Navdy's Heads-Up Display for your car starts shipping for $799 - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/25/navdys-heads-up-display-for-your-car-starts-shipping-for-799/ <comment><USER2> My wife's BMW X4 has a built-in HUD, and to us the killer uses are:

1) Current speed shown along with the speed limit. It gets the speed limit from onboard maps combined with using the car's cameras. If there's road construction, for example, it'll notice the signs and update the speed limit accordingly. This seems really simple, but it means never needing to look at your dash to check your speed.

2) Driving directions. Very handy when you're in places you don't know well, or in heavy traffic. The HUD is dramatically better than looking aside to your phone or the car's center console screen.

If an after-market HUD can do those, I'd seriously consider putting one in my other (older) car.

<comment><USER3> Yup, I also noticed on my Mazda that I don't really look at the main gauge cluster anymore - HUD is way closer to my standard field of view, it's focus is closer to the things on the road and it shows all the critical info (speed, radar cruise control status, directions, lane keeping... in new version also blind spot monitoring status and speed limits).

I'd recommend it to anyone, the annoyance is only that you need to readjust it for every driver.

<comment><USER4> Which Mazda model is that if I may ask? I'm looking for relatively low-end (and affordable!) cars with helpful safety features. I've heard Subaru has some good stuff, but didn't know about Mazda.

<comment><USER5> No idea on the HUD, but subaru's eyesight regularly wins the comparisons I've seen. In the USA the IIHT does regular testing, overseas there's a similar organization (sorry can't remember the name). Youtube, consumer reports, various car magazines, and various others have done similar.

Definitely seems smart enough to reduce or even eliminate (some cases) rear ending someone. I know a few people with eyesight systems and they speak of it highly.

Kinda surprising given how small subaru's R&D budget is compared to the bigger makers. I think subaru is in the 3rd generation or so.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> >... put it on a screen that is, in theory, less distracting.

A heads up display isn't less distracting. If anything it is more distracting since it is more in your field of view.

The value of a heads up display is that you don't have to move your visual focus as much as with something in the dash. Better heads up systems than this one make it so you don't have to change your distance focus, everything is at infinity focus.

A heads up display still requires your attention. The improvement is in a reduction of the dead time while switching between it and your surroundings.

<comment><USER7> I believe the front element is curved--i.e. it's a lens--and the system puts focus a couple of feet forward of the windshield.

<comment><USER8> A proper HUD uses collimation to move the perceived focus point out to infinity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Navdy looks neat, but I have a hard time believing that $799 is the right price point for something that competes with a $20 cell phone holder...

Perhaps I'll eat my word :).

<comment><USER10> People are weird when it comes to buying car addons :) . Look at how much these 5-series upgrades cost: [http://www.bmwusa.com/standard/content/byo/byohome.aspx?namo...](http://www.bmwusa.com/standard/content/byo/byohome.aspx?namodelcode=165B) .

I drive an '04 Civic, so it's all moot for me... but I'd guess that people are willing to pay ~$800 for the aesthetics of a HUD vs. the kind of phone mount you see in an UberX. Although who knows!

<comment><USER11> When you can roll it into your car loan, it doesn't seem that expensive. Cash out of pocket hurts all at once.

<comment><USER10> Good point! Hadn't considered that; you're 100% right. As smacktoward suggested, maybe Garmin should sell these to dealerships.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Too bad the Garmin HUD was discontinued: [https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/on- the-road/discontinued/hud...](https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/on-the- road/discontinued/hud-head-up-display-/prod134348.html) It was $150 plus a smartphone and $35 app or compatible Garmin GPS.

<comment><USER13> Because Chinese clones cost only $30.

<comment><USER14> Link or it didn't happen.

<comment><USER15> Tons on aliexpress [https://www.aliexpress.com/wholesale?catId=0&initiative_id=S...](https://www.aliexpress.com/wholesale?catId=0&initiative_id=SB_20161025091228&SearchText=car+hud)

Refurb on ebay [http://www.ebay.com/itm/Garmin-Head-Up-Plus-Display-HUD- Navi...](http://www.ebay.com/itm/Garmin-Head-Up-Plus-Display-HUD-Navigation- System-/311652123586?hash=item488fea03c2:g:omIAAOSwZ1BXfuZ5)

<comment><USER16> Are any of those integrated with a phone? They all look like they are just OBD-II speedometers. $25 for a simple product like that is reasonable.

<comment><USER15> Only the garmin is integrated via bluetooth. There are chinese clones of the navdy but haven't found a way to purchase them.

<comment><USER17> There's a comment above ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12790191](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12790191)) that mentions one of the Chinese clones by name: Carrobot. That might help you track one down.

<comment><USER15> That's the one, I couldn't for the life of me remember the name of it. Not worth tracking them down though after I found out language barrier would be impossible to overcome.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'd be curious how hard it would be to create a "case" which could take a smartphone screen and properly reverse it and move the focus point outwards, such that you could get the same effect with your smart phone displaying off the windshield.

</comment><comment><USER19> I wonder how it will work in Arizona sun. Especially when one would potentially need it the most. That is, in the morning and then in afternoon/evening commute. The sun is at the worst possible angles during those times if one is east or west bound respectively.

</comment><comment><USER15> $799 ouch. I'm waiting to see what Anker's ROAV costs in the mean time.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziMZgN60muM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziMZgN60muM)

<comment><USER20> I was thinking the same thing. Anker seems to be able to put out decent quality hardware affordably. So I'd be surprised if their version is over $299. Unfortunately I can't see myself spending more than $99 on something like this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Too bad it's not a thin-sheet that you apply to your entire windshield. Not sure how you'd make a cheap material that's also a transparent display.

</comment><comment><USER22> I thought it would be much bigger and projected onto the glass. Maybe my physics is off, but this form factor doesn't look that impressive.

<comment><USER23> That might work if the windshield is steeply raked (e.g. Honda Civic) but not if it's closer to vertical.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Hudly is similar though they seem to be more focused on the community providing software solutions for what to display.

<comment><USER25> Isn't it illegal in most states in the US to place objects on the windshield like Hudly's projection device appears to be placed in their pictures?

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> That's _head_ -up display.

And while I'm at it, it's not "line of site" either.

</comment><comment><USER27> 800 bucks is too much imo

<comment><USER28> It wasn't 10 years ago when car audio / electronics regularly commanded $1,200+ for a "Flip up" or double din screen by Alpine. Now they are $250+ with everything better; touch screen etc.</comment></comment>


Call PostgreSQL functions via HTTP JSON-RPC - <AUTHOR> http://joelonsql.com/2012/06/03/call-postgresql-functions-via-http-json-rpc/

<comment><USER2> Maybe coming from a web development background has left me paranoid, but this just screams scary to me.

<comment><USER3> Nah, it's safe enough. See Oracle's take on this, <http://apex.oracle.com/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> We've been doing something kinda similar in LedgerSMB with versions of PostgreSQL going back to 8.1 when it was current....

Our approach was different though. We have object methods explicitly mapped to stored procedures by name (this is done to limit the stored procedures exposed by the application). If the number of arguments changes, the middleware does not need to be updated.

The queries are then called through an interface that, in essence, hands a hashref (in Perl) and a stored procedure name to a mapper function which then looks up the argument names and assembles the query.

This is then called, with an optional order by clause, and the results returned as a list of hashrefs.

While this isn't the exact technologies listed here, the approach is something I have found wonderful and so it's probably worth sharing.

<comment><AUTHOR> It this part of the LedgerSMB project? If so, what part of the source code handles things? Would be interesting to see how you have implemented it.

When you create a new function, do you have to do anything in addition to do CREATE FUNCTION, before you can use the function in your front- end/backoffice/whatever external system component?

<comment><USER4> Yes it is. The file that has the mapping routine is LedgerSMB/DBObject.pm.

I won't say it's great code. It was one of the first things I wrote when trying to break out of the inherited codebase from SQL-Ledger (shudders).

We also prefix all argument names in the sql function definition with in_ to prevent collision with column names.

Here's a post I wrote about the mechanics:

[http://ledgersmbdev.blogspot.com/2011/10/introduction-to- sod...](http://ledgersmbdev.blogspot.com/2011/10/introduction-to-soda.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> I looked at the code. Reminds a bit of what we are currently doing. We also have a Perl function for each SP. But that's what I want to get away from, the middle-layer should be fully capable of automatically mapping the request to the appropriate SP, like in this proof-of-concept. Can you think of one scenario when it isn't possible to do so? I've tried but haven't came up with anything.

Also, in execute_method, what if two functions matches the same name? Looks like you just pick the first one it finds. Shouldn't you throw an error if unsure which one to pick?

<comment><USER4> Answering in inverse order:

Since the name is the discovery criteria, function overloading is not supported in this interface. It's possible to define a different one, but the idea here is that the stored procedures should be discoverable based on name. So we have test cases that raise errors when functions are overloaded that we don't know should be.

So in answer to your last question, behavior is undefined, and such a condition will trigger failures in our database unit tests.

On the other side, the reason to enforce an explicit mapping is because it isn't clear how much you really want to trust the client to execute any function in the database at all. An earlier version used AUTOLOAD to map these methods in directly so no middleware changes would be necessary. We abandoned that approach in part because of concerns it could be abused. So the issue isn't what can you do with my framework that you can't do with your framework but actually the other way around. Do I want to whitelist or blacklist stored procedures? Whitelisting seems safer.

A future version will probably use Module::Compile to build mappings from the database, but we haven't defined interfaces sufficiently to make this happen. However one idea is to tie Perl classes to PostgreSQL complex data types, and grab functions which return those complex types. Since all procedures are supposed to return useful data (even delete operations might return the deleted row), then this might work.

Again that's in the design phase.

Edit: It occurs to me that if the return type and the function name become the discovery criteria, then two functions could have the same name but different args as long as they have different return types.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's horrible. You don't need API, just give to clients of your API credentials to your database and they will use DB directly. And it still will be horrible (because only good way to use application by another application is API, not direct access to data). Also, stored procedures is a bad thing - business logic should be written in code, not in data and not in the database.

<comment><USER6> > Also, stored procedures is a bad thing - business logic should be written in > code, not in data and not in the database.

Why?

Your post generally makes a lot of criticisms, but fails to back up any of the points made.

<comment><USER7> Primarily, because the stored procedures are not effectively under version control.

<comment><AUTHOR> Maybe yours aren't, but mine are. I've been using this simple tool for three years now.

<https://github.com/gluefinance/PgDeploy>

It gives you an extra safety net, in case the version in the database would differ compared to the version in the VCS, even though they shouldn't, someone might have been evil behind your back. :)

PgDeploy lets you preview the change and show you a diff. If the diff is expected, you can proceed and deploy.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Features are Debt, not Assets - <AUTHOR> http://berzniz.com/post/128267561586/features-are-debt-not-assets

<comment><USER2> This was a Content-free blog post.

Author asserts "Neutral features don't exist, here's why:" and then doesn't describe why at all.

And the brief post is not even internally consistent. In the beginning he says that features are either assets or debt, then at the conclusion he says that features are strictly debt. Well then the most economically wise decision is to cut all features, isn't it?

Of course it costs time and money to maintain a product. Everyone knows that. The more interesting question is how to value the features you've got in your product vs the time and effort required to maintain them.

And the author doesn't provide any insight at all into that issue.

Just vague and undeveloped thought.

</comment><comment><USER3> The double entry concept is a powerful metaphor for product development: in simple terms, every feature "asset" requires a corresponding and opposite liability to be recorded.

<comment><USER4> I agree and wanted to make a similar point. This is a false dilemma.

It seems to me that every feature has a debt component (cost of maintenance) and an asset component (value to customers and business). Evaluating those together, one can determine whether a feature is a net asset or net debt/liability. In this frame, there _can_ be "neutral" features, where the feature debt and asset entries sum to zero.

If all features were simply debt, it would be hard to imagine how there could be any sustainable software companies.</comment></comment>


200 submissions to the UK Government's public call for views on AI - <AUTHOR> http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/lords-select/ai-committee/publications/ <comment><AUTHOR> Some context.

The UK House of Lords Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence was appointed to consider the economic, ethical and social implications of advances in artificial intelligence, and to make recommendations.

A call for evidence was published on 19 July 2017 and the closing date for submissions was 6 September 2017. 200 Submissions have now been published.

My submission, in my capacity as the Secretary of the AISB, is number AIC0086.</comment>


NewsCred: Just How Trustworthy is Your Favorite Blog? - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/05/12/newscred-just-how-trustworthy-is-your-favorite-blog/ <comment><AUTHOR> Congrats on getting TC'd, guys. Hopefully you'll make millions of users 'happy,' and not just 100.

Referring to: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=187046>

</comment><comment><USER2> Thanks! The first thing I was about to do was post a link on Hacker News, but you beat me to it. I guess it goes without saying, thanks to everyone here for all the help/support/fun over the past few months. We'll chronicle the experience (its been a crazy past few days) soon.

</comment><comment><USER3> 'grats guys.</comment>


Attention and awareness in stage magic: turning tricks into research - <AUTHOR> http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nrn2473.html

<comment><USER2> If you haven't seen "The Illusionist", consider adding it to your to-watch list.</comment>


Google IO 13 easter eggs (type: 11011011) - <AUTHOR> https://developers.google.com/events/io/experiment-song

<comment> saiko-chriskun doesn't seem to do anything over here

<comment><USER2> seems to work only if your device can handle web audio</comment></comment>


Ham on Nye: The high cost of "winning" an evolution/creation debate - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/02/ham-on-nye-the-high-cost-of-winning-an-evolutioncreation-debate/ <comment><USER2> I didn't watch the entire debate because it was clearly not intended to inform an educated audience, but the parts that I did see really disturbed me. Neither of the debaters made any tangible assertions, nor any statements of fact that contradicted statements made by the other. Nonetheless, the two still somehow found a way to "argue" and "debate" for two hours.

Nye should have had it easy. He could have argued that creationists need to demonstrate why their beliefs are any more true than the hundreds of other contradictory creation myths that come from various world cultures (as salgernon mentioned). He also could have argued that science and creationism are not fundamentally incompatible, but instead sort of orthogonal. Creationism can be thought of as a cosmological hypothesis. It happens to be a hypothesis that is basically impossible to test, so scientists instead spend their time evaluating other hypothesis.

Instead, it sounded like he argued the position that "science helps us learn and do cool things, plus you don't need to believe in God to seek answers to life's important question." Weak position. Counter argument: "I don't care about learning or technology because when I die I am going to heaven, and that's ultimately more important than science."

<comment><USER3> > He also could have argued that science and creationism are not fundamentally > incompatible, but instead sort of orthogonal. Creationism can be thought of > as a cosmological hypothesis. It happens to be a hypothesis that is > basically impossible to test, so scientists instead spend their time > evaluating other hypothesis.

I'm really surprised this didn't come up more as the idea that "science is attacking _my_ religion" tends to be one of the main reasons that people seemed to be adverse to science. It places a false dichotomy in choosing between their faith & science.

<comment><USER4> > I'm really surprised this didn't come up more as the idea that "science is > attacking my religion" tends to be one of the main reasons that people > seemed to be adverse to science. It places a false dichotomy in choosing > between their faith & science.

There's a dichotomy between science and religion, but it's not false by any means. In the most fundamental sense, and not to oversimplify, the scientific mind assumes ideas to be false until there is evidence to support them (scientists call this the "null hypothesis"), and the religious mind assumes an idea to be true until evidence proves it false -- exactly the opposite outlook.

Why is it a mistake to assume claims are true unless proven false? Easily explained — let's say I'm a True Believer who believes in Bigfoot. According to the True Believer's way of picturing reality, Bigfoot exists unless someone can prove he doesn't exist. But think about this — Bigfoot cannot possibly be proven not to exist somewhere in the universe, hiding under some rock. In formal logic, a disproof would require "proof of a negative", an impossible evidentiary burden. Therefore a skeptical, scientific outlook is essential to avoid wasting time on childish fantasies. Need I add that religious people just don't understand this?

Remember this when you see endless phony TV documentaries about Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster and ghost hunters. These shows are popular because most people don't have the slightest idea how to process ideas. And only some of them have religious beliefs -- others are simply out in the ozone.

The above is the "big secret", the divide that separates science and religion. And it's not a puddle, it's bigger than the Grand Canyon.

<comment><USER3> That might be true - but it doesn't have to necessarily relevant on the topic of evolution.

If you want to convince people, it's best to find common ground rather than running to points where you'll know you find contention. Baby steps.

<comment><USER4> > If you want to convince people, it's best to find common ground rather than > running to points where you'll know you find contention.

Some contention is unavoidable. Consider the chasm that separates science and religion -- the scientist's default outlook is that ideas are assumed to be false until there's supporting evidence. The religious believer's default outlook is that ideas are assumed to be true until evidence proves them false (and some believers refuse to examine any evidence) -- exactly the opposite outlook. This can't be waved away, and no meaningful discussion can begin until the chasm is bridged.

Until 1600, religion solved the science problem by killing all the scientists. Since then, it has solved the problem by ignoring science, even while living in a world increasingly defined by science and scientific thinking. That's not a trivial problem, and it's not a question of common ground -- there isn't one.

> Baby steps.

Let the religious make the journey to science, with steps of any size they choose.

<comment><USER3> > Let the religious make the journey to science, with steps of any size they > choose.

I wrote a comment earlier where this attitude is commonplace. that seems to take an approach of "let them figure it out" \- while abdicating any responsibility for helping them do so. That approach exemplifies the attitude of "amateurs get angry, professional educate"[1]. I think you can argue that Nye was the consummate professional in that regard in that he's willing to engage a discussion in order to educate people & explain the importance of science & the need for proper education.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7200474](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7200474)

<comment><USER4> > I wrote a comment earlier where this attitude is commonplace. that seems to > take an approach of "let them figure it out" \- while abdicating any > responsibility for helping them do so.

You're obviously a thoughtful person, but this business of "helping them do so" is in my view rather paternalistic. I think the right moment for a religious person to engage with science is when he feels he must, to make sense of his life, not when a scientifically literate acquaintance independently decides it's time. This serves to break the pattern of bogus authority and a lifelong dependence on others for intellectual guidance.

Just my two cents' worth.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." \--Mark Twain

<comment><USER6> "You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into."

<comment><USER7> Disagree. Even smart people believe dumb things because they have a greater ability to rationalize their choice of beliefs.

Not saying that creationists (YEC or otherwise) are generally smart, but a lack of "reason" isn't always an excuse.

<comment><USER8> The parent never said smart people couldn't hold completely irrational beliefs. They just did not arrive to their position by reasoning about the issue.

I was reading this article about a vocal Japanese revisionist. Like creationists, or conspiracy theorists, there is nothing rational about these beliefs. When you reach for the conclusion first, and establish it is the absolute truth and then cherry-pick and twist facts and make excuses to support your conclusion, you are actively engaged in a process of denying reality. These people don't need a TV debate, they need a therapy.

On the other hand, you probably have people who have never really examined _why_ they believe in creationism, and do not suffer from the same disease. These people may be convinced, perhaps, but they are not the ones at the frontline of the movement, frothing at the mouth and being engaged in a public debate as if they had any shred of credibility.

<comment><USER7> I was responding to the "they didn't reason themselves into". They most certainly used a reasoning, just one grounded in sophistry, not reality.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> No creationist has ever been able to explain why their version should be preferred over, say, Mayan creation myths. It kind of makes my mind explode that they can claim absolute truth over other such myths. But, that's religion, I guess. Pointless and I wish bill nye hadn't given th the time of day.

<comment><USER10> To be fair, thats like asking you to explain why gravity works. (without saying that it just does) There are a lot of things that seem simple which smart people have only theorized.

<comment><USER4> > To be fair, thats like asking you to explain why gravity works. (without > saying that it just does) There are a lot of things that seem simple which > smart people have only theorized.

Be careful when you say "only theorized." A well-supported scientific theory is the highest form of human knowledge. A scientific theory isn't just a hunch (the everyday meaning of theory), it's a combination of observational evidence, a careful explanation of the evidence, and some predictions based on the explanation that can be researched to expand the domain of the theory. And (very important) a basis for falsifying the theory, an observation that would prove the theory false.

The recent discovery of the Higgs boson is an example of theory confirmation -- it's based on the "standard model", the theoretical structure of modern physics, and the Higgs was predicted on theoretical grounds long before we had any chance to detect it.

As to "smart people only theorized", gravity has an explanation, and a very good one -- general relativity. Relativity is one of the two best-confirmed scientific theories we have (the other one is quantum theory, that makes our computers possible).

Please remember this when you want to say "only a theory".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Atheist who grew up in Oklahoma here. The people in this thread who think that the correct tactic is to immediately jump to "Why is your religion better than Mayan creation myths?" are completely clueless. If you ever even met a creationist, you would know that that would just make them dig in their heels and "confirm" their low opinion of mainstream science.

The idea of tiptoeing around religious fundamentalism may bother you, but ultimately you have to decide if you want to be as "right" as possible or if you want to have a shot at convincing someone. And if you don't care about convincing the kind of person who can be a young earth creationist in 2014, then I don't know why you'd even pay attention to any of this.

<comment><USER9> I'm an atheist that spent my teenage years at a quasi religious military school in south Texas. There was a school chaplain. There were bullies that assumed that since I didn't believe in god, I must therefore worship satan.

I had a revolver held to my head for this when I was 15. Loaded? Dunno. No reason to think that it wasn't. He did this because he wanted me to renounce my beliefs, which I didn't do before someone pulled him away...

My point being that these are not rational people, they cannot be reasoned with or taught reality. They wallow and take pride in their ignorance with a "god said it I believe it that settles it" conviction.

It won't do them by good in the end, since they will die and release their carbon like the rest of us, but to the extent that they hurt society by their insistence that fairy stories should govern our lives, discourage understanding our universe and preach their bigoted filth, we should give them no truck and no platform. They are worthy of our contempt and scorn and public ridicule, but there is no point in debating them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> OMG, that was painful. Bill Nye began by wasting two of his five minutes of opening statement talking about freakin' bow ties!

Then the first substantive statement out of his mouth was: the question tonight is, does Ken Ham's creation story hold up? Is it viable?

No no no! The question is: what is science? And the answer is, as the late great Richard Feynman put it, science is the proposition that EXPERIMENT is the ultimate arbiter of truth. So as soon as you say, as Ken Ham does, that the Bible is the ultimate arbiter of truth, you are not doing science BY DEFINITION.

Now, Ken Ham contends that secularists have "hijacked" the word "science." No. It is Ken Ham who has hijacked the word, because the definition is not arbitrary. There is a REASON for it. That reason is, as Ken Ham himself admitted, it works. Experimental science has produced all of the world's technological progress.

When Ken Ham claims that the central tenet of science -- that experiment is the ultimate arbiter of truth -- cannot be applied to the past because "we weren't there" he is simply, demonstrably wrong. It can be, and it is.

Now, of course one can choose, as Ken Ham does, not to accept the premise that experiment is the ultimate arbiter of truth. There are certainly areas of human endeavor where that standard is not applicable: art, poetry, music. But it can certainly be applied to the past.

The debate should not be about whether Ken Ham's model of the world is "viable", the debate should be about what is the standard by which truth is decided: experiment, or a holy text. You can choose one or the other, but experiment produces better results.

<comment><USER13> You should read this. Really read it (like the whole thing): [http://www.discovery.org/a/2834](http://www.discovery.org/a/2834)

(warning: Stephen Meyer is several notches up the scale of intellectual acuity than Ham)

In short, any set of criteria you choose to demarcate science from non-science will either simultaneously include or simultaneously exclude _both_ intelligent design _and_ 'descent from common ancestor'. [And, in the case of inclusion will also bring in a lot of other non-sensical theories].

<comment><USER12> You have completely missed the point. The debate is not (or at least should not be) about what is and is not science. That is merely quibbling over terminology. The debate is (or should be) over the process one uses to arrive at the truth. Empirically, if you use experiment as your arbiter of truth, you are led to make VASTLY more accurate predictions about the world, and hence obtain vastly more power to control the world, than any other criterion that man has yet managed to devise (and in particular, you do better than using any holy text as your arbiter of truth).

It doesn't matter if intelligent design is or is not science. What matters is that when you put ID or YEC to experimental test, it fails. When you put Darwinian evolution to experimental test, it succeeds. Whether or not that makes evolution "true" is a debate over the meaning of the word "true", not the meaning of the word "science." You can choose to believe that the universe is borne on the back of a turtle. You can even call that science if you like. But if you put your turtle cosmology to experimental test, I will bet you any amount of money you care to wager that your predictions will be wrong. In the long run, I will win and you will lose. THAT is what matters.

<comment><USER13> That's not true. ID is based on forensic science and information science. I know that this debate wasn't about what is or isn't science but I think that, in the larger picture, it definitely is. Evolution is dogma and it isn't to be challenged. Let anyone who does so be considered anathema (blasphemous even!).

[Btw, I'm not defending YEC but I definitely do think that ID has a place in the discussion]. We are going to continue to make so many more discoveries at the sub-cellular level of organic life that continued support of the idea of abiogenesis will look rather silly (and honestly it already does).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Unfortunately, there's also a high cost to people who are christians but are not young earth creationists. Nye actually did a good job pointing out that many reconcile their faith and science and that he was specifically debating Ham's view. Of course, that will probably get glossed over and some will takeaway that _christian == wacky like ham_

<comment><USER15> I'm a Christian, and I feel that people like Ham are actively harming Christianity, by effectively teaching people that it's at odds with the observable reality of this world, God's creation (which is studied by science). If you teach people that your faith contradicts science, and they later discover that science works, then what do you think their conclusion is going to be?

And it's so utterly unnecessary. For centuries Christians haven't had any problems with science. This stupid biblical literalism movement is a very recent thing, and it thrives on ignorance. It's harmful not just to science, but also to Christianity. It's a false idol.

<comment><USER16> And yet Christians have, at many times, rejected science in favor of dogma. See, for example, Galileo Galilei, Giordano Bruno, Nicolas Copernicus, and other scientists who were tortured, excommunicated, imprisoned, or had their works banned by the Church in the 15th, 16th, and early 17th centuries, when the Catholic Church had essentially absolute political power.

It wasn't until the Church lost its political power that anti-scientific sentiment diminished.

<comment><USER15> > See, for example, Galileo Galilei, Giordano Bruno, Nicolas Copernicus

You clearly do not know what the Galileo case was about. I'm not sure about Bruno, but Copernicus wasn't prosecuted, excommunicated or tortured either. If you believe Galileo or Copernicus were, then you've been fed lies or have jumped to unfounded conclusions (though you wouldn't be the first).

The Church of that day played an active role in science, and was absolutely open to the possibility of a heliocentric system. But they wanted a model that accurately reflected observations, which Galileo's model didn't. Galileo claimed it was correct anyway (which it wasn't), and called the pope a fool, for which he got house arrest, but wasn't tortured or anything. Eventually, Keppler's model was proven correct and was accepted by the church.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> A lot of people seem to be saying that you shouldn't talk to people who are familiar with creationism at all.

Question: What alternative method is there to reach them? Believe it or not, there are some communities where science isn't readily known. What's the alternative? Refusing to engage sounds not only spiteful but not very useful as you're essentially giving up on a segment of the population while simultaneously getting upset that they don't know better.

<comment><USER3> Using another example that might help this crowd - this reaction reminds me of an article by Paul Jarvis: "Amateurs get angry with clients. Professionals educate them"[1].

There seem to be a lot of people here that are angry & not a lot of people willing to educate. It's easy to label & categorize a whole group of people (whether clients or people who may be uninformed), but if you have the ability to inform, educate & change their opinion over time and don't try - don't get mad at people for staying uninformed - it's your fault.

If you attempt and they're hostile, that's a whole different story, but it's definitely worth attempting.

[1] [http://99u.com/articles/18303/we-deserve-the-clients-we- get](http://99u.com/articles/18303/we-deserve-the-clients-we-get)

<comment><USER17> I think it's a product of the typical nerd black-and-white thinking. People are either raging fundamentalists who take the Bible as literal truth and reject all science that contradicts it, or they are reasonable people who think the Earth is old and evolution happened.

In reality, there are a ton of creationists who aren't raging fundamentalists. They aren't creationists because they believe so fervently that they cannot accept any contrary evidence. They're simply creationists because _that 's all they know_. Many of these people, when exposed to the truth in a constructive way, will change their minds.

In fact, I was one of those people. My elementary school taught creationism and I believed it because, well, why not? Later on I found out about the scientific explanations, and came to accept them instead.

You'll never convince Ken Ham. Nor will you convince his hardcore supporters. That's not the point. The point is to reach out to people who _aren 't_ hardcore about it, but who still believe nonsense simply because they don't know any better. And what better way to convince them to listen at all than to involve a religious figure arguing for the other side? How many of these non- fundamentalist creationists would tune in to "Bill Nye Explains Evolution", versus "Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham"? You'll convince _lots_ of them.

<comment><USER3> > How many of these non-fundamentalist creationists would tune in to "Bill Nye > Explains Evolution", versus "Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham"? You'll convince lots > of them.

I think this is a great point that a lot of people are missing. It's sort of like trying to lay out the features that you like about your product as a developer when realizing that your customer cares _nothing_ about what you like and you have to present / sell it to them in a way completely different to how you would sell it to yourself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The problem is that religion is a package deal. Members of religious communities see and do a lot of good through the church. They raise money for charity, form close knit social groups and generally spend more time thinking about the good of others than the average person does. But all of this good comes at an ideological price and it could all fall apart easily.

If gradual evolution is true then the book of Genesis must be wrong. If the book of Genesis isn't "true", then the Bible itself is based on a lie. If the Bible is a lie then what's the point of going to church? No one wants to worship a fallacious holy book. And if people stop going to church then they'll lose their sense of community and stop doing all the charity work. The thought is too much to bear. It's better just to believe everything the book says, whole cloth, and defend it against all attacks.

A debate won't change any minds, but a dialogue will. We shouldn't ignore creationists. We should continue to talk to them, even if we spend a lot of time arguing over insignificant details. This kind of argument can't be won with facts and figures, but only through attaining mutual respect. It may not have been a good idea for Bill Nye to accept this debate, but he had the opportunity to change some minds with the the way that he carried himself and presented his beliefs.

</comment><comment><USER19> For the life of me, I never understood why evolutionary biologists engage in such ridiculous behavior. Instead of explaining religion from a scientific point of view, they instead debate nonsense as if it is on equal footing with empirically validated science. Richard Dawkins, who taught me biology through his incredible books, has wasted a majority of his life following this foolish path. I still don't understand why.

Religious beliefs result in adaptive behaviors proven to increase fitness in certain environments. That is, these behaviors enhance the fitness of the genes which make one predisposed to religiosity. This has been hypothesized many times, and is the only rational explanation for the vast and fervent religious behaviors we witness today. In brief, religious behaviors cause individuals to engage in cooperative exchanges which are mutually beneficial to both parties. Iterated over many interactions, in a large population, with reputation, it becomes obvious that these behaviors are adaptive.

What biologists must emphasize is that religious behaviors are distinct from religious mythology. It is the behaviors we are interested in as scientists, not the literary masterpieces that constitute such works as the Bible, Quran, Torah, etc. Although they are linked, from an empirical point of view it is meaningless to analyze the philosophy of religion. We must instead look at the behaviors and their resultant consequences.

For those interested, there is a massive amount of knowledge on this subject. I would recommend beginning with Richard Dawkins' Selfish Gene, and intuitively working through the corollaries thereafter. Further reading can be found here [1].

1\. [http://evolution-of-religion.com/](http://evolution-of-religion.com/)

EDIT: Removed Wikipedia link as it wasn't very useful upon closer inspection. The research group linked instead is a much better resource. Also reworded for clarity as per comments below.

<comment><USER20> "these behaviors enhance the fitness of the genes which make one predisposed to religiosity. This has been hypothesized many times, and is the only rational explanation for the vast and fervent religious behaviors we witness today."

It's certainly not the only possible explanation.

<comment><USER19> Please share your thoughts. I honestly love this subject, and am willing to waste an inordinate amount of time discussing all possibilities.

<comment><USER21> It's also possible that religion is a net negative just not a significant net negative, aka it's a thought virus. Viruses have a lot more pressure to avoid being a huge negative like killing there host quickly than they do helping their host, but as long as they can spread it's ok to be lethal as long as it's not rapidly lethal.

EX: Religions who's priests avoid reproduction are clearly a net negative on the individual level at least from an evolutionary standpoint.

<comment><USER19> Quite possibly, though that begets one more question:

Why are certain religions much more successful than others?

@herbig

>Certain religions are more successful than others for the same reason that other organisms are more successful: they adapt more quickly to their environment.

Precisely!

@lutusp

Absolutely. But we have to remember that religious behaviors act through humans. As such, they become just like any other behavior which is selected by evolution through natural selection at the genetic level. Am I correct in assuming that you were thinking of bees and ants, which display behaviors which may not be individually adaptive, but genetically so? If that's the case, you may find this paper [1] interesting.

1\. [http://www.fasebj.org/content/24/5/1301.long](http://www.fasebj.org/content/24/5/1301.long)

@pjscott

Perfect, now let's look at every single one of these factors through the eyes of an evolutionary biologist. You will find that almost each one has a direct analogue in evolution, and the behaviors become indistinguishable from those seen across a wide variety of species. They are just much more nuanced versions of the same tactics employed by every living creature.

<comment><USER4> > Why are certain religions much more successful than others?

Evolution. I know this sounds like a punch line for a joke, but consider that a religion's doctrinal choices represent natural selection -- some choices are more effective than others, and a dominant religion in a world of competing religions equals a dominant species in a world of competing species -- the same rules apply.

And what are the successful species traits? One, a reverence for authority, a time-tested way to attract and hold people who cannot think for themselves. Two, a prohibition against having sex without the intent to breed more miniature believers, a prohibition that the Catholics have raised to an art form. Three, a prohibition against independent thought or constructive criticism, in which the masses are described as a flock of sheep, and they eat it up.

The great irony is that many religions (not all by any means), while very clearly exploiting the strategy of evolution by natural selection to grow their submissive flocks, reject the very idea of evolution, describe it as an evil idea.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I have come to understand the people that don't believe in evolution are either incapable of grasping the concept or they are too afraid to accept it b/c of it's (supposed) implications. My grandmother is one of the former. Whenever we discuss it she always asks why apes are still here if we descended from them. I try to explain about a common ancestor, etc. But it is useless. Perhaps she too just doesn't want to accept the implications, but I have to consider it possible she simply is incapable of grasping the theory. My mother on the other hand is of the later group. It took quite a bit of effort but I think she finally understood the basic idea. However, she is simply too afraid that believing it might mean there is no such place as Heaven. And that, she just cannot bare to accept.

So it is useless really to argue the facts of Evolution vs Creationism. It's the wrong argument. If the person is capable of scientific thinking at all, you still have deal the emotional question of death.

</comment><comment><USER23> Is there anyone on HN happy to admit they are a creationist?

<comment><USER24> I wouldn't call myself a creationist, but I think there's a substantial chance that our current understanding of the physics of the universe will seem as backwards to people in a 200 years as people's under standing 200 years ago does to us now. I even believe that there's a small chance that our understanding of the universe now will seem as backwards as creationism in 5000 years.

As there is so much we don't know yet, it seems crazy to say that creationism absolutely cannot be true, even though it's crazy to say that creationism is true.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> The distinction between 'observational' and 'historical' is a matter of political and social convenience.

Consider carbon dating. Since it's been observed, we should assume it's observational. carbon dating indicates that dinosaurs existed hundreds of millions of years ago instead of mere thousands. but that's historical and therefore this is a contradiction, so we can't assume the distinction.

the only logical conclusion is that we have a false premise.

<comment><USER26> Minor nit pick here, but carbon dating is not used to date fossils and rocks because C14 has a half-life of only ~5k years. With such a short half-life, the C14 all decays away to trace levels in only a few tens of thousands of years.

Other radioactive isotopes with much longer half-lives are more appropriate for geologic dating. The U-Pb system is really good for most geologic applications.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I used to think that debates like this were important, until I realized that you never 'win' anything.

</comment><comment><USER28> Although, the idea of debates like these is great, I feel that they do little to make people think rationally, or convince anyone to switch sides. They only galvanize each sides feels that they are right.

</comment><comment><USER29> it's unbelievable that the argument of the creationist guy was: "it's not true cause you didn't observe it" and "the evidence it's god's word" as god was something we can all observe...

how can you discuss on this nonsense?

</comment><comment><USER30> I REALLY hate to agree with a creationist to any degree but there is something to the observational/historical debate.

We now understand a LOT of physics and chemistry. That's because it's observational, and because it's observational you can make predictions, perform experiments and get results. Other people can do the same as well, thus enabling not only peer review but actual verifiability.

This is why we understand physics and chemistry extremely well, biology OK but rapidly improving, and economics and public policy much less well. Because we can reproduce results in physics everyone either agrees on the truth or is generally regarded as a crackpot. Biologists can't produce the kinds of extremely clean data physicists can but it's still meaningful. In macroeconomics there's very little ability to perform experiments in a repeatable fashion, which results in everyone observing the world and then arguing about why things happened and nobody can prove that they're right or that others are wrong.

When you're dealing with math or computer science induction is a great tool that allows you to do pretty incredible things. But it does so because the nature of math or algorithms is stationary; the rules are 100% fixed from the beginning of time 'til the end (or so you can assume if you're building the system) and thus any assumptions are by definition correct. It's much harder to do this when you're dealing with things that can change over time (and thus potentially invalidate your assumptions), which is basically everything else. That's not to say that induction is worthless outside of math and computer science but it's use comes with more caveats.

I totally get why serious scientists don't want to even acknowledge that a creationist might raise a good point but once it's made the damage is done. If you don't respond at all they pile on saying "look he doesn't have an answer for X!" and if you do respond with a reasonable statement about "this is the best we know thus far and of course nothing can be known until we observe it directly" then they'll pile on with "see it's not guaranteed!" Both of those outcomes are extremely frustrating when you're dealing with someone who can't be convinced with any amount of evidence.

But failing to acknowledge that there is a difference between direct observation and historical/induction and that they create two classes of certainty which are not identical does the very tedious and difficult work of science a disservice in my opinion.

EDIT: To clarify I think what I'm mostly talking about is certainty. If you can't directly (or indirectly) observe something happening with some kind of experiment you can have a personal opinion about certainty and someone else can have another but neither one can be provably wrong. Once that happens there's real certainty and very little room for opinion anymore. Until then things are a bit more fluid. A well educated person's estimate of certainty might be much more accurate than a plebe's but it's not guaranteed to be right.

<comment><USER31> As you say, it seems that the main point of creationists' argument is that historical science isn't valid, because "you haven't seen it happen".

There are so many things wrong with this argument that I don't even know where to begin, but let's play along with this ridiculous line of thought anyway. The obvious question that follows is why is the "historical science" given by the bible any more plausible than the "historical science" of any other creation myth ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths)) ?

Of course there is a difference between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence, but even if you can't guarantee that your interpretation of the circumstantial evidence is true (something which by the way you can't do with direct evidence either), one should strive to find an interpretation that has the highest probability of being true given all the evidence at a given moment.

<comment><USER30> Look I completely agree with you that the creationists are irrationally clinging to a fairly small nitpick and using it to bury their heads in the sand.

BUT that doesn't mean that the small point that they raise with regards to repeatedly observing in the now versus observing the record of the past isn't valid.

>one should strive to find an interpretation that has the highest probability of being true given all the evidence at a given moment

Agreed but until the matter is settled via direct observation by multiple people in multiple experiments you have to kind of play Schrodinger's cat with the evidence. Just because you think you've found the highest probability explanation doesn't make it true, and thus alternative explanations aren't "false" but merely "less likely" Others might disagree with your level of certainty and at this point we're all basically spouting opinions, not facts.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> tl;dr: "Creationism is a worthless and uneducated position to hold in our modern society and Nye is about to treat it as an equal, debatable 'controversy'."

"Scientists should not debate creationists. Period."

</comment><comment><USER33> I had a debate with someone over the existence of Santa Clause, but it was difficult, because the toddler was munching on crayons at the time.</comment>


The microphone bioamplifier - <AUTHOR> http://www.windytan.com/2015/10/the-microphone-bioamplifier.html <comment><USER2> Working with biosignals is a very interesting field of work

As noted, the mains hum is a major source of havoc. It is usually filtered very strongly (and you usually have to do some analog filtering, otherwise you'll get less of the original signal that you want - this also adds issues like phase distortion, etc)

You also have to use very low-noise/high-impedance input amplifiers, so either get the expensive parts or do something like this: [http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/semiconductors/chpt...](http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/semiconductors/chpt-8/building- a-differential-amplifier/)

<comment><USER3> > As noted, the mains hum is a major source of havoc.

Use batteries? Or whatever is the most stable way to generate direct current. Turning a dynamo maybe or is that too simplistic?

<comment><USER2> Batteries won't help. Because a person (to which the circuit is attached) is a very good antenna picking up the hum from the wires around.

Filtering the 50Hz/60Hz from the power supply is relatively easy.

<comment><USER4> Needs a humbucker pickup!

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I thought [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVXOjVZNfhc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVXOjVZNfhc) was fascinating regarding EMG signals too.

Theres also some really amazing research attempting to decode inner speech via EMG - [http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/pub- archive/471h/0471%20(Jorgensen)...](http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/pub- archive/471h/0471%20\(Jorgensen\).pdf)

</comment><comment><USER6> An EKG electrode needs to be Ag/AgCl to be reliable. Making your own is a good start to poor results.

<comment><USER4> I find this comment extremely unhelpful. Where would she be likely to find silver or silver chloride in her house right now in a convenient way to be able to make the electrode? The only silver I have in my house is a spoon my grandmother gave me (I don't get old people's fascination with spoons), so personally I wouldn't be inclined to monkey around with it, if I could get good enough results out of something else. And I assume she wants to use something lying around in the house because if she were to have to order something she might as well just order real electrodes.

Your comment comes off as "this other way that you are not doing is the best way, so you way may as well not even try". This is _Hack_ er News, after all. A hack is, by definition, slapped together from what's available on hand.

<comment><USER7> Silver can be chlorided quite easily by immersing it in bleach for a short while (10 sec to a few min). The color should change, from the bright silver you know and love to a dull, darker gray. You can buy Ag wire for this purpose, or, I imagine, creatively salvage some from another source.

<comment><USER8> EKG electrodes seem to be readily available, and cheap, too, in the US. IIRC, even the hypo-allergenic ones I had to get one time were not particularly expensive. I don't know if the rules are different in Finland.

[http://www.amazon.com/Kendall-Covidien-200Series- Electrode-F...](http://www.amazon.com/Kendall-Covidien-200Series-Electrode- Foam/dp/B0054K7ENC/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1443893504&sr=8-3&keywords=ekg+electrodes)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This isn't a "microphone" at all. Microphones by definition transduce the physical movement of sounds waves into a signal. This is just using the sound card to sample the electrical signals picked up by the conductive leads.

<comment><USER10> It is not a microphone, but a mic (bio-) _amplifier_ , which is indeed good enough (bandwidth- and power-wise) to sample muscle signals.

<comment><USER9> It is definitely good enough to sample the signals. But why use an inaccurate title? Wiring something into a soundcard doesn't make it a microphone.

<comment><USER10> "microphone" qualifies "amplifier", meaning that it's an amplifier designed for processing signal coming from a microphone.

The title is a word play summarizing the fact that the author used such an amp to record biological signals. In context, it doesn't means or even imply that he uses a microphone.

Edit: word play, not pun; Edit2: +s; 3: better still.

<comment><USER4> *she

<comment><USER10> *I wish English had a proper personal, gender-neutral pronoun.

Editing, anyway.

<comment><USER11> They. Yes, if you're not familiar with it, it looks like the plural form, but it has been used to denote individuals even before "political correctness" became a thing.

<comment><USER12> Thon could also use [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/thon](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/thon)

edit: that part meant jokingly (please). Although [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English_grammar#Pronouns](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English_grammar#Pronouns) is far more interesting.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Apps are Dead. Long Live Experiences. - <AUTHOR> http://ceklog.kindel.com/2012/11/26/apps-are-dead-long-live-experiences-powered-by-buddy/

<comment><USER2> My brain is what creates the experience out of the sensory input and its current state, memory etc. Therefore at best you may contribute to that sensory input -- the experience is still of my own making, thank you very much. At worst you prove to be a shallow thinker and a goosestepping torturer of language and get ignored. _goes on to have a bunch of wonderful experiences, none of which any author or app maker is a part of_

</comment><comment><USER3> Mmm. Nothing really new there. "Experience", "Holistic Design", are all very widely known concepts in marketing. It is all about consistency between the different services/faces you show to the public. What was the point of this post?

<comment><USER4> Original author here.

I wonder how many of the commenters so far read the Experience = post that I linked to in this post? [1]

Maybe you are smarter than the average bear, but I regularly engage with big brands and publishers, who just want to "build an app". They do not see the bigger picture that, to be the most effective, they need to build something beyond an "app". The point of this post (and my other posts regarding Experience) is to help them gain a broader perspective.

I've found it works well.

[1] <http://ceklog.kindel.com/2012/04/02/experience-stuff-time/>

<comment><USER3> Maybe this is just that we are dealing with different businesses? I am sure there are indeed some businesses like the ones you describe where "building the app" is the only thing they care about. I was just saying that the idea of "Experience" instead of "Product/App" has been floating around for a long time in many different fields. When you book a trip somewhere, the travel agent does not go into describing each particular aspect of the trip, they try to make you imagine what it's like to be there. When you go in Disneyland, everything is made to make you feel like you step in their world. Advertisers know this very well and their whole business is about creating experiences out of products.

So, my point is that this narrative is very, very well known and I think this was already described in marketing books from the 60s-70s but this is just out of memory. So, that is why I said this is nothing really new.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> At least you admit that your title was link bait.

<comment><USER6> I stopped reading after "apps are dead"

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Experiences are dead! Long live brandcuffs!</comment>


Where Are All the Bob Ross Paintings? We Found Them - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/video/arts/100000005865824/bob-ross-paintings-mystery.html <comment><USER2> The video also is available on youtube ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDs3o1uLEdU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDs3o1uLEdU)) and the accompanying article ([https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/12/arts/bob- ross-paintings-m...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/12/arts/bob-ross- paintings-mystery.html))</comment>


Pedot can make our bodies play nice with implanted electronics - <AUTHOR> https://www.freethink.com/articles/cyborgs <comment><USER2> This is blogspam from [https://www.inverse.com/innovation/integrating- electronics-w...](https://www.inverse.com/innovation/integrating-electronics- with-the-body-study)

The source article has more useful info and actually defines "PEDOT":

> The polymer coating is technically called poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene), > or PEDOT. It is both electrically and ionically active, which the authors > explain helps lower its impedance (aka its opposition to flowing electric > charge) by three to four orders of magnitude compared to electronics without > this coating.

> Researchers can effectively add any peptides, antibodies, or even DNA they > want to these modified PEDOTs, Martin explains.

<comment><USER3> > "Our materials are intended to bridge the gap between the inert, rigid, > solid, abiotic engineered device and the living, soft, wet, biotic tissue."

Wow, I love how the science fiction I read as a child is becoming reality.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This was a major part of the worldbuilding behind in _Deus Ex: Human Revolution_ , which came out back in 2011.

Now I'm curious what papers Eidos Montreal's writers were working from when they wrote it...

<comment><USER5> Somewhat different, as Neuropozyne was an immunosuppressant that needed to be taken regularly, and this is a (theoretically) permanent coating on the implant.

<comment><USER4> There was specific mention made of PEDOT's use being a major and necessary step in making augmentations possible, specifically because it is a conductive and biocompatible polymer. For example: [https://deusex.fandom.com/wiki/Neural_Interface_Protocols:_T...](https://deusex.fandom.com/wiki/Neural_Interface_Protocols:_The_PEDOT_Revolution)

<comment><USER5> Huh! I stand happily corrected. I must not have brushed past that piece of in- game lore.

<comment><USER4> I recall it being fairly easy to miss!

<comment><USER6> There was quite a bit of lore in that game. You could do a fair bit of reading if you cared enough.

<comment><USER4> Just as with its predecessor. Granted, I collected conspiracy theories in high school so DX had nothing novel for me in that regard, but it was still a lot of fun to laugh and nod along.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> xkcd-sucks Report it after ten years of human trials........

<comment><USER7> Or just make unlucky people buy neuropozyne

It's a reference to a fictional drug from futuristic science fiction where neuripozyne needs to be taken regularly to avoid rejection of implanted augmentations

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> It is apparently not enough that the Machine got unfettered access to every single aspect of our private lives - we should merge and become one with Her.

<comment><USER9> I'll only put any tech in my body if it is 100% open source, hardware and software and I'm allowed to tinker with it.</comment></comment>


SortPom – a Maven plugin to keep your pom.xml tidy - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/Ekryd/sortpom <comment><USER2> Is it sad I read "SoftPorn" instead of SortPom?

<comment><AUTHOR> Most people I've introduced to Maven have asked "OMG, why do you have a file called 'porn.xml'?!"</comment></comment>


The Zombie Fungus Takes Over Ants' Bodies to Control Their Minds - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/11/how-the-zombie-fungus-takes-over-ants-bodies-to-control-their-minds/545864/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> Previous discussion here may be helpful: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15651231](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15651231)</comment>


Uniqlo's warehouse robots on track to replace human workers - <AUTHOR> https://www.businessinsider.com/uniqlos-warehouse-robots-on-track-to-replace-human-workers-2019-12 <comment><USER2> Japan is so advanced in terms of supply chain. Good read.</comment>


Facebook likes in Python - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/sloev/facebooklikes <comment><AUTHOR> a python package to get facebook likes for arbitrary facebook pages, using the facebook iframe page widget under the hood</comment>


Rescuing Economics from Neoliberalism - <AUTHOR> http://bostonreview.net/class-inequality/dani-rodrik-rescuing-economics-neoliberalism <comment><USER2> I see the term liberalism being bandied about when talking about deregulation. I'm not very familiar with politics, but that seems to be something more familiar to the conservatives (republicans), than the liberals; I'm not very comfortable with the attempt to pin deregulation and the rest of it onto the liberals. Enron for instance; [http://www.economist.com/node/938154](http://www.economist.com/node/938154) — shows it as something more in tune to the conservatives. Even in the present USA political climate, the conservatives continue to push for deregulation. I guess what I'm saying is that it reads to me as attempting to pass the buck to the liberals when it actually belongs elsewhere.

<comment><USER3> It depend of the context or/and where you use the term. In the US or for social policies, the term liberalism is used for something like progressivism. In Europe or for economics policies, liberalism means free trade and deregulation.

When an US citizen say liberal, he's talking about society. When an EU citizen say liberal, he's talking about economics. This make sometimes translation difficult.

In the context of the article, while US, with the focus on economics. They are using the classical or the european meaning.

But yeah Republican are conservatives on social policies and liberal on economics policies. Democrat are liberal on social policies and less liberal on economics (but still very liberal compared to an socialist party).</comment></comment>


Break Up the Liberal City - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/25/opinion/sunday/break-up-the-liberal-city.html?_r=0 <comment><AUTHOR> Interesting response by Noah Smith [https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/846057873721372673](https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/846057873721372673) and comparison "The High-Res Society": [http://www.paulgraham.com/highres.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/highres.html)

</comment><comment><USER2> see also: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13962650](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13962650)</comment>


Operating System Development in Rust - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/wiki/Operating-system-development <comment><USER2> Somewhere in this direction lies the post-C era. The post-buffer-overflow era. And do we need it.

 _It has been 6 days since the last CERT advisory for a buffer overflow security hole._

<comment><USER3> The era of unrootable devices, unbreakable DRM, and inescapable walled gardens? Considering that this will basically be "trusted computing done right", I'm quite frankly more scared than anything...

I'm not saying that security holes are nothing to worry about, as I am no less irritated by buggy programs than anyone else, but the alternative might be worse.

<comment><USER4> Restrictions placed on Turing machines by their producers are ultimately a political problem and not a technical one. We will indeed have to solve it one day once those restrictions are not buggy.

<comment><USER3> It is a political problem, but I think it's one that has to be solved _very very soon_ , because the majority of the population seem to acquiesce quickly to these new restrictions and "safer" (against them) systems without thinking much of the negative aspects. To let it reach the point when freedom is completely associated with malware, terrorism, or whatever else is used to frighten the population into comformity, it may be too late to oppose.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Many people seem to be confused by Rust's lack of limitations imposed on you as a programmer. In particular, the fact that so much of what is thought of as a runtime is provided as optional libraries. You can run tasks similar to Goroutines, which are provided as a library. You can use certain types of garbage collection as a library. You have dramatic freedom and accessible choices. The possibilities are incredibly inspiring.

<comment><USER5> In my tinkering with both Go and Rust, and liking the looks of both, I get vague feelings like Go is to Python as Rust is to Perl. This may be damning praise for some folks, but it makes me lean slightly toward Rust more than Go (slightly). There seems to be almost an anti-library culture in Go (i.e. "use the standard library" is almost a mantra in Go) whereas in Rust, there's more than one way to do it (even this early in its existence).

That said, in many ways neither language is like the one I've compared it to, probably in enough ways that it's not a useful comparison for much other than this one metric (the TIMTOWDIness of the language). But, it's how my head is processing these two quite novel (to me) languages; which would make sense, as I've written more code in Python and Perl than probably anything else, so they're the known things I compare these unknown things to.

<comment><USER6> You could say that Go is Python and Rust is Haskell, because, well, Rust is basically Haskell cleverly disguised as a C-style language so as to not scare away imperative programmers.

<comment><USER7> > Rust is basically Haskell cleverly disguised as a C-style language so as to > not scare away imperative programmers.

This comment is very condescending. It makes it seem as if C programmers are ignorant and Haskell programmers are enlightened. Haskell is a garbage collected, lazy, pure language which makes it unsuitable for many of the domains C-style languages are used in. These are also qualities not shared by Rust, which may explain why there is less resistance in its uptake by C programmers.

<comment><USER8> > Haskell is a garbage collected, lazy, pure language which makes it > unsuitable for many of the domains C-style languages are used in.

Don't be so sure! [1] You could simply use Haskell as a metalanguage to generate a C program that does what you need, just like they did with copilot. No Haskell runtime needed.

[1] [https://github.com/leepike/copilot- discussion](https://github.com/leepike/copilot-discussion)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Also worth checking out:

[http://rust-class.org/](http://rust-class.org/)

Or maybe this, if UEFI is palatable to you:

[http://blog.theincredibleholk.org/blog/2013/11/18/booting- to...](http://blog.theincredibleholk.org/blog/2013/11/18/booting-to-rust/)

</comment><comment><USER10> For bootstrapping a kernel, I had trouble with cross compiling. My kernel doesn't yet support a libc hosted environment, so I use a i686-pc-elf gcc target with -ffreestanding. rustc works niceley if your target environment is similar enough to your dev environment, or if you are developing for android for which there's an sdk and rustc port already. I initially tripped up on this because i'm developing on osx currently, but targetting gnu. I just need the rustc equivalent of -ffreestanding. Alternatively I'll have to wait until I've got a proper i686-myos gcc and libc port.</comment>


Tim Cook, the interview: Running Apple 'is sort of a lonely job' - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/business/wp/2016/08/13/2016/08/13/tim-cook-the-interview-running-apple-is-sort-of-a-lonely-job/ <comment><USER2> PG talked about this in his talk 'before the startup'

"Larry Page may seem to have an enviable life, but there are aspects of it that are unenviable. Basically at 25 he started running as fast as he could and it must seem to him that he hasn't stopped to catch his breath since. Every day new shit happens in the Google empire that only the CEO can deal with, and he, as CEO, has to deal with it. If he goes on vacation for even a week, a whole week's backlog of shit accumulates. And he has to bear this uncomplainingly, partly because as the company's daddy he can never show fear or weakness, and partly because billionaires get less than zero sympathy if they talk about having difficult lives. Which has the strange side effect that the difficulty of being a successful startup founder is concealed from almost everyone except those who've done it."

[http://paulgraham.com/before.html](http://paulgraham.com/before.html)

<comment><USER3> Google is in some ways easier, because there's no real threat to their cash cow, search ads. Apple has to stay ahead of competition in phones. That competition is now quite good, and usually cheaper.

As CEO of Apple, Cook is expected to deliver the Next Big Thing. So far, he hasn't, and he's running out of time. (Cars? Tough, low-margin business. VR? Niche market. Watches? Tried that. Robots? Not ready yet. Voice AI? Already doing that, need to improve. Services? Crowded field, no edge.)

<comment><USER4> Honestly, what could be the NBT in consumer tech ? I feel we reached cultural and ontological plateau in most areas. If there's a next it probably won't be a big thing.

<comment><USER5> The next _really_ big thing will be consumer robotics, powered by advances in AI. It's still a ways off. Self-driving cars may be the first big application area. After that we'll see home robots to do cleaning, cooking, and maintenance.

Contrary to popular opinion, IoT is a dead end. The future isn't a million devices scattered around your home, but one capable robot that can be your servant and do everything for you.

<comment><USER6> You people need to stop saying this kind of stuff. I will bet you $1k on longbets.org that we do not have fully autonomous vehicles operating on public streets in 9 years (i.e. 2025). These types of statements are confusing the non-technical 'tech press' and they are misinforming the public.

<comment><USER7> The way you worded it, I'd say we have that already: See Google's relatively public self-driving car project, already logging lots of fully autonomous miles on public streets [https://youtu.be/bDOnn0-4Nq8](https://youtu.be/bDOnn0-4Nq8)

I do think it'll be more like 50 years to get self-driving cars being sold to the general public that can drive autonomously anywhere though.

<comment><USER6> "fully autonomous" requires no human intervention method, IMO. Google's cars have steering wheels. The _gist_ of what I am trying to communicate is that serious disruption to the status quo will not happen from autonomous cars in my lifetime (one can quibble with specifics and lawyer the discussion at will).

<comment><USER7> Well they have already designed a special self-driving car model from the ground up that has no provision for a steering wheel at all.

<comment><USER6> Did they design it or are they operating this thing? I designed a time-travel machine, do you want a ride?

<comment><USER7> Here's a youtube video of people being driven around in it [https://youtu.be/CqSDWoAhvLU](https://youtu.be/CqSDWoAhvLU)

Here's another youtube of it driving around on city streets [https://youtu.be/_qE5VzuYFPU](https://youtu.be/_qE5VzuYFPU)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The full quote is saying the exact opposite of what's in the title:

`And while he's quick to trumpet Apple, he is also unassuming, quickly noting, after saying his job can be "lonely," that "I'm not looking for any sympathy. CEOs don't need any sympathy."`

Which is exactly why Tim Cook is such a great guy.

</comment><comment><USER9> In Tim Cook, it's interesting to see a leadership style that's so different from the Jobs/Ellison mold. Cook seems to have a very humble manner, and he emphasizes listening to and learning from people both inside and outside Apple.

In the startup world, I wonder whether founders can find success in emulating Cook -- or whether a harder-edged, harder-driving style is required.

<comment><USER10> Cook has his edges. He's supposed to be a demanding, logical boss.

> One day back then, he convened a meeting with his team, and the discussion > turned to a particular problem in Asia. "This is really bad," Cook told the > group. "Someone should be in China driving this." Thirty minutes into that > meeting Cook looked at Sabih Khan, a key operations executive, and abruptly > asked, without a trace of emotion, "Why are you still here?" Khan, who > remains one of Cook's top lieutenants to this day, immediately stood up, > drove to San Francisco International Airport, and, without a change of > clothes, booked a flight to China with no return date, according to people > familiar with the episode. The story is vintage Cook: demanding and > unemotional.

[http://fortune.com/2008/11/24/apple-the-genius-behind- steve/](http://fortune.com/2008/11/24/apple-the-genius-behind-steve/)

<comment><USER11> I find this such a funny example. Because you know, driving _immediately_ to the airport and buying a ticket is really going to make a difference. No- not really. That's not a logical request at all. It's just demanding.

<comment><USER12> Why do you say that? There are situations where a single part of the supply chain is holding up an entire launch, and minutes passing can cost a company millions of dollars.

<comment><USER11> Failure to plan is planning to fail. In this case, they should have addressed that earlier. All this guy did was fall on his sword for Cook.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Full quote:

"It's sort of a lonely job. The adage that it's lonely — the CEO job is lonely — is accurate in a lot of ways. I'm not looking for any sympathy. You have to recognize that you have blind spots. We all do. Blind spots move, and you want to not just have really bright people around you, but people who will push on you and people to bring out the best in you. People that amplify whatever you're good at. And then also the people who plug the parts that you're not and may never be."

</comment><comment><USER14> CTRL+F "music" & "iTunes" \- only one result, as part of the framing by the writer.

Unless Tim & co. decide to confront the reality that they're stepping up "vertical integration" model using the Robber Baron playbook when it comes to the actual arts, I think his "social responsibility" comments mean fuck-all. Go ahead, build a new environmentally friendly compound, that's great, good on you. And how's about that 30% you skim off the top of every non-Drake "Most- Favored-Nation" artist who has to go through your channels or lose out?

Actions about social responsibility speak louder than words, and right now, Braeburn Capital and billions of dollars being slushed around offshore rather than pay the tax to re-patriate those funds means talk is cheap. I'm a contrarian by nature, but I know a puff piece when I see it. So Tim is good at hitting softball questions, whoop-dee-whoo.

Of course it's lonely and isolating at the top of the mountain - just look at Kurt Cobain.

<comment><USER15> Big interviews like this come with a price. They are always puff pieces.

<comment><USER14> Well I remember that approach tended to gloss over a lot of the newsworthy stuff involving Tiger Woods. Says a lot about US culture when serious "leaders" will only sit down to have their egos stroked. See also: Donald Trump.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Its gona be very, very lonely if he actually lets them turn the MB Pro into this HP-esq touch screen crap ive been seen floating around, as that will be the death of Jobs design philosophy on which this great company was built. Protruding cam lens and round edges on the Iphone6 were bad enough.

</comment><comment><USER17> I like this - "The first all-new device during his tenure, the Apple Watch, is not yet a mega hit." \- as if _some_ day it just _is_ going to be a mega hit.

<comment><USER18> I interpreted that as, someday it might yet be a mega hit. It's still a relatively new product that's only had one iteration, and even though it didn't set the world on fire, it didn't bomb either. Most tech companies iterate on things a few times before giving up on them, unless they are just fundamental market failures like the iPod HiFi.

What did you like about that statement? Your interpretation made it sound like you didn't agree with it.

<comment><USER19> I certainly don't agree with it. Wearables have a lot of potential, but wearable _watches_ are fundamentally not a great idea - for practical reasons (screen too small, limited battery life) and for marketing reasons (can't compete at the low end, certainly can't compete at the lifestyle/status display high end).

Watch isn't even primarily a watch - it's an iPhone remote. And that's getting into rarefied meta-product territory.

So unlike the iPhone and the home computer, both of which have obvious use cases, Watch is still trying to define a compelling reason for existing.

But this just highlights the current Apple problem. Cook designs products using a very simple heuristic - smaller, bigger, thinner, more colours: basically good enough.

Jobs used to use a different heuristic - magical, original, creative, obviously useful, with world-beating production values.

It's a completely different approach. And you can see that in Watch.

Watch has no magic. It's good enough - barely, more or less. But that's all it is.

And if you're aiming for good enough instead of magical, it's too easy to fall short and end up with not quite good enough - which is where many Apple buyers are feeling the current product lines are heading.

<comment><USER20> > _I certainly don 't agree with it. Wearables have a lot of potential, but > wearable watches are fundamentally not a great idea - for practical reasons > (screen too small, limited battery life)_

I'm not sure I follow. A wearable watch will have the biggest screen and better battery life combo than any other kind of practical wearable device I can think of (e.g. when not strapping a 3" screen and a battery pack the size of a Zippo on you and calling it a wearable).

> _So unlike the iPhone and the home computer, both of which have obvious use > cases, Watch is still trying to define a compelling reason for existing._

If not other things, Fitness/health/medical services would be a killer reason for existing.

<comment><USER21> 2/3 of Americans are considered to be overweight/obese _. And before you say, 'that's even more of reason to own one,' no matter how sleek the advertising campaign to peddle a broadly useless piece of technojunk, you're never going to convince the populous that exercising is fun. Unless it detects cancer, it's just a toy.

_[https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health- statisti...](https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health- statistics/Pages/overweight-obesity-statistics.aspx)

<comment><USER20> > _you 're never going to convince the populous that exercising is fun_

You don't have to convince the "populous", just enough tens of millions, and it would be a huge profit center.

And you don't have to convince them about exercise being fun or anything similar either -- just that not dying from heart attack and knowing your glucose levels and such is fun...

(There are 30 million people with diabetes in the US alone for example).

<comment><USER21> Such delusion. The personal computer was important; a well designed mp3 player was desired by many; the tablet, a new way to interface; the smart phone, a communication necessity. The watch is just a toy without a core reason for existence. Not just apple's, all smart watches. It's ironic that a company who made its business selling fashionable tech will peak and fall from relevancy selling a purely fashionable device. You can monitor your glucose level with a sub-$20 device from a pharmacy, not several hundred dollars and a iphone requirement.

It's okay. You're not an innovator. You're not a visionary. You can't see the horizon. You're probably fascinated by shiny objects; trapped in the superficial glaze, unable to comprehend the substrate.

<comment><USER20> > _The watch is just a toy without a core reason for existence. Not just apple > 's, all smart watches._

The basic idea, that you don't seem to comprehend, is that it's not about the watch functionality at all. It's about having a 24/7 gizmo on you, with appropriate sensors to read medical data, movement etc, with enough screen and size to do a ton of things, from home automation to payments, etc, and eventually, and with

Here are things a smartwatch already does better or will eventually (as battery capacities get up to it) do better, with less bulk and faster access than a smartphone.

24/7 health monitoring Home automation controls Remote control (for tv, hifi, etc) Wireless Payments Panic button (health issue, crime, rape, whatever alert) Total phone operation (through voice recognition + wireless headphones) Navigation Music player (again, wireless headphones + voice/screen control) Show urgent notifications etc etc... ...tell the time.

It's a form factor common from the past notion of the watch, and simultaneously perfect for being always on you, always monitoring, small and non intrusive, and still having a large enough space for screen and battery.

> _It 's okay. You're not an innovator. You're not a visionary. You can't see > the horizon. You're probably fascinated by shiny objects; trapped in the > superficial glaze, unable to comprehend the substrate._

It's ok. You're not sophisticated. You're rude. You think in slogans. You can't see anything beyond an object being shiny or being made by Apple. You're probably fascinated by your own superficial analysis, and think your use cases are the measure of everything.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Just like everywhere else on the internet, there's no shortage of Apple apologists defending the fall of the consumerist junk paradigm.

</comment><comment> angry-hacker So what has Cook done to Apple besides that successful LGBT campaign?

<comment><USER22> Share price has doubled since August 2011, and 16x dividend payouts in that time - [https://www.google.com/finance?q=aapl](https://www.google.com/finance?q=aapl)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> So is being a janitor. you're well compensated for your trouble, Tim.

</comment><comment><USER24> He can stop whining... I admire Cook and love and use Apple products, but he should try running a small business and experience real loneliness. As he points out Apple has the bank account to hire virtually anyone, the very best people to help its businesses and fix business mistakes. Small business leaders don't and fight most of the same battles, alone, getting pounded into dust by unforgiving regulatory, liability, tax and competitive forces. My sympathy for Cook is further attenuated by the billions in cash Apple is sitting on at home and abroad that in my opinion should instead be put to work in the US economy. Google too.

<comment><USER25> No matter what's plaguing you, there will always people worse off. That doesn't mean your problems stop feeling like problems, however. Human experience and judgment is extremely relative. We acclimate to our surroundings. Otherwise, we'd all be paralyzed by constant awe at things like cars and running water.

<comment><USER24> Yes, the shoe pinches the foot its on.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I'm a six year iPhone owner who based off of the iPhone 7 rumors it's going to underwhelm in the innovation department and lose this customer.

The Note 7 looks awesome due to it being waterproof and other features Apple hasn't bothered to include. Also, Google Now in terms of it understanding me is light years away from Siri, which I have used since 2011. Goigle Now's AI puts Siri to shame!

See ya Apple!

<comment><USER20> > _I 'm a six year iPhone owner who based off of the iPhone 7 rumors it's > going to underwhelm in the innovation department and lose this customer._

Yeah, because better CPU, GPU, camera(s), and such are not innovative enough...

> _The Note 7 looks awesome due to it being waterproof and other features > Apple hasn 't bothered to include._

Yeah, for those of us using our phone on the shower it will be a god-send. Waterproof! Such innovation!

<comment><USER26> Also, I mentioned Google Now vs. Siri where Google Now is light years ahead. It understands all my spoken requests and that's a big deal when driving!

Overall, I want waterproof.. wireless charging... Google Now type AI vs. Siri. Their competitors have this .. iPhone 7 should have all or some of these features yet it won't.

Only good thing about the iPhone is it's more secure then Android. Putting my credit on an Android device to use Android Pay vs. Apple Pay is something I don't feel comfortable doing.

Per all my downvotes it looks like the majority still here love Apple. Personally I love innovation and Apple isn't innovating and or being the pioneer they use to be.

<comment><USER27> Not to be nitpicking, but light years is a measure of distance and not of time :-)

<comment><USER20> Not to be nitpicking, but parent didn't say it was a measure of time :-)

"Light years ahead" is a common expression meaning "much more advanced".

And there's nothing that says it refers to time (except if we insist on the idea that technology advances with time, so every related analogy must refer to time).

But as an analogy it just as well means "it's much further ahead", as if we were speaking of a race.

<comment><USER27> I know I am going to get downvoted :D

Whilst it is true that parent didn't say that light years is a unit of time. But I find the general usage of the term incorrect :-)

Light years = distance traveled by light in 365 earth days!!</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Apple loses Hackintosh ruling, angers judge - <AUTHOR> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/28/apple_loses_psystar_motion/ <comment><USER2> I've read all kinds of "Hackintosh" guides, but I didn't know there was a company out there doing business in this area.

Has anyone tried any of the Psystar Hackintoshes?

<comment><USER3> They look impressive:

<http://store.psystar.com/ads-rebel/rebel-22-osx.html>

<comment><USER4> Did you mean to post what appears to be a referral link?

<comment><USER5> SID probably equals session ID, from him clicking around on the site.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Go Psystar go!

</comment><comment><USER7> _Psystar's suit alleges that since Apple is "tying its operating system to Apple-branded hardware," Cupertino is unfairly monopolizing the market for what Psystar dubs "premium computers," and by doing so "collects monopoly rents."

The suit is specific to Apple's new Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard operating system - which is why Apple wanted it thrown out, saying that the new suit was "essentially identical" to the existing legal imbroglio between Apple and Psystar, which centers on the previous operating system, Mac OS X 10.5, aka Leopard._

Uhh, that seems pretty straightforward...

Either the judge doesn't understand that there's really nothing different about Snow Leopard or there's some legal nuance I'm missing.

<comment><USER8> If you'd finished the article, you'd have noticed that it was the second half of the request that the judge rejected. Apple wanted the judge to reopen the discovery part of the precedings to take into account 10.6 which was released after the the discovery part had already closed. The judge said that this was Apple's fault for delaying the release of the OS and declined the motion, the whole motion.

<comment><USER9> This sort of just highlights how the legal process just doesn't have the ability to deal with either the time frames or the technical challenges of the newer industries.

Throw in the ability of things like software to escape easy definition and/or the need for new legislation in light of new paradigms and you basically are stuck.

<comment><USER10> Apple _purposely_ delayed the release of Snow Leopard so that the discovery period had ended, they then realised they needed it open and applied for it to be reopened. The judge denied this because Apple brought it on themselves, so how are there time frame problems? Apple fucked itself through its own legal incompetence, done and done.

<comment><USER11> Yes because Apple chooses all the ship dates for their OS updates based on rinky-dink legal cases. Actually Snow Leopard original scheduled ship date was 3 weeks AFTER it actually went on sale so they didn't 'delay' anything.

But you're completely right Apple "fucked itself" by releasing their new operating system ahead of schedule.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Seeing as OSX is a Unix variant, don't any improvements to the OS have to be released free of use? I was under the impression that the Mac license reads 'You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple- branded computer, or to enable others to do so.' because they cannot legally require that the OS only operates on Apple hardware. Therefore if, if a manufacturer wishes to use the OS, they would need to provide Apple branding. At the same time, this may be the catch-22. You can't use apple branding without the permission of Apple, and you can't install the OS without using the branding.

<comment><USER6> OS X is a variant of a _BSD UNIX and, if I remember correctly, the license does_ not* require them to release changes and definitely not free of use.

Also, much of OS X that people like is the Cocoa stuff which most definitely is _not_ covered by a free software license.

> _I was under the impression that the Mac license reads 'You agree not to > install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-branded computer, or > to enable others to do so.'_

That's part of the End User License Agreement, isn't it? I'm not a lawyer, but I remember reading that those aren't legally binding (at least not in sane countries) since they're legal agreements made after the purchase. You didn't agree to it as a condition of the purchase so how can the seller force you to do something after you already own the software?

<comment><USER13> It's unclear if those are binding. Courts have ruled both ways. That's one of the issues in the case.</comment></comment></comment>


A Problem That Only Quantum Computers Will Ever Be Able to Solve - <AUTHOR> https://www.quantamagazine.org/finally-a-problem-that-only-quantum-computers-will-ever-be-able-to-solve-20180621/ <comment><USER2> > Here's the problem. Imagine you have two random number generators, each > producing a sequence of digits. The question for your computer is this: Are > the two sequences completely independent from each other, or are they > related in a hidden way (where one sequence is the "Fourier transform" of > the other)?

and then

> The new paper by Raz and Tal proves that a quantum computer needs far fewer > hints than a classical computer to solve the forrelation problem. In fact, a > quantum computer needs just one hint, while even with unlimited hints, > there's no algorithm in PH that can solve the problem.

At the risk of someone winning buzzword bingo, this feels very AGI-esque. It seems to me that right now, our best classification algorithms are very bad at extrapolating related patterns on sequences that are related, but that the classifier has never seen. Or, more clearly, it is bad at correlating pattern unless the success heuristic has been tuned to look for it. If we have proved that classical computers cannot escape their heuristic, but quantum computers could (i.e. "dear computer, find related patterns, ready, go"), that seems like a very compelling reason to dump money into quantum computers.

Anyone more knowledgeable care to temper my excitement?

</comment><comment><USER3> Dupe: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17368493](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17368493)

I'll copy the first comment by fyi1183

> _This is basically the TCS version of a clickbait headline. It 's a > separation of BQP and PH by an oracle. Certainly a nice result, but to put > it into context, we also have a separation of P and NP by an oracle. Yet, we > are very far away from actually proving that P and NP are distinct._</comment>


Introducing Nexus.js: A multi-threaded JavaScript run-time - <AUTHOR> https://dev.to/voodooattack/introducing-nexusjs-a-multi-threaded-javascript-run-time-3g6 <comment><USER2> I read through as the concept seems interesting and then i came across this:

> an IDE consuming 5GB of RAM,

Wat? I use idea ultimate and have never seen it above maybe 1.5 GB

<comment><AUTHOR> I use CLion, I intentionally edited the Java VM settings to allow it to consume more memory.

It takes forever to analyse symbols for WebKit otherwise. WebKit is too massive to handle with the default memory limits.</comment></comment>