articles with 'the man behind' in the title on HN[0]. It's a common shorthand which I think most of us recognise as not necessarily disrespectful to a team they might have lead.

[0][https://hn.algolia.com/?query=%27the%20man%20behind%27&sort=...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=%27the%20man%20behind%27&sort=byPopularity&prefix=false&page=0&dateRange=all&type=story)

But uh oh, now there's a woman behind something all of a sudden it's a huge problem and the thread is packed with complaints about it. I wonder why that is?

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> She actually wrote 2k lines of code. Alex Chael wrote 850.000 out of the 900k total, but is ignored.

Katie's lines of code did two things: 1) integrated the code of others 2) allowed you to change the font-size

</comment><comment><USER65> I posted a comment 10 minutes ago and it got immediately downvoted into oblivion. Could you guys please tell me why it is such a bad question to ask? Thank you! Here it is:

Does it really count as an image of a black hole? Since no light is reflected by the black hole, all we see is light bend by the gravity of the black hole.

Haven't we seen that before? I have the strong feeling there have been photos of star constellations that seem distorted because of black holes.

A quick googling brings up this article from 2014 for example:

[https://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/12/tech/black-hole-nasa- nust...](https://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/12/tech/black-hole-nasa-nust..).

"Black hole bends light, space, time -- and NASA's NuSTAR can see it all unfold"

<comment><USER66> > Could you guys please tell me why it is such a bad question to ask?

Because it's nitpicking[0]. When scientists show you results of several years of work of many people, you effectively chose to ask question like "Is it really violet? Seems more purple to me". You don't contribute anything to discussion, but just want to sound smart-ass.

[0] [https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nitpicking](https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nitpicking)

<comment><USER67> No, it's a legit question. Before I read this article I heard mention of a new picture of a black hole, and I was wondering how it was different from previous pictures.

My understanding now is that this is the first time we've observed one accurately enough to get a picture of the Einstein ring around a black hole. And even there, it's heavily reconstructed using machine learning, which I wouldn't call a "photo", more of a "AI artist rendition".

<comment><USER26> Any digital photo is a reconstruction. Consider all the pictures from the Hubble telescope: these techniques are a far more sophisticated version of the same kinds of techniques used to clean those up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Now let's try to generate some pics of the lunar landing sites.

<comment><USER22> Can somebody explain why this got downvoted? I'm genuinly interested if this is possible with the technology (using optical telescopes). This was my (poor) attempt to start an open conversation about it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> I'm not biased anyway but thinking Is it fair to attribute this entire thing to one person leaving out the team of collaborators? Doesn't it sound like what happens with Jobsism?

Edit: While I'm being rapidly downvoted, I'd like to clarify that I didn't mean to demean this because it's a female nor any of the feat this research has achieved. My point was only about why is it reported as if individual feat while many of such things are a strong team work.

For some other questions - will you say the same about Elon musk - of course i've argued this among my peers and that's exactly why I called it similar to `Jobsism`

To Quote: Another recent incident, While AI Godfathers got Turing award, many questioned why this person hasn't got and that person hasn't got.

My idea for this comment was a constructive discussion but it took a different spin that my comment is against this woman which definitely not my intention.

<comment><USER69> ~I feel bad for the team. I would rather see the whole team praised for the success not just one person that fits the narrative "women in tech".~

People I right, I made an assumption based on the title and not the content.

<comment><USER70> "Elon Musk single handedly saves the world with electric cars and revolutionises spaces travel"

The media have highlighted the lead, she credits the team, and the article outlines the numbers who worked on it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> So is the 200 people team a frontrunner for the Nobel Prize in Physics?

</comment><comment><USER72> Reading some of the comments in here and in previous texts, I think everyone should try to heed to the following guidelines:

\- When an individual/team's work is emphasized by their biological characteristics, it is often meant for clicks or to drive emotions (positive & negative)

\- When that happens, ask yourself whether the author of the paper did it for nefarious reasons or not.

\- If the cause doesn't seem nefarious, ask yourself whether the society around you has outgrown the biases towards X biological characteristics

\- When interacting with others, do not base your actions and thoughts on their biological characteristics.

\- Celebrate, debate and criticize the work that the individual/team did, the work the author of the article did and the comments.

<comment><USER73> Seems to me that you are the one emphasizing "biological characteristics". The article does not. Are you projecting, maybe?

<comment><USER72> The Ycombinator text doesn't say it, but the link does. I think a lot of the negative reaction in here comes from the way people have started to perceive the narrative created by the media and personal feelings of threat (which is often unfounded).

I am all in for getting more people from all backgrounds into Computer & Sciences. I also agree that sometimes it is beneficial to have 'biological characteristics' added to articles to get certain groups to find someone to look up to. Humans are biologically set-up to do that, what the guideline implies is for everyone to do 'at least that' before creating biased comments.

Care to explain how the 'guidelines' comment is projecting?

<comment><USER73> > The Ycombinator text doesn't say it, but the link does.

The title of the article as of this moment is, "Katie Bouman: The woman behind the first black hole image." Saying, "the woman behind X" doesn't emphasize gender any more than saying "the man behind X" does. Again, this is you projecting, perhaps because you think "normal" is male, and thus "woman" is somehow making a statement?

I see nothing in the body of the article that mentions her gender in any way other than using the pronoun "she." It seems to me that you read an article about a female scientist and projected some kind of ulterior motive on the part of the author, which says a lot more about you than it does about the author.

<comment><USER72> Did you bother to read some of the comments people have written here and did you even read my whole text or just hand-picked something that triggered you and decided to argue?

Like I said before, based on OTHER PEOPLES COMMENTS, I recommended them to consider those guidelines. I still have no idea why it became about me projecting something.

Regardless, to cover your point, media companies use titles to instill something in the reader and emotion is often a tool. "The woman behind..." or "The man behind..." doesn't have any impact on the way I process the information, however, it does for others (positive and negative). For a children, it can be a source of inspiration, for someone else it can trigger something negative based on the current environment of things. This tool has been used to glorify astronauts, soldiers and many other areas. I didn't project anything, I read OTHER PEOPLES COMMENTS and thought it was important for them to consider what I said.

Hopefully in the future, everyone will stop putting so much emphasis in biological characteristics (READ OTHER COMMENTS HERE AND ELSEWHERE) and take it for what it is, a bright scientist gave us a snapshot of something we have been curious to see for decades. Regardless, you should re-read my comments to realize your points are null and you likely misconstrued my points based on your preconceived notion and current state of mind. If you are willing to have a healthy debate, I would be more than willing to dig into some of the topics you may have, including the amazing work Dr. Katie Bouman did. Now if your aim is to continue to attack me for something I didn't do, then I hope you have a good day.

<comment><USER73> I'm pretty sure you are arguing in bad faith here, as your original comment and your first reply are clearly referring to the article, and implying that it is emphasizing her gender for clicks, when it does no such thing.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The world after coronavirus - <AUTHOR> https://sfree.life/virtual-design-festival-li-edelkoort-free/ <comment><USER3> This is literally YMMV.

Introverted people who had long commutes because they wanted a big garden, garage, etc (or couldn't afford to live somewhere popular) are living the dream right now.

Extroverted people living in city centres who chose small flats based on being able to easily access the shared amenities, get to work quickly etc are worse off because none of that exists any more.

It pretty much comes down to whether you made a housing decision (whether by choice or necessity) in the 'old world' that would become better under lockdown for you.

By the numbers, I have no proof, but I guesstimate that the majority are losing out. Poor people have bad commutes and that's the group hit hardest because their jobs don't exist any more and they have no savings.

<comment><USER4> There's way more to whether an individual is cut out to cope with an extended quarantine than their "choice" of housing and proximity to population center. I would argue that's probably one of the least influential factors. Way ahead of it would be things such as whether you have kids, a spouse, money, as well as other personality traits beyond just extroverted/introverted.

Not to mention it's highly dubious to suggest that introverted people can or do avoid the city for housing and extroverted people avoid the suburbs.

<comment><USER5> Jesus I wish my kids would go off to summer camp for a few months. They are what's making this most unbearable for me.

<comment><USER6> Why did you have kids if you hate being with them...?

<comment><USER7> A generation or two ago, people just ignored their children. They told them to go play outside until the sun come down. Now expectations have changed. These expectations make it impossible to have a decent amount of "alone" time during this quarantine. This renders many people unhappy. We love our children, but we can't handle having them with us 100% of the time. This has never been "normal".

<comment><USER8> Not to mention, if you expected to be with your spouse and kids 24/7 under the same roof for extended periods of time, you'd probably buy a larger apartment. Or perhaps a home with a garden. Even if it would cost significantly more than your current one.

Much like global supply chains, our decisions are optimized quite tightly to our individual lifestyles; what worked well in normal times suddenly doesn't when lifestyles are forced to change.

<comment><USER6> I think this gives the real answer to my question, which is that other people don't plan for the worst case in the way I do. I wouldn't have children unless I was absolutely sure I could deal with them, because the worst case is so awful (you can't really get rid of them once you have them). I did factor in things like "is this house big enough if I need to avoid my partner for long periods of time?" into my buying decision. And so on. It didn't really occur to me that people would make very large life decisions like where to live or whether to have children based on things continuing to be 'normal'.

<comment> dan-robertson If one reads this comment literally, it looks as if you are completely oblivious to the constraints and realities of other people's lives. I'm sure your real attitude isn't so extreme (though if it is then I guess I should congratulate on being so prescient and good at planning).

For the record:

\- lots of people make decisions they later regret. Sometimes they make these based on assumptions that later turn out to be incorrect, sometimes on incomplete information, sometimes based on stress or strong emotion, sometimes in line with advice, and sometimes against advice. Sometimes the effects are small, sometimes they are large, sometimes they ought not be regretted.

\- some people have children without planning to beforehand (for various reasons)

\- most people can't take extreme worst case scenarios into account when making big life decisions (eg "If I become unemployed or unable to work in 5 years I wouldn't be able to afford any mortgage therefore I shouldn't buy a house")

\- some people are constrained by other factors (eg "I'd like to have more space but I can't afford a larger house which is sufficiently close to my work")

\- It's reasonably natural for people to want to have children and sometimes they this even if they know it will be hard.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> People are notoriously ineffective at predicting their behavior under different conditions. In late December they spend thousands of dollars for gym memberships they abandon by February. They say they'll never smoke or drink again before quitting many times. Psychologists call the effect empathy gaps.

We respond to our environments in the moment, not how we think we will. As we tune our environments to our situation, we create environments we like and get rid of parts we don't.

When lockdowns end, unless we consciously choose to lead ourselves, we'll revert to our old wasteful ways. Companies seeing opportunities to regain market share or fearing losing it will send people flying again. People who have found ways to get closer to loved ones remotely will start flying again, ironically probably not bonding as well by choosing convenience over shared effort and struggle. We'll waste again when marketed convenience.

That is, we'll revert to what marketers promote to us if we don't consciously choose to keep our lives simple and sustainable. That's the value of leadership -- personal and of others. I see virtually no leadership around the environment, which is why I work on it. It takes effort, but I find the rewards more than worth it.

<comment><USER10> And honestly even the notion that the world _during_ coronavirus should be that different is open to question. I agreed with taking action to delay the virus by a few months to buy time to both work out what was going on and figure out the most effective treatment strategies, but in Western countries people are seriously considering 12 month style lockdowns to protect potentially as low as 1% of the population who are well past the good years of their life.

In hindsight it may well be that the actuarial math didn't make sense - <USER2> isn't the first disease humanity has faced by a long stretch and we're potentially looking at severe self inflicted wounds for something that doesn't look like it is going to be the next Black Death or Ebola. The obvious historical precedent I remember is 9/11\. Making any changes after 9/11 was a mistake the US never really recovered from. This would be a great moment to be a little hard-hearted and remember that everyone has to die of something.

We don't know what is going to happen from this economically. The economic forecasts are as flimsy and there is a lot of room for unpleasant surprises.

<comment><USER11> Could you elaborate on the mistakes made after 9/11? The ones that come to mind are the Patriot Act, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

<comment><USER8> Also erosion of various civil liberties. Terrorism is like a pathogen causing an auto-immune disorder; pretty much all of its damage comes from reaction to it.

However, I don't think it's in any way like COVID-19 situation. In this pandemic, the economy was going to go down anyway, due to simple self- preservation of individuals. Without social distancing and lockdown measures, once you'd seen people around you getting sick and dying left and right, you'd too be reluctant to go to your work, or to run your plant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It is all very fun to chat about but I am going to be boring and say that in 10 years the Corona-crisis will be just a blip in the distant pasts.

In 10 years the world will be more concentrated around the big cities. People will travel more. Things will be more international, more global. The people will rely more on services, eat out more. IT will play an even bigger role.

Basically a continuation of the globalisation process that has been in full force for the past many years.

(Though I do think Germans finally will stop on using cash payments for everything.)

<comment><USER13> >Germans finally will stop on using cash payments for everything

You are right. We will see only buying electronically in the future.

<comment><USER14> I've been hearing this since 1997. I don't know why I should believe this until I see it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I for one, am enjoying working from home, so far. I wake up without an alarm clock. I do t have to wear what amounts to a uniform, I don't have to spend 2 - 3 hours commuting. I can get my work done.

I one of the few who default meeting to video on.

If nothing else I'm enjoying demonstrating I can be an effective worker at home.

On the other hand, I'm putting on weight. I'm not listening to as many podcasts. I'm sitting on my arse for very long periods.

<comment><USER16> _I for one, am enjoying working from home, so far. I wake up without an alarm clock._

This changes overtime IMO. I've worked from home for years now, initially it's a blessing, in-time it can be a curse.

If you WFH and want to be productive you _must_ learn to plan your day and that usually involved some type of discipline.

<comment><USER17> Waking up without an alarm clock doesn't imply lack of discipline. Unless I'm going out or going to bed very late I usually don't need an alarm. I'd just wake up at the same time every day.

<comment><USER18> Ditto. I don't normally use an alarm unless I have an earlyish meeting or appointment. I wake up within a certain window naturally and that's fine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Divorces and pregnancies aside, there should also be some long-term effect on the whole generation that is now kids.

For parents and kids to be together 24/7 for several weeks is really quite unprecedented. At the very least it's a forced chance to get to know each other better and that should have some long-lasting consequences.

<comment><USER20> Many many kids spend now 24/7 time in Netflix on mobile. Long term effect might be more kids with glasses. Parents still must work from home now.

I think kids spend few weeks with parents anyway. It's called summer vacation and schools are closed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> They will when they lose their jobs in the Great Slump that follows. We are a fraction of the way through the economic pain yet to come.

</comment><comment><USER22> One aspect few people are discussing is that companies who see that remote work is feasible may broaden their hiring pool to a larger geographic area so that local people will be competing with those for whom a lower wage is acceptable.

I am curious to see what affect this might have on urban centers.

</comment><comment><USER23> People, whose jobs are about forecasting change, forecast change.

</comment><comment><USER24> I enjoy not having to commute to work, just to sit in a noisy open plan office. At home I have peace and quiet and no distractions. My colleagues and I have daily video meeting, including time for social conversation.

On the other hand, I am sorely missing the concerts, festivals and other social events I normally do in my free time. Everything has been cancelled until the 31st of August, which has completely wiped out the festival season.

I fully expect this policy to be extended, so that only small events are allowed at first. Odds are the next festival I will be able to attend will be in November at the earliest.

So it's 50/50 for me. I have gotten back into some old hobbies again, now that I have more free time, but I sorely miss social interaction, despite being rather introverted.

Hopefully we will see some positive effects of this lockdown, such as challenging the idea that medical services should be profitable at all costs.

<comment><USER25> I _hate_ my open office plan. It wouldn't be bad if it didn't include sales and customer support managers who are always on calls.

I'm using this time to accelerate my push to work for either Amazon (AWS) or Microsoft (Azure) in a mostly remote role (with lots of travel) in their consulting division.

I would have been happy working as an FTE for a smaller local consulting company, but I suspect that most of the small consulting companies are going to go bust. I don't see too many companies wanting to start new initiatives. Microsoft and Amazon have enough capital to both weather the recession that we are going to be in, enough large customers, and are always looking to keep their bench warm.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> This same conclusion has been posted many many times but the actual answer is "horses for courses". Everyone has their own preferred working style.

</comment><comment><USER27> So far I love working from home, I am more productive than in office, despite parenting.

I'm just waiting for the time to kick my kids to the kindergarten again, to gain a better concentration, then there will be much more improvement.

</comment><comment><USER28> WFH: A lot of people that never really considered work from home will start to demand more, the people that was a big opponent of it will soften up. They won't miss but will despise the traffic to work even more, the time and money saved from the travel will be amplified.

Eating out: there will be a down tick of people that eat out because they discover and become more handy at cooking.

Biotech: Uptick in interests in biology, major speed up in biotech collaborations and tools, govt removing certain red tape.

Social: Extroverts discovering solitude become more introvert. Introverts becoming a bit more extroverted because of the critical need of online interaction easing them back into social circles.

Health: There will be lots of people under exercising and slew of injury after things reopen and ppl start playing sports.(please be careful)

The demand for telehealth will spur remote Standard tools that are installed at home that allow doctors to diagnose most things, like blood pressure, heart beat, stenograph, some type of all in ones. Sponsored by health insurers.

</comment><comment><USER29> This working-style reminds me more of the weavers in Europe at the end of the 19th century. Home-workers will easily just be rated (and paid) on the amount of work done per day. As there are always others who will be more productive, wages decline. At the end, whole families have to produce digital content to make a small fortune... (I hope I will be wrong with this)

<comment><USER30> Ramp-up time exists as well. Depends on the area, but if you need 6 months to really get a contractor up to speed with what you do, you can't afford to risk changing just for some marginal benefit in speed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> It takes discipline and cerebral maturity to work at home, specially under distracting environments (e.g. Internet, games, kids). Long commutes, long lunches, long coffees, long watercooler hours discussing movies, etc., maybe that's had to go anyway. However, social interaction will always be key in any human endeavour, and that should not change whatsoever.

</comment><comment><USER32> Just wondering...are there countries/states/regions showing some kind of baked in immunity to it or unique environment that reduces replication rate or whatever?

Can economies compete if one is operating under quarantine conditions and another doesn't have too? Anyone know any past examples of that?

<comment><USER33> The natural consequence of our last 50+ years of ever increasing economic growth is the lifestyle we had until a couple of months ago.

The push to improve economic output every year has as the effect that people have left very little time for themselves, that they have created smog hells in cities around the world.

I would argue that this environment we created is the antidote, where productivity has not gone up based on what you expect from the amount of hours worked. People keep putting more effort in but the output is not moving much.

I would expect that after some time of stabilizing (and articles like this show its already happening) that people will be more productive and be competitive with those that just keep chugging on.

It is easy to see on an individual level: you can try to put in 80 hour weeks, but a competitor that gets plenty of sleep and is happy doing his job just might outcompete you anyway.

I think the same can be seen on a larger scale, and probably with larger difference as well.

An economy where people are able to work in clean air, with much less pressure and much less feeling of being a consumer will end up being more productive even though a lot of people are working from home.

Because, remember, the main reason a lot of jobs are lost is not because productivity went down. It is because money is not spend. And money not spend is left available to be spend on other things. This will re-balance itself.

<comment><USER32> Agree money fill flow/jobs will come back.

But I am not sure about your other point. People who put in 80 hours and burn out, can be replaced as there is an endless supply of labor in some parts of the world. At an individual level you compete against that pool. Not just one person. And many in that pool have been told for long, consumerism is the reward.

A lot of populists elected world over have promised their bases (who already feel they are owed) certain things. So they will push to get back to "normal". And given the mistrust and polarization that exists, its going to be a hard sell for big change.

Hopefully someone will show up who can do the selling, as I more or less agree with you things need to change. But I feel it will take multiple generations.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I just wanted to make an observation about automation. Yes, it has caused big disruptions on the labor markets. But, in these times, aren't you glad we have machines doing a lot of the essential work it was previously done by humans?

</comment><comment><USER35> (Worth saying before I give my perspective that I agree with all the comments suggesting that YMMV and that, for a lot of people, COVID has been anywhere between a serious inconvenience/frustration and a complete disaster. Everything below is a very personal view with incredibly limited general applicability.)

It's interesting, because the way I feel about working from home has completely changed, and I suspect will continue to change as this pandemic progresses.

Previously I'd work from home for a day or two tops, and didn't really enjoy it. Didn't like the lack of company, especially not as I live alone, and found myself becoming easily distracted if I tried to work from home for longer periods.

I've now been working from home continuously since 16th March. Whilst loneliness and difficulty of focus were problems to begin with they've substantially passed, and I'm finding my ability to focus has improved.

I've come to appreciate the quiet and (ironically given what I said a couple of paragraphs back) lack of distraction. I can get up and move, or do something mindless if I need some time to get away from my screen and think without running into anyone. I can also make a cup of coffee without it turning into a 10-minute project where I have to queue/make smalltalk/empty and refill the coffee machine, and whatever else can distract and delay.

In general, if I'm frustrated by a situation at work, it's easier to get some mental and emotional distance from it, which is helpful for clarity of thought and better decision-making.

I've managed to set boundaries and regular hours for working that I rarely stray beyond, and I find myself more creative and energetic in the evenings.

Not everything is perfect:

\- Lots of video calls and meetings becomes draining, and we've had to learn to change our ways of working somewhat to deal with this.

\- Related: I find that preparation for meetings is even more valuable now because it helps to keep them shorter.

\- I also prefer to have difficult conversations face to face in a way that video calls don't really substitute for.

\- I miss my family and friends, and am missing out on my newborn nephew's first months as he grows and develops. Again, video calls go some way to helping (and I'm certainly grateful to have them - imagine what this would have been like 15 or 20 years ago), but they're obviously not a complete substitute.

\- I've got flabby around the middle: did a virtual black tie dinner for a friend's birthday last night and couldn't do up the trousers of my tux properly - thankfully the cummerbund saved the day, and video calls cover a multitude of sins. I'm getting back into an exercise routine but clearly I need to do more.

Still, right now, I don't want to go back to the office, and this is even taking into account that my commute is generally less than 30 minutes each way.

Who knows? In another month I may feel differently. Only time will tell.

</comment><comment><USER36> A lot of assumptions about how a lot of industries operate will change.</comment>


What's the shortest string that requires a delete to create most efficiently - <AUTHOR> http://rampion.github.io/CopyPastePuzzle/

<comment><USER2> Fascinating post.

The title of this submission is incorrect: it should be "What is the shortest string _length_ that requires a delete to create most efficiently?". That is, find X such that the shortest sequence of operations that produces a string of length X must include a delete.

Which is a bit of a shame, because I think finding strings that require a delete to create efficiently is a more interesting problem.</comment>


Show HN: TrackingDiet.com (Coupon: hnnews) - <AUTHOR> http://trackingdiet.com

<comment><USER2> Cool idea, I think there is room for innovation in this area. I never noticed from the video, but are these requirements based off your weight or the RDA 150 lbs? I think it would be cool, if you just opened up the site so people can build example meals without having to create an account. This will most likely drive traffic to your site.

Also, having ways to create and see calorie/fat/protein rations per meal would be cool. For example people on the zone diet [1], would have a _" 40:30:30" ratio of calories obtained daily from carbohydrates, proteins, and fats, respectively_.

I think you are onto something with how you group these foods together and show the total value for the entire meal.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_diet](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_diet)</comment>


Baby's First Garbage Collector (2013) - <AUTHOR> http://journal.stuffwithstuff.com/2013/12/08/babys-first-garbage-collector/ <comment><USER2> Shameless plug: I ported the code to Rust: [https://github.com/baguette/rs- babygc](https://github.com/baguette/rs-babygc) (feedback is welcome).

<comment><USER3> You should be able to use RAII to pop things from the stack so that it mirrors the actual stack. I think.

Otherwise, looks pretty good. Interestingly, this doesn't contain any unsafe code, probably because Rc and RefCell are doing the actual memory/safety management. Still, the purpose of this exercise is to focus on the mark-and- sweep part, and that seems to have been done pretty well here!

<comment><USER2> All the GC implementations I've seen in Rust use unsafe code, and I _really_ wanted to avoid it. I struggled a bit with some of the RefCell stuff, but the folks on #rust were really helpful. I'm still not sure that a practical GC can be implemented without unsafe, given that RefCells can't be recursively borrowed (so as soon as you have mutable recursive data structures, you have to find some way to work around the RefCell limitation that the contents can only be mutably borrowed once). I wonder if it wouldn't be nice to have something similar to a RefCell that allows multiple mutable borrows, which I think would be safe (only) if the application is single-threaded. Or perhaps a variant that mutably borrows only non-RefCell bits of the contents, leaving the nested RefCell free to be mutably borrowed.

Thanks for your feedback :) I'd had it sitting there for a while with no idea if it was any good or not.

<comment><USER4>
      > I think would be safe (only) if the application is single-threaded.

Unfortunately, it's not that easy: [http://manishearth.github.io/blog/2015/05/17/the-problem- wit...](http://manishearth.github.io/blog/2015/05/17/the-problem-with-shared- mutability/)

<comment><USER2> Good to know. Thanks.

<comment><USER3> In fact, RefCell can't even be shared between threads, it _has_ to be used in a single threaded context.

RefCell and the "no mutable aliasing" isn't something to be "worked around", it's something to embrace, because safety and many other things come from it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Here's another good "implement a simple garbage collector" tutorial:

[http://web.engr.illinois.edu/~maplant2/gc.html](http://web.engr.illinois.edu/~maplant2/gc.html)

</comment><comment><USER6> In fact, most garbage collection variants are very pleasant to implement if you assume that your system only has one type of object. (Simple enough to ask undergraduates to do as a weekly homework.) Things get more hairy when you (1) want to support multiple objects, and (2) want to make it fast.

<comment><USER7> Support for multiple objects and making it fast is dwarfed by ... requirement for _threads_ (not those green ones).

Now all those regions of code where "we can muck with this object before returning it because we know GC isn't running, because we don't call any allocation functions that can trigger GC" have to be locked down. (Among other problems to solve, like that a thread can be doing anything when you pause it.)

<comment><USER3> Interestingly, for rust-gc, the initial _safe_ GC design was the hard part. Concurrency is easy to bolt on to it[1].

Basically, once we had a GC design that was "safe" (In Rust terms; i.e. can't be used in safe Rust to trigger memory or thread unsafety), making GCd objects passable between threads was a clean, logical extension of the existing model.

This is probably because Rust's safety model in a single threaded situation is very close to what you need for multithreaded safety too.

[1]: however it gets tricky again if you want to avoid pausing threads as much as possible (i.e. only pause on a GC mutation).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Wow, has it been almost three years since I wrote this? Where did the time go?

<comment><USER9> Your brain garbage collected the intervening unneeded memories. ;-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> This beats all of my christmas presents even if it's just a toy implementation.

</comment><comment><USER11> Writing a gc for native C as a plug-in replacement for malloc/free/realloc is also very much doable and a rather well-scoped exercise for those who wish to spend few hours on Sunday hacking.

<comment><USER12> It only works if 100% of the code behaves properly, as Apple discovered in their Objective-C GC failed attempt.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Very nice example contains only the code it needs to explain the concept.

Are there any languages that gc every tick?

<comment><USER8> Not that I know of. There are a bunch of games that use "arena allocators" or "per-frame allocators". Often, the game engine creates a bunch of objects during a frame of gameplay that it _knows_ won't be needed once that frame is done. There's a clever strategy for managing that. When the game starts up, you allocate a big block of memory, the arena, and then set a pointer to the beginning of it.

To allocate an object, you just increment the pointer by the size of the object being allocated and return the previous value. In other words, you just hand out some bytes and move the pointer just past them.

When the frame is done, to "free" all of those objects... just reset the pointer. Done.

But, to your original question, it's almost always a bad idea to run your GC every tick or some other high frequency like that. GCs spend a certain amount of time visiting objects that are still in use. Doing that work over and over and over again burns tons of cycles for no point. To get the best overall performance, you want to do as _few_ GCs as possible to minimize that redundant work.

The problem then is that when you wait a long time, you end up having to a big, slow GC and long pauses like that are a problem. Incremental and concurrent GCs avoid long pauses and give you smoother results, at the expense of slightly lower overall performance. They get better latency but worse throughput.</comment></comment>


Ask HN : Alternative to SkypeIn in Canada - <AUTHOR>

Here in Canada, the CRTC makes its own subjective rules about what should and should not pass. They decided to protect the canadian citizens from SkypeIn (online number) because it can be dangerous.
I want a canadian phone number that calls me in Skype so I can have all my telephony centralized instead of using a mobile for inbound calls and Skype for outbound calls.
I guess I'm not the only canadian with this problem and I'm sure there's a solution.
Can you help me please? <comment><AUTHOR> DID World Wide (<https://www.didww.com>) do it but there seems to be some problems with it.</comment>


How the instruments in JAM with Chrome were made - <AUTHOR> http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/casestudies/jamwithchrome-interaction/

<comment><USER2> Title should be "How the instruments in JAM with Chrome were drawn" not "How the instruments in JAM with Chrome were made". Or just use the original article's title. I was expecting to read something about the sound.

</comment><comment><USER3> Seems a lot like the HTML map tag. Expect you could have done this (-animations) in HTML <5</comment>