Email sucks. This is how you fix it. - <AUTHOR> http://joncalhoun.posterous.com/email-sucks-this-is-how-we-fix-it

<comment><USER3> The problem is of course real, the root cause is incorrectly identified. The problem isn't that email _isn't_ integrated with anything else, it's that it _can't_ be integrated with anything else. And the reason for that is email is flat text (or gussied-up flat text in semi-HTML), and nothing else on your system can understand it.

If your bug request came wrapped in some metadata about how it's a bug request, then it would be easy to further integrate that into all sorts of things.

OK, that's great. So why doesn't _that_ happen? Because defining such metadata formats is a non-trivial exercise, and even more difficult is getting everyone to _use_ those formats. So it turns out this is really just another specific instance of the Great Semantic Divide, namely, how the heck can we actually share semantics in any reasonable manner on large scales? It's the exact same reason the Semantic Web hasn't happened.

Further, even if _that_ hurdle were to be crossed, you'd have the problem that somebody, somewhere has to fill out the definition of a "bug report" before it can be wrapped in the relevant metadata. Right now this step occurs when you take the email and translate it into your todo system (or bug tracker or whatever). In this perfect world this supposedly is done by the sender... but that, too, is fraught with problems, because that takes a certain level of skill on the sender side and now you've lost the aspect of email where you just click "New Email", bash on the keyboard for a bit, and hit "Send", and it mostly works. There's also some important context issues, which is that even if the bug or task was perfectly filled out by the sender from their point of view you'll still need to tweak it because you have a different perspective on things. (Which is just the Great Semantic Divide popping up again.)

In summation, you're not just screwed, you're _comprehensively_ screwed.

<comment><USER4> Metadata is a bit of a strawman.

There is sufficient information in the text to determine that the email is for a feature request - otherwise the author wouldn't know it was one.

What's needed is an intelligent engine for processing email. Improving email is an AI problem not one which requires an email to contain more information.

One difficulty I see is that developing a system for intelligently processing email is not necessarily the sort of thing a startup can tackle - the required data set for testing and validation is too large for a small company to obtain naturally and test under real world conditions. It's the sort of problem that lends itself to an "eat your own dogfood" approach - and thus justifiable at an existing large company.

My gut tells me that outside the corporate world, this wants to be a desktop application, not a web based one. The intelligent engine needs to know about the files and documents on my computer to make better sense of the contents of a message - I don't want to have to share all that with a web service and I don't want to enter a bunch of metadata to create rules.

The software should know it's a bug report because I write a lot of code for the product, have other bug reports on my computer, and posted ten bug fixes to the code repository. not because I spent four days writing a CLIPS program to handle bug reports.

It's a nasty problem if one tries to just grep it into submission. The answer to the email problem is a poem, not an equation.

<comment><USER5> I don't know about the inductive logic behind your "humans can solve this problem, therefore it is solvable by a computer". To create an algorithm that could classify email as well as a human, you'd need to create an algorithm as advanced as a human.

<comment><USER6> Furthermore it would not help much. You still would have to monitor the algorithm decisions. Otherwise you loose control over your work.

Never ever I would allow an algorithm to decide what is a bug and what is a feature request.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> You know, I hear that email sucks all of the time. It's all bunk.

Email has been around in it's present form for a good long time now. That staying power is a good example of why it is a "good enough" solution for just about anything.

It's like anything else... A general purpose tool will address 80% of your needs. The other 20% works best with something more specialized.

<comment><USER8> Like PHP.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Email is awesome. It's resilient, reliable, fast, flexible, open, and well documented. Stop fixing it.

<comment><USER10> I totally agree with you, except for the last sentence. Email is great, yes. However, please continue to innovate, because there could be something more awesome than email which would render email redundant.

<comment><USER9> continuing to innovate is good, yes, but all the 'innovations' so far seem to come at the expense of one of the good bits i mentioned. if your product makes email more awesome but breaks interoperability, it's not awesome.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Email is not designed to be a message queue. Applications (and business processes) should not be built on email. You have bugs in a program? Get a bug tracker. You need to handle your accounting? Get a web app for that. Email is not broken because it doesn't do enough. Email is broken because people use it for too much. Do you need to view every process that you interact with in your life in step-by-step flat text messages? No. While the usefulness of aggregating all of those messages in one place may be debatable, I don't think that it belongs in your email account. Email should be treated as an asynchronous communication medium for people only.

</comment><comment><USER12> With all due respect, email is not the problem. You are.

Your problems are not unique. Email is a great tool for delegation (to humans), and you should learn to do that.

I trust that my co-workers and employees will take care of the tasks I assign them. That lets me delegate and forget it.

Accounting? Pay this bill. Thanks.

Jr. Dev? File this as a bug. Thanks.

Co-founder? PG called, wants to invest. Meet him for lunch?

Technology is not always the answer. Many times behavior modification is the better solution.

<comment><USER13> True, but email really does suck too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> A logical extension of this idea would be the ability to send tasks. That is, say that I'm a teacher and I want to send out an assignment that's due by 6pm the next day to all my students. I should be able to send out a to-do task attached to my email telling my students when the assignment is due, and each student should be able to just click "add to my tasks" and have it integrate with their existing tasks without each student having to manually create a task.

<comment><USER15> This is actually something that Microsoft Outlook does reasonably well (and it has existed for quite a long time). You can mail around tasks, meeting requests, etc., and they can be automatically added to the recipients' task lists or calendars. Unfortunately, everyone in the organization has to be forced to use Outlook for this kind of stuff to work seamlessly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> From pg, not long ago, the essay "Frighteningly Ambitious Startup Ideas":

<http://paulgraham.com/ambitious.html>

"2. Replace Email

"Email was not designed to be used the way we use it now. Email is not a messaging protocol. It's a todo list. Or rather, my inbox is a todo list, and email is the way things get onto it. But it is a disastrously bad todo list."

</comment><comment><USER17> It would be nice to put the burden on the user to correctly apply tags/metadata to their email as they send it. The hope is the sender will think a little more deeper as to why and what their sending, and this just makes email organization easier all around, especially for the receiver. But I guess this opens up complexities on the universality of email...

</comment><comment><USER18> Surprised nobody has mentioned Gmail filters yet. I use Gmail filters for my non-priority tasks. Things that I want to do in groups (like customer service emails) get labeled and archived immediately so I'm not distracted.

Gmail Filters are pretty damn powerful-- not sure if they support REGEXs on email subjects, but that'd be pretty amazing.

Omnifocus is developing a feature to allow "send to omnifocus" tasks where you can send your tasks to email@example.com and it will add them to your inbox. There's tons of potential with this, as it could be extended to assign tasks to specific projects, assign priorities, and set task due dates and gcal integration.

Do any email protocols accept XML or JSON? Not sure if that's even possible but I guess you could send a JSON object in the header and write a new client that handles it appropriately...

<comment><USER19> They're nothing that procmail can't do. And they're not a lot of things procmail _can_ do, including revising content, and feeding mail directly into other processes (both for delivery and for action).

As with many GUI mail tools, one of the biggest limitations of GMail filters is that you can't reorder them. The priority in which you assign filters is really critical.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Heh, you could put something very capable and integrated really quickly using Emacs--all the building blocks are already there. I imagine combining Org- mode, an email client, your development environment and whatever else you happen to use in Emacs with a bit of elisp glue would do most of what the post proposes quickly and elegantly.

Coincidentally, can you use AucTeX's LaTeX previews in other buffers? Being able to see LaTeX equations in emails and chat buffers would be great.

<comment><AUTHOR> That is great for me but not so great for those who aren't techies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Yawn.

What you want is at task management system with a defined format which can be encapsulated in email messages.

Say, like, Debian's BTS: <http://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control>

No, that's not something I'd expect the general public to use, but it's a good start and proof of concept.

Email itself provides you transport, storage, and overall format definitions.

MIME gives you attachment encapsulation for whatever format you care to provide.

MIME encoded signatures give you authentication and/or privacy (you care about that shit, right?)

Now "all you need to do" is define a task management standard and the interchange format that it uses. Drag'n'drop or procmail/maildrop filter attachments to your task management tool.

Wait for the world to beat a path to your door.

You've identified _ONE_ use-case for mail. As with other use-cases, there are a few bits that could be tweaked to make it so (the standards adoption bit is the hard one). And while email / SMTP certainly has its warts, there's no need to scrap the entire system for your specific needs.

</comment><comment><USER21> I've been working on a product also in this direction but it's more full featured and mature. It's called <http://dynado.com> and we're launching within a month (don't look at the design - the final main site isn't up yet).

It's basically a webmail where you can decide to either send somebody a task or an email. Everything goes through email though and you can send a task to anyone, even people from outside the system. They can then either collaborate via email or register to use the system themselves.

Of course it's integrated with an IM, file storage solution where you can attach those files, browse a stream of sent/received attachments. It also has a project tree and reports per-user or project, with really simple and integrated time tracking. AND it has a built in calendar with an innovative twist.

Basically it's an all-in-one business management tool tightly integrated with email in order to let you use the tools you know (email) but still capture all the knowledge and track all the tasks without switching to 10 different apps.

</comment><comment><USER22> Interesting. I've thought about this very problem before. In fact, I even started building a solution. Most of my emails, like the OPs, ended up as todos, so it makes sense to skip the email part. The idea is that you have buckets of todos, and other people can assign todos directly to you, at which point they show up in your bucket, etc.

The project never grew past MVP, but lately I've been using Asana and it seems to be very close to what I was envisioning. I wonder if they're aiming to be an email replacement down the road. I could certainly see it happening, and they're already on the right path. There's no way they're planning on changing the world [1] with just a todo list app :)

[1] [http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/11/facebook-...](http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/11/facebook- co-founder-dustin-moskovitz-unveils-new-company-.html)

> "We think it will be as impactful on the world as Facebook was." - <USER2> > Moskovitz (fb/asana)

</comment><comment><USER23> Lots of programs already have this integration. Is it a bug report or feature request? Forward it to FogBugz. FogBugz figures out where it belongs (and if it gets it wrong, you tell it and it learns). Is it a task? Forward it to Flow and it gets entered as a task. Travel itinerary from your airline/car rental service/hotel? Forward it to TripIt. Works like magic.

This problem has, generally speaking, been addressed. You're just not using tools that address it. Which is not to say that there isn't room for improvement, or gaps in this toolchain (e.g., I can't think of a tool for bills/invoices off the top of my head, though I bet one exists). And addressing it by creating a solution for your specific combination of problems is certainly admirable.

But it's not email that's broken; if anything is broken, it's the endpoints (both the source and the destination). Saying email is broken is like saying the | operator in Unix is broken.

</comment><comment><USER24> We kinda/sorta do this already with Asana. We have email addresses set for common projects and then just forward a lot of emails into the correct projects (assigning to other team members when appropriate). It's not _exactly_ what the author of the article is looking for but pretty close.

</comment><comment><USER25> _I planned on just using it internally until all the bugs where worked out but what the heck it would be freaking awesome to get you using it now so you can tell me if you love it or it sucks._

For those of us considering signing up, do you personally find your product useful?

<comment><USER26> I'm working on this project as well so I can add a little insight.

I needed one place I could login to, add as many email accounts as I wanted and manage them from one location online. The email accounts run via the imap protocol.

I can't tell you how many times I've been working on a project and a client sends one team member a email and others don't get it, but we assume they did.

So I can create a list called "Roockit Bugs" share it with other users and drag and drop any email from any email account onto a task. A popup screen loads and auto-fills the task with the subject and inserts the email body into the description. I can now edit that task as needed and click save & archive. Now everyone can view it and can comment on it. The email is archived and out of my inbox so the right person can take care of it.

This process can work the same as above but I can drag a email to the messages section and it's converted to a message for all users to see. This makes sure everyone in a list stays on the same page without forwarding emails all over.

This is just scratching the surface but gives you the basic idea.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Seems like you need to go from communication into to-do into work in a way that is easier then we do now. Your solution seems interesting, but it has very limited scope. Maybe something like what pg talked about in #2 of <http://www.paulgraham.com/ambitious.html> would work. We need different protocols for different types of communication. A protocol for sending todo requests, a protocol for sending personal notes, etc. It would need work to figure out the details though (it's something I'm working on for my startup, but I haven't spent a lot of time on this particular problem yet). Thanks for putting your solution out there.

<comment><USER28> We just need to agree on universal MIME types for things like todos, events etc. Email already supports this, so the problem is really political and not technical.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> The other big problem with email is it's still never encrypted.

If anyone wants to experiment with such things, please contact me (alanhogan.com/contact), and we can trade public keys. Our experiences will inform a related blog post I am working on.

</comment><comment><USER30> Have you tried ifttt?

e.g.

Create task in Asana when mail labeled Todo <http://ifttt.com/recipes/18551>

</comment><comment><USER31> I like this post, but to me, the gist of this is that we should have "droplets" that do different tasks for an email, so as to cut down on repetitive tasks.

I'm all in, but it seems to me that it would be best left to the end user -- if someone gets a bug report email, they might want to track the bug in Bugzilla, or Github Issues, etc. Not sure if signing into an external service is really necessary.

</comment><comment><USER32> I forward any email that needs me to do something to Asana. Asana automatically creates a todo for me with the email content as an attached note.

</comment><comment><USER33> I want a solution, that, after I enter recipient's name, looks up that peson's defined tag cloud (or folder structure with keywords pulled automatically by analyzing content of such folders) and helps me (the sender) to tag my email, even pops up bug report form, if there is one, defined by recipient.

</comment><comment><USER34> This reminds me a lot of Mitch Kapor's pet project, Chandler. It was really buggy but I guess after years of development, it finally stabilized. Any "note" can be morphed into a task, calendar event, or email. <http://chandlerproject.org/>

</comment><comment><USER35> _I am proposing that when you get an email from Company X about a new feature request, you should only need to drag the email into the "Company X Features" list. This should instantly create a todo task, share it with everyone with access to the "Company X Features" list, and everyone working on the task should be able to see relevant portions of the original email._

This is what mailing lists are for. Forward the email to the "Company X Features" list, and you've got it.

If you need something with more sophisticated group-wide activity tracking, emails and todolists are indeed poor choices- try filing a bug, and CC'ing the mailing list.

I know on HN it's not hip to _not_ complain about email, and maybe these methods aren't the second coming of productivity, but they seem to work pretty darn well without having to reinvent the wheel.

</comment><comment><USER36> Email has some major problems but I'm not sure helping me file manually is a solution I'm looking for. But I'll be interested in trying Rockit out.

What I am really looking forward to is <http://fluent.io>

</comment><comment><USER37> The key issue with this is - I (representing majority) don't have these issues. I send some mails to RTM as tasks, label around, forward some, and, most importantly, resolve the ones I can resolve immediately. I receive ~50 new mails a day.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Power is out on my block, so sorry if I'm not answering emails or questions from everyone very quickly. I am currently running on laptop batter (1.5 hrs left) and my cell phone tethering.

 _sigh_ \- Good ol' Silicon Valley Power.

</comment><comment><USER38> I believe this title is how the Google Wave introduction began

<comment><AUTHOR> Lets hope we don't end like Google Wave did. Shutting down a service is never fun.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> There is a typo in the screenshot at <http://www.roockit.com/>: "Noifications"

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks :) That slipped through.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Emacs org mode does this, I realize that its not a viable solution for most people but its pretty amasing.

</comment><comment><USER40> See Chandler. Read 'Dreaming in Code.' Avoid that fate.

</comment><comment><USER41> Does anyone know of a cache for this. It seems down, but it's Posterous? Other posterous blogs seem to be up.

Edit: Diregard -- working now.

<comment><AUTHOR> Its possibly that Posterous had a hiccup. I have only written 2 posts there so they probably didn't expect 8000 views in a few hours.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> This is a solution but it isn't _the_ solution. Email doesn't need to get better it needs replacing. I'll give everyone a hint: Basecamp _almost_ has it right. If you focus on groups with the option to drill down to projects, individual schedules, and to-do's all in one then you're on the right path. On top of that the solution needs to be something everyone is using or can begin using quickly. Think Facebook. It's hard to explain but when you see it, you'll know it. I'm working on it myself.

Not that this isn't good. It really is but I can see it being unnatural for some. If only there was a way to do this without changing so much of your usual habits and kind of fitting yourself into a workflow someone else designed then it'd be massively popular. That said, this far from unimpressive. It's awesome and I'm sure a ton of people will find it super useful. But even the people who are getting Nigerian inheritances need some love. If someone built something that addressed the people that would use this but is also useful to the inheritance people I bet you anything those non- power users would actually find ways to use it even if they aren't busy a lot like how people who aren't social butterflies still log into Facebook and post status updates once a day.

<comment><USER43> Sorry, but no. I've been on dozens of Basecamp projects and the only way anyone reliably uses it is if they rely on the email notifications.

<comment><USER42> I probably wasn't as clear as I could've been. Obviously we already have Basecamp. That would only be one component and not every feature makes the cut.

I really truly believe that some form of project management can and will replace email and it can become integrated into our lives like Facebook my biggest qualm with project management is the project part. People aren't always necessarily working on projects but we sure do work with groups and keeping track of what's going on in all those groups is tough. I haven't seen anything that does it the way I feel it should yet. I'm not talking socially either. I'm talking about a tool that'll let you see what your family is up to or what your church group is doing etc. Yeah, I just described Facebook but the difference will be in how it lends itself to being used. Like if Facebook and Bascamp had a baby.

<comment><USER10> Well, the baby of Facebook and Basecamp would definitely be online, which makes it impossible for it to even want to compete with email.

If you cannot search, read and write messages OFFLINE it has failed in my eyes. Outside of silicon valley or whereever, there are places where you will not get a connection.

Furthermore, it'd have to be more of a protocol rather than a service itself. many companies will not rely on some third party for hosting their most valuable information and communication network. same goes for individuals, probably <1%, but that is the tech-savy crowd...

<comment><AUTHOR> We are actually working on a way to allow companies to host all of this internally while still using our services. This would mean that any company with security concerns could host everything internally and we would still be able to provide support and features.

Along with that we also plan on providing offline support through standalone clients - though this isn't something we are focusing on at the moment. Right now we just want to get the user experience perfected.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> The problem, in a nutshell, is that the OP has never managed an email server. The solution is no secret: postfix, exim, sendmail, or qmail (in that order) with spamassassin, amavis, spamhaus, dcc, razor, greylisting, clamav and occasional bayes db priming. Any ISP doing this will be able to tag and block and/or populate a spam folder with all but 5 to 10 false-negative spams per week.

Anyone getting more spam than should switch email ISPs. This is the real problem IMO, people who stay with incompetent email ISPs (including yahoo, aol, 1and1, att and several other large and small but technically challenged organizations).

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not trying to filter spam. Gmail does great at that. I'm trying to manage the non-spam emails I get. In fact Roockit's goal isn't to be an email provider - we simply want to help manager your current email.</comment></comment>


First ever Dogecoin NYC Meetup - <AUTHOR> http://www.meetup.com/NYC-Dogecoin-Community/events/160506322/

<comment><USER2> Good idea for hackers to meet around Doge. Heaps of opportunities.</comment>


Steve Wozniak first in line for the iPhone 4S - <AUTHOR> http://twitter.com/#!/stevewoz/status/124581902777724928

<comment><USER2> That's amazing that he's waiting in line. I would have expected Woz to get one by simply making a call... or even one without making a call.

</comment><comment><USER3> you gotta love the guy for this!</comment>


Ask HN: What Thinkpad should I get? - <AUTHOR>

I run Maverick Meerkat on an IBM R51 and I'm thinking of getting a new laptop. I have looked into the X301 and the T410.
Having spoken to a couple of users of Maverick on the X301 (with the SSD), they have recommended the T410 with the i7 processor.
Do you have an i7 based Thinkpad or an x301 and you run Ubuntu on it? What have your experiences been?
What I'm looking for is something bombproof. The R51 has weathered a lot of abuse.  How do the Lenovo builds stack up to the older IBM Thinkpads?
And if you have recommendations to non-Thinkpad laptops that fit the bill, do tell. <comment><USER2> I think the Lenovo build is great, they really did a good job maintaining IBM build quality. The Tx lot might be more bombproof than the Xx series, but I don't know - I haven't had the glorious chance to play witht he x201 / x301 at any great length. When I have, they felt a lot like really light and skinny versions of their bigger cousins, with the same great quality and strength. But, I might imagine that just because of the compromises to make them more road-warrior friendly, they would be a bit more fragile.

</comment><comment><USER3> i use an x301 running openbsd (with a samsung ssd). i swapped out the dvd drive for a second battery and have no complaints about it.

the build quality is just like the old thinkpads (i've had the x40, x60, and x61) and the keyboards are still perfect.</comment>


What is the best comment in source code you have ever encountered? - <AUTHOR> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/184618/what-is-the-best-comment-in-source-code-you-have-ever-encountered

<comment><USER2> This one is by far the best:

Dear maintainer:

Once you are done trying to 'optimize' this routine, and have realized what a terrible mistake that was, please increment the following counter as a warning to the next guy:

total_hours_wasted_here = 16

</comment><comment><USER3> long time; /* know C */</comment>


UK job scene and tech companies - <AUTHOR>

How is the tech scene in the UK at the moment?  Are there any tech companies working with interesting technologies and looking for developers? <comment><USER2> You could look at: <http://uk.crunchboard.com/ukcrunch.php>

</comment><comment><USER3> I believe this should be "Ask HN:".</comment>


Teardown of a $1.25 LED Lightbulb - <AUTHOR> https://electronupdate.blogspot.com/2019/12/dollar-store-led-bulb.html?m=1 <comment><USER2> If, for some reason, lighting teardowns are a fascination of yours, I thought I should mention "bigclive", a YouTube channel devoted to this very topic :-D [https://www.youtube.com/user/bigclivedotcom/videos](https://www.youtube.com/user/bigclivedotcom/videos) (the author of this blog post also has a channel at [https://www.youtube.com/user/electronupdate/videos](https://www.youtube.com/user/electronupdate/videos) )

<comment><USER3> One of my favourite Big Clive moments was when he turned up on Barry Lewis's channel (a thoroughly nice and decent British amateur cook and kitchen gadget tester) when Barry had plugged a 120v rated grilled cheese toaster into a UK 240v household supply, near kitchen conflagration hilarity ensues:

Video:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H66Fbg9nrk4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H66Fbg9nrk4)

Clive's comment:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H66Fbg9nrk4&lc=UgyLpu- CcVthk...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H66Fbg9nrk4&lc=UgyLpu- CcVthkaYcsgR4AaABAg)

 _" The best bit about this video is seeing you plug a 120V appliance into 240V without realising it, and then watching the horror unfold as the grossly overloaded appliance makes loud stressed noises and emits flames. The appliance doesn't just run at twice it's normal power, it's closer to four times the power. Good job. Very entertaining."_

I've followed Big Clive for about 5 years now and he's a great presenter. Especially his "what cheap shite I bought from my local Poundland on the Isle of Man" videos...which actually kinda reassure you that Poundland's "cheapo" electrics aren't that terrible or are going to burn your house down.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> My entire house has been converted over to LED.

The cheaper the design the higher the failure rate. The heat seems to kill these things over time. For example I just ordered another warranty replacement from one brand called Hyperikon that uses similar types of designs for floods in my Kitchen. These have a much higher failure rate. Others seem to last forever. Between using electrolytic Capacitors and other tings that are prone to heat and small enclosed areas it is no wonder that the newer, cheaper bulbs fail quicker.

Since one big reason for going with LED is to be more energy efficient and greener, it would be interesting to compare the carbon footprint of these cheap LED bulbs that fail quickly with an incandescent and CFL over the entire lifespan. If the bulb lasts longer the numbers are pretty easy, but given short lifespan of some and their use or rare earth elements it would be interesting to see the full analysis of the environmental impact of each one.

<comment><USER5> I am reading this post on my laptop, in bed. In my grand parent's house.

There's a bedside lamp next to the bed and the bulb is at least 30 years old. Two generation of children have used that bedside lamp to read stuff at night or walk to the bathroom.

Meanwhile my LED - whatever the brand - are failing between 6 months and two years.

edit: [https://imgur.com/c6B71B4](https://imgur.com/c6B71B4)

<comment><USER6> Somwething seems wrong if your non-cheap LEDs are dying that quickly. I have an entire house of LEDs, many going on 5-6 years old, and I only ever recall replacing two (and they were a pair, used outdoors -- only one failed, but I replaced both so they would match).

<comment><USER7> If you have 5-6 year old LED bulbs, then they represent the state of the market 5-6 years ago, and aren't necessarily representative of current quality.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Some of these cheap LED bulbs have horrible flicker. For a fun time, record a slow motion video of a cheap bulb on your phone and play it back. Like half the damn video is black (pretty sure it is because they literally chop out half the AC sine wave with a diode). LED Christmas lights are also really bad.

Then compare it to something like a Phillips hue bulb. The difference between the two is pretty big.

On a side note I sometimes wonder if other animals have a quicker "refresh rate" on their eyes and see nothing but very visible flicker on these bad LED bulbs. I also wonder if some animals could see the raster scan in action on old CRTs...

<comment><USER9> It's not like these bulbs are flickering in a way you can perceive _just_ by slowing it down by 2/3/4x. They're flickering at 10000+ Hz. The reason cameras perceive the flicker is that they take discrete samples, with an (electronic or optical) shutter in between. This creates a _beat frequency_ with things that also flicker, in effect "tuning into" a HF flicker and "lowering it" into the visible range, the same way a superheterodyne radio tunes into a HF carrier wave and brings it down into the audible range.

<comment><USER10> The 10khz+ flicker only comes about if the bulbs have a proper switching power supply (and if that switching power supply itself runs at 10khz+).

But for the 'real cheap' bulbs, they likely (due to being "real cheap") have either a half wave or full wave rectifier (i.e., no switching PSU) which results in the LED's having a flicker at power line frequency (either 50hz, 60hz, 100hz, or 120hz depending upon which combination of line frequency and full/half wave rectifier is present).

<comment><USER11> Now that incandescent bulbs are almost gone, I wonder if it will become common to have wires carrying DC in the ceiling instead of every bulb having to implement the AC to DC conversion as cheaply as possible.

<comment><USER12> I have DC powered under-cabinet lights which are definitely flickering at some fairly high rate.

Imperceptible if you are just looking at it, but in a dark room if you move something quickly in front of it you can see the strobe effect.

<comment><USER13> But where is the DC coming from? If it is a cheap power source (a rectifier plugged or wired into AC), the DC into the lights could be intermittent, and so cause flicker. For true continuous DC, you need a good rectifier or get the current directly from batteries.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> It's pretty amazing how powerful small chip-on-board (COB) LED modules have become. I recently built a 6000 Lumen aquarium light with 7W - 850 Lumen COB modules. The active surface is just 5x5 mm, so the illuminance when held in front of your eye (1 cm² surface) is about 17.000.000 Lux, roughly 100 times brighter than direct sunlight on a summer's day at noon (so don't do it as it might be the last thing your see with that eye). And those modules are actually at the low end of the available power, you can get up to 35 W packaged into such a tiny COB, which is just crazy. Good thermal anchoring of the chips is therefore paramount, as they will quickly heat up to the point of being destroyed by electromigration if they're not properly cooled (and I imagine for the control electronics in the light bulb the high temperatures are also not beneficial). Anyway, it's still impressive how much light you can get out of such such tiny devices.

<comment><USER15> 850 lumens per 5x5mm square isn't overly spooky. It's only about 1/50 as bright as the sun itself, and comfortably under the level where you risk burning spots on your retina.

I'm not really sure what happens when you hold it right up to your eye. I'd be worried about the total amount of heat my retina can dissipate more than the lumens, but I have no idea what that number actually is.

<comment><USER14> It depends on the distance. Even at 1 m an 850 Lumen source with 120 degree radiation angle is painful to look at, and at 1 cm distance the illuminance is 10.000 times higher again. The peak illuminance of the sun at the surface of the earth is around 120.000 Lux (Lumen /m2), significantly smaller than such an LED when viewed from a short distance.

<comment><USER15> I just don't think illuminance is the most important number here. Luminance is more relevant to eye damage in the vast majority of cases, because that measures the spot intensity on your retina. After all, the sun's light would be completely harmless to the eye if spread over a five degree circle, despite having exactly the same illuminance. (Well, you would want a UV filter, but the brightness would be completely neutered.)

The sun gets up to 1.6 billion candela per meter squared. 850 lumens in a 120 degree cone, from a 5x5mm surface, is about 11 million candela per square meter if I did the math right. With a retinal danger level around 100 million, you'd need some very strong secondary effects to damage yourself with an 11 million source.

Secondary effects like boiling your entire eyeball, or overloading the cornea while the retina is safe. And I don't have the knowledge here to say if that happens, or if your body can easily sink a spread-out watt of light and nothing bad happens.

<comment><USER14> I don't think that's right. If I hold this LED right in front of my eye the retina will be exposed to the entire 850 Lumen. Sunlight with an illuminance of 120.000 Lux on the other hand yields around 12 Lumen on the retina, assuming a surface of 1 cm². It's the relative distance to the light source that makes this so dangerous.

<comment><USER15> Even if you only let a pinhole of sunlight in, enough to illuminate a surface to 120 instead of 120k, it will burn your retina.

Normal retinal spot burns are not about total light coming into your eye. They're about incoming light per _solid angle_. A light that is bright enough _per area_ is dangerous at any distance, until it's so so far away it looks like a single point.

I'm sure that there's some level at which total light is damaging, even if there are no super bright spots. But that level is going to be significantly higher than 120k. It's maybe a range this LED can reach, maybe not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> If we can for a moment digress from light bulbs, I have had recently some experience with (el-cheapo) led panels, those that can be inserted in ceilings (false ceilings), they can be either round or square and are typically 12 W (around 17 cm diameter) and 18 W (around 22 cm in diameter), there are even larger ones (24 W/30 cm diameter).

They make a very good amount of light, like 1100 lumens for the 12 W and 1650 lumens for the 18 W, and have a separate "led driver", constant current, 280-300 mA, voltage 36-72 V for the 12/18 W driver and 54 - 96 V for the 18/24 W driver.

They can be found _everywhere_ for anything between 4 and 10 Euro each.

It is now three years I installed some 60 of them (in a restaurant/hotel, think no less than 10 h/day on for 300 days/year) and 15-20% of them failed in the last few months.

In ALL of them the faulty part is the "driver" (which basically is a transformer and a rectifier plus a current limiting chip and a capacitor, which seemingly is the actual component that always fails[1]), spares (a new driver) can be luckily be found for 2 or 3 Euro each, the actual leds are perfect.

I cannot see why it is not in production a male/female E27 attachment containing a "driver" and a "driverless" bulb to match.

The amount of electronics thrown away would at least halve.

[1] See: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS0Jetfw4vA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS0Jetfw4vA)

</comment><comment><USER17> Does anyone know where to find actual good LED bulbs? All of the Feit bulbs from Costco I bought eventually died within two years. I tried buying Phillips (non hue) off Amazon, and they are also starting to die in about a year to a year and a half. They really try to sell LED bulbs as lasting "forever", but in reality they seem to die just as fast.

<comment><USER18> You might want to check your home for electrical issues (specifically spikes). I've yet to have a single LED light bulb die ever, some have already exceeded their supposed 10 year lifespan.

And that's not one brand. I have GE bulbs, Philips (Hue and not), and random brands from Amazon.

<comment><USER17> This is at two separate apartments, and a standlone house. All of them seem to die.

<comment><USER19> Gotta check your attitude, maybe it's disrupting the DeKalbs. (Sorry for the Heinlein reference, it was too tempting.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> $1.25? How about a 60c LED light bulb teardown :[http://rohitg.in/2014/10/28/Dollar-LED- Bulb/](http://rohitg.in/2014/10/28/Dollar-LED-Bulb/)

<comment><USER21> at $0.60, it probably pays for itself in a few months... (energy costs)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> > A fused neutral design would leave all of the bulb electronics hot. Strange.

Depends on what country you are living in.

It's not new for me to see a product passing safety certification in one country, failing in another, but still ending up in it because of messup by people running the OEM industry.

Second to it, in a normal country, for an electrical appliance, failing short, and triggering a short circuit protection is a relatively safe alternative to having a dedicated fail safe circuit, but in countries with building codes not saying anything about wiring safety, it often means a fire.

<comment><USER23> Anyway European Schuko plugs are not even polarized, there is no way to know which wire is hot.

<comment><USER24> Honestly, I think it's better that we view polarization as a historical oddity. So many people don't understand the concept.

Even I have trouble understanding the real difference between ground and neutral, because neutral connects to ground in the breaker panel. I'm not even sure if neutral goes through the breaker?

<comment><USER10> Note, the below will be for the US -- rules will be different in other countries.

> Even I have trouble understanding the real difference between ground and > neutral,

Neutral is the normal return path for current. Under normal operation power is delivered to a device via the "hot" conductor, and travels back from the device to the source over the neutral conductor.

The ground conductor is present for safety purposes. Under normal operation no current should flow over the ground conductor at all. The only time the ground should have a current flow is during a safety event (i.e. a short from hot to the case of a device with a metal case).

> I'm not even sure if neutral goes through the breaker?

It does not, the breaker is present in the "hot" conductor path, and tripping the breaker disconnects just the hot conductor from the power source.

<comment><USER25> Power flows opposite current, doesn't it?

<comment><USER10> I've never heard of that description in all my years as an EE. Do you have a citation or reference to that description?

<comment><USER26> Power = I^2*R so power is positive regardless of which way the current is flowing. (rms current in the case AC, not accounting for power factor)

<comment><USER25> Right, power can be extracted from flow of electrons/holes, regardless of the direction...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> As an amateur radio operator, I can hear the RFI generated from that cheap bulb just by looking at it. I upgraded my home from CFL to LED and found out the hard way that cheap IKEA bulbs are not conducive to a radio hobby. Philips Hue and Lifx have been generally much better.

<comment><USER28> I recently replaced a bunch of bulbs in my recording studio with LED and it was a huge mistake. They are basically RFI cannons. I removed them after realizing what was going on. I spent a couple of days hunting down a really nasty rogue noise and it ended up being a LIFX bulb I had forgotten about. Now I have to find a huge pile of black market incandescent bulbs...

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Some designs eliminate the electrolytic capacitor. That's the first component to fail. If you want 10+ years of operation, it has to go. You can get rid of the electrolytic, but you have to add an inductor.[1]

[1] [https://led-driver.power.com/products/product- archive/linksw...](https://led-driver.power.com/products/product- archive/linkswitch-pl/)

<comment><USER30> The cheap bulb teardown linked to by indiantinker [1] shows that it contains a 100uf electrolytic cap for smoothing. A quick search shows that 6.3 V 100uf MLCC capacitors are readily available for ~20 cents. Maybe you can only afford that sort of thing starting in a "two dollar" bulb but it shouldn't require buying fancy $10 bulbs to ensure that the capacitors live as long as the LED.

Or are there other considerations that mean non-electrolytic capacitors are unsuitable?

[1] [http://rohitg.in/2014/10/28/Dollar-LED- Bulb/](http://rohitg.in/2014/10/28/Dollar-LED-Bulb/)

<comment><USER31> Well, for MLCC caps specifically, 6.3V is definitely not going to cut it (that's less than the voltage across 2 LEDs, and there will be more than that in series). You'll find that 100uf in 200V ceramic caps will be substantially more expensive ($10 - $100), plus you get fun effects like ceramic capacitors have less capacitance the higher the DC voltage across them.

Electrolytics are used when you have no choice, and if you are trying to store a large amount of charge in a small volume (especially on the cheap), you have precious little options.

<comment><USER30> Thanks! I was thinking of a single LED. Looking at other teardowns where the actual light emitting elements are shown, I see that bulbs contain multiple LEDs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I love seeing designs that fail while keeping the product as electrically hot as possible - said noone ever.

<comment><USER33> Oh, Big Clive might say something to that effect, I'm sure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> > A fused neutral design would leave all of the bulb electronics hot. Strange.

Makes me wonder if the resistor is really a fuse?

BTW, I recently bought a plug -> bulb adapter on Amazon. It did not preserve neutral at all, and instead had a higher plastic ridge making it impossible to touch the metal part of the bulb. (The part that's at risk of touch, so it's typically connected to neutral.)

<comment><USER34> No, it is not a fuse. It is most likely there to limit the inrush current into the cap when the power is applied.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> In my experience, the electronics _around_ the leds tend to fail rather fast.

Few years back - around 7 - we expanded our house slightly (A room, a small living room and a small bath) so I put led bulbs in there, plus I replaced some of the bulbs in the rest of the house.

As I bought several of these (5+) when I placed them I wrote on them with a permanent marker the date of installation. Bear in mind these were not extra cheap, more like mid priced ones.

6 months from installation I had to start replacing them, and at the 18 months mark I had replaced most of them.

Bear in mind this coincided with a big legislation in my country that made "normal" light bulbs illegal (Because ecology, global warming and shit).

I doubt they took into account how much trash these cheap bulbs generate.

Also, whatever money you save from less energy consumption is probably a lot less than the money that it costs replacing them this often.

</comment><comment><USER36> Hijacking the comments. I have a project that would involve about 15+ smart Lightbulbs. Anyone would know any decent/cheaper alternative to the Phillips Hue bulbs?

<comment><USER37> Think outside the box (outside the bulb?)

z-wave "behind the switch" modules are super easy to install (you pull out the switch on the wall, and you put a small box in between the switch and the mains wiring), and you can control a whole circuit with one ~$40 switch. Depending on which one you get, they also support 3 and 4 way circuits (although with some caveats).

And it comes with the additional benefits that it will always work with the manual switch (turning it off or on), and it will work with any lightbulbs you may want to use in the future, but the downside is that you can't really get full RGB colors in the bulbs if that's something you are going for.

<comment><USER38> This is more or less my preferred solution. I use z-wave switches, not modules, though. I don't get RGB control, but I do get home automation that fails gracefully back to "works just like a light switch always did" if something goes wrong.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I'm glad I found this and of course I'm familiar with Big Clive (I watch his stuff regularly), EEVBlog and others mentioned here.I've had mixed success with low-cost LED lighting and often discuss that and related subjects on my own blog at [https://tech.scargill.net](https://tech.scargill.net) as well as reading what others have to say. I get a lot of feedback on that subject.

I note comment below about Poundland. Related to that (I guess) is PoundStretcher and up to now, the highest failure rate I've had in LED mains lighting are the bargain LED lamps (Hitachi) from Poundstretcher (and I get samples or buy LED lights from China, Europe and various locations in the UK so I'm no stranger to the subject).

</comment><comment><USER40> I don't understand these direct AC drivers:

[https://www.electronicsweekly.com/news/why-not-direct-ac- dri...](https://www.electronicsweekly.com/news/why-not-direct-ac-drive-your- led-string-2016-04/)

They activate 1-4 LEDs in series depending on where in the half wave of the 120V AC we are. That's understandable, but I don't get how about 60V is okay for one LED?

One LED has a forward current of max. 3V, doesn't it? By partitioning the up to 120V into 4 phases, it does not cover a mere 4 LEDs in series.

Do they have to put 15 in series for the first section in the schematics and another 15 for the thign called "LED 2", etc.?

Are there LEDs with forward currents of 60V available?

</comment><comment><USER41> Not knowing much about less, are any of these cheap ones just as good as the premium ones? I'd also like a bulb that could be changed to an orangish hue at night to block out blue light. From what I read a lot of them emit little light when changed to orange.

</comment><comment><USER42> Dave at EEVblog just toredown a BenQ freebie monitor nightlight the other day, maybe yesterday IIRC.

Also, Bigclive as mentioned. The hotdogger and USB charger with shoddy transformers passing 240V should make any sane person to realize it's cheaper to stick to name-brand USB chargers.

Disclaimer: Many moons ago, I was literally tearing-apart clocks and electronics when I was 5. Too bad I didn't have a Youtube channel. ;-) I think it's genetic as my father and grandfather both built a bunch of HeathKit projects.

</comment><comment><USER43> I don't think this is the design for the next hundred years as the author claims. Instead, screw-in bulbs based on a form factor dictated by 19th century glass making techniques and incandescent lighting will probably die out.

They'll surely be available as a specialty item, but cramming a power supply, emitters, and heatsink into such a suboptimal package only makes sense for legacy compatibility.

<comment><USER44> Do you see new lighting wiring standards emerging anywhere right now? Are they gaining traction?

<comment><USER45> Integrating a non-replaceable lamp is the trend. You buy the whole unit, it works for say, ten years and then you buy a different one when remodelling. This made no sense when a light bulb was just something that needs replacing every few months in normal use but LEDs mean you can engineer that out.

Replacing a "light bulb" will seem as weird as replacing the backlight inside your laptop. Obviously a technician can do it, might even make sense to pay for that rather than buy a replacement for the whole unit, but it's not something regular people do themselves.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> > A fuse should be put on the hot leg as close to the power entry as possible. > The reasoning being that if the fuse pops it removes the hot voltage from as > much of the assembly as possible.

This only works if the power system has a defined neutral and live wire. European Schuko plugs do not - as the plugs are reversible - so you need to break both wires to safely cut power to the device.

</comment><comment><USER47> It would be better to run a dc circuit throughout a house just for lights and do away with the rectifier circuits inside these led globes and It could be free of transients.

<comment><USER48> I'm all for DC supplies in houses, but it doesn't quite solve the issue here.

Any DC house-wide bus would see voltage drop along the wires, so all connected devices would have to handle an acceptable voltage range.

Since LED's have a very steep IV curve, they really need either current control or a very big resistor to handle that voltage variation.

Very big resistor = too much heat.

So current control. And the only realistic way to achieve that is with a switched mode power supply.

There is one benefit left for DC: The switched mode power supply could have much smaller input and output capacitors, and operate at much higher frequencies, therefore being much smaller.

<comment><USER15> It solves the problem of your power disappearing every eight milliseconds.

No rectifier, no higher voltages, the ability to use capacitors that are a thousand times smaller.

And even if you did use a resistor, it wouldn't have to be too wasteful. If you use normal 14 gauge wiring, your resistance is probably half an ohm. At 48 volts, with a dozen 60-watt equivalent bulbs, your voltage drop is less than one volt.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Has anyone here done any rigorous testing wrt flicker in particular? Of the reasonably priced brands (which excludes Hue), what's the lowest-flickering warm white bulb?

</comment><comment><USER50> I wonder if we will get to a point where new houses will have DC wired LED lights with a central converter. Seems no reason not to do so.

<comment><USER51> There is reason not to do so: Ohm's law.

Low voltage requires low resistance to transmit reasonable current. The only way to get this is with substantially thicker wiring.

5V DC isn't a plausible voltage to send the distance from a fusebox to light installations. One could do 48V and step it down at the site, but there's not much in the way of gains to be had. AC/DC circuits are quite efficient as-is.

<comment><USER50> Why is PoE so popular then?

<comment><USER51> > _PoE standard provides up to 15.4 W of DC power (minimum 44 V DC and 350 > mA[2][3]) on each port.[4] Only 12.95 W is assured to be available at the > powered device as some power dissipates in the cable._

84% efficiency sucks. It's a reasonable solution for some cases, because if you're running Ethernet to a camera already, hey, why not provide some power?

But for, let's say 300W of lighting that runs 12 hours a day, you're wasting about 15kWh of electricity per month. Residential wiring has internal losses under 1%.

I would rather not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> So what's a solution? Bulbs filled with a non-conducting non-flammable liquid?

Should cheaply provide better heat dissipation than air, no?

</comment><comment><USER53> I find teardowns like this fascinating. Especially in designs that are trying to do things as cheaply as possible.

<comment><USER54> You'll probably like the product teardowns of youtube user AvE. He usually does tools, but also the random appliance or product from time to time. His teardown of the Juicero is a classic: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Cp- BGQfpHQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Cp-BGQfpHQ)

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> The best thing about this bulb is that it isn't some internet-connected abomination.

<comment><USER18> I'll take my "internet-connected abomination" over having to wire in a dimmer switch that might change the tone of the light as you dim, make buzzing sounds, cut out the light early, or shorten the lifespan of the bulb.

Hue has been the first dimming system that actually works well. I have a few colored bulbs, but rarely need them, the biggest benefit to me (aside from automation: dusk auto-on/off) is dimming different shades of white/yellow. Great system that has no real analogue competition.</comment></comment>


Facebook Becomes Location Backbone | Apps Import Checkins From Each Other - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2012/03/07/facebook-becomes-location-backbone-that-lets-apps-import-checkins-from-each-other/

<comment><USER2> You can check out this option at <http://fbplaces.linkstore.ru> Lets you write reviews for places</comment>


Godel and the End of Physics, by Stephen Hawking - <AUTHOR> http://www.physics.sfasu.edu/astro/news/20030308news%5CStephenHawking20030308.htm

<comment><USER2> This looks a few years old? ...but the first time I've read it.

I get a nerdy warm fuzzy feeling when physicists and theoretical computer scientists acknowledge the same barriers (in this case incompleteness).</comment>


Make the Back-End Team Jealous: Elm in Production - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV0DXNB94NE <comment><USER2> I felt a great disturbance in the Internet, as if hundreds of minds suddenly cried out for immutable data and stateless functions...

</comment><comment><USER3> Nice talk, very motivating!</comment>


Study Credits Uber with Decline in California Drunk Driving Deaths - <AUTHOR> http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/08/07/study-credits-uber-with-decline-in-california-drunk-driving-deaths

<comment><USER2> This is really, really sloppy reporting. It appears that KQED just rebroadcast a press release without even looking at the paper.

1) this is not a peer-reviewed study; it is only a working paper.

2) the paper counts ONLY HOMICIDES (ignores collisions that do not result in homicide) and counts a collision as DUI-induced EVEN IF THE DRIVER IN THE WRONG IS STONE COLD SOBER. It also seems to not distinguish between drivers and passengers (they count number of involved _parties_ , not number of involved drivers.

3} I can find no information that they used any controls, e.g. contrasted regions with similar demographics and tracking history of DUI that DO have Uber/Sidecar/etc. versus those who do NOT; . That would be the most meaningful data. DUI rates can drop for a given population by other factors, e.g. increased penalties, enforcement; concomitant decrease in homicides to due improved vehicle safety (collision strength, air bags, percentage of involved vehicles with air bags and such, etc.); significantly fewer bad-weather days in CA in the recent drought years, etc.</comment>


India to distribute 25 mn Smartphones to Rural Households - <AUTHOR> http://www.nextbigwhat.com/bharat-mobile-scheme-297/

<comment><USER2> So there goes my tax money. And am still struggling (for the past two years) to save up some chunk for a phone.

Just another point to prove that salaried class Indians are the most abused bunch in India.

</comment><comment><USER3> Those households will then sell off those smartphones in open market for 50% of price.</comment>


Review of Ayn Rand - <AUTHOR> http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1708/article_detail.asp

<comment><USER5> It is odd to me that people care one iota about Ayn Rand the person. She was a novelist and philosopher, and so the best way to approach her is to read her works and think about them, not to try to read ancient and unreliable dish about her personal life.

Anyone who is fascinated by the sort of gossip that these biographers found (such as the idea that Frank was a wuss who didn't want to move to NY or that Rand was addicted to speed) would probably strongly prefer People magazine to any of Rand's works. Fortunately for them, many such magazines exist.

There is an odd tone of satisfaction in many reviews of Rand biographies... as if the writer feels somehow more empowered to critique Rand's ideas after learning about some personal foible or other than he/she did after reading (or attempting to read) one of her books.

<comment><USER6> Sure, but this particular article is far better than the trash you describe. It acknowledges some good ideas, notably "the delight that a human being ought to feel at watching another member of our species doing things superbly well." Recall the scene in Atlas Shrugged where Hugh Akston "heroically" prepares an excellent hamburger. :)

Another good idea: "It's a world of cooperation and mutual benefit through the pursuit of self-interest, enabling satisfying lives not only for the Hank Reardens of the world but for factory workers."

She opposed coercion, writing that "in a free society, all government financing would be voluntary." At the time she considered that an ideal whose time had not yet come, but I would argue with her, probably until 3:00 in the morning, that after 46 years it's high time we moved in that direction.

We would have other disagreements as well. She thought that monopolies of force were needed to avoid anarchic carnage, but unfortunately anarchic carnage was _precisely_ what force monopolies themselves delivered throughout the 20th century.

Of course Ayn Rand had her annoying traits, habits, and foibles, but I've read "The Letters of Ayn Rand" and seen plenty of endearing personal qualities as well. But she hated collectivism with a vitriolic passion, having seen its murderous effect on the people of her native Russia.

<comment><USER5> Those are good points. I don't think those were pointed out in the essay, however. I advocate reading her writings and learning from them.

<comment><USER6> Well, the first two points are direct quotes from the essay, but I did add a few more points from other sources.

To those who cannot stomach Ayn Rand, allow me to summarize the high points which I have adopted for myself:

1\. I can deal with reality effectively through the use of reason and conceptual thought.

2\. I should interact with other people only on a voluntary basis, without initiating force or aggression against them.

3\. I should seek my own health, wealth, happiness, and fulfillment. My success depends not only on my own productive abilities, but also my ability to engage with other people in _mutually_ beneficial ways.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> To summarize, the reviewer likes Ayn Rand and her work but thinks the author's life showed a huge capacity for self-deception because: a) as a kid in Russia, she was really into novels b) she had a higher opinion of the man she loved than others did c) she moved from a ranch in California to NYC, and was convinced this was best for her actor-husband d) she took amphetamines (under doctor's prescription) e) was publicly bitter about a perceived betrayal by another lover f) claimed no philosophical debt except to Aristotle (she has received no scholarly attention by the students/disciples of subsequent philosophy anyway)

Frankly this is phenomenally small beer compared to the sins of other philosophers or influential intellectuals. And I find the obsession with Rand gossip amongst her detractors pretty stupid.

The reviewer also dismisses 'Objectivism' and says the novels are the important thing. But actually the novels contain most of the philosophical meat of Objectivism - the subsequent non-fiction is more like footnotes/endnotes, collections of essays that relate ideas from AS to real- world history and economic theory. _An Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology_ does contain many new ideas though, but it's only 50 pages or so and is fairly a-political. I suppose the start of _The Virtue of Selfishness_ contains a couple of essential ideas one might not pick up from the novels (ie. why you _can_ get ought from is), although that could be seen as overly intellectual 'who cares' territory (as most people perceive the whole field of philosophy)

</comment><comment><USER8> "Second, Ayn Rand portrayed a world I wanted to live in, not because I would be rich or powerful in it, but because it consisted of people I wanted to be around."

Funny, I found the people in Atlas Shrugged to be two dimensional bores that didn't talk to each other but gave long rambling speeches.

Nobody in that book acted the way humans acted and for some reason that world had entropy turned up to 11.

The philosophy aside, the book was horrible ordeal full of people that I just wanted to punch in the nuts.

</comment><comment><USER9> _Objectivism takes as its metaphysical foundation the existence of reality that is unchanged by anything that an observer might think about it—"A is A," as Aristotle put it, and as Rand often repeated in her own work. Objectivism's epistemology is based on the capacity of the human mind to perceive reality through reason, and the adamant assertion that reason is the only way to perceive reality. In Rand's view, notions of intuition or spiritual insight were hokum._

This sounds an awful lot like the philosophy of the Bayesian conspirators over at lesswrong.com. However, instead of pronouncing intuition to be hokum, they just say that intuition isn't magic. I wonder how Ayn Rand would've been informed by the wealth of knowledge we've gained in the study of the brain and cognition and by computer science? Objectivism would have been quite different. (Not suffused with the false notion of mind as _tabula rasa_.)

EDIT: An excellent Review. <http://lesswrong.com/lw/m1/guardians_of_ayn_rand/#more>

<comment><USER5> Eliezer is not reviewing Rand's work, he's accumulating a variety of gossip about her life and judging the organization that she formed (which still exists) on that basis.

I think Eliezer is trying a bit hard to have a negative view of Rand (which is a very faddish view these days). Rand's scientist heroes would fit right in among the LessWrong crew, and Rand acknowledged that her own role (as a philosopher and novelist) was to help elucidate the moral issues around reason and capitalism. She was not particularly interested in the mechanics of reason itself, but I would guess that she would very much have enjoyed LessWrong.

Rand's heroes were driven, passionate, often outcasts from society. They sought only their work and the fulfillment they gain from it. Their _processes_ involve reason, but their identities do not. Their creative drive is more like what we expect from artists these days. Perhaps this feels foreign to those in academia who live grant to grant.

note: I consider Eliezer Yudkowsky one of the most important intellectuals alive today. Of course, I judge him by his primary work not by his personal habits or his occasional rant about subjects that are not his focus.

<comment><USER9> _he's accumulating a variety of gossip about her life and judging the organization that she formed_

By my lights, an individual or organization can be judged by how well they adapt to reality: do they interpret facts to suit their ideology, or does their ideology grow by accepting new facts and knowledge?

By this measure, it's much easier to have a negative view of certain of Rand's followers.

 _They sought only their work and the fulfillment they gain from it._

I think this will be my new credo.

 _Perhaps this feels foreign to those in academia who live grant to grant._

Perhaps this is like certain entrepreneurs who live to exit, or head hunters who live only for their fee. We should navigate and groom our incentives instead of letting them rule us.

<comment><USER5> _By this measure, it's much easier to have a negative view of certain of Rand's followers._

I completely agree. I have generally had a fairly negative impression of the organizations that exist today to support her philosophy, but I read most of her books (fiction and nonfiction) and enjoyed them tremendously.

<comment><USER9> _I have generally had a fairly negative impression of the organizations that exist today to support her philosophy, but I read most of her books (fiction and nonfiction) and enjoyed them tremendously._

I've had a generally negative impression of her followers. All self identifying "Objectivists" I've met seem to be "second-handers" latching onto greatness as a substitute for their own work. This term comes from The Fountainhead, which I enjoyed greatly. I am certain that it's useful to occasionally ask oneself, "Am I second-handing?" My answer in a few cases has been "yes."

(In particular, regard for the individual and reason are not gods. They are not absolutes but best regarded as good policies and tools.)

<comment><USER5> Note that Rand herself disliked the term "objectivism" and so I think she'd be in agreement.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan details his own relationship with Ayn Rand in his book _The Age of Turbulence_. I don't have the book or I'd pull direct quotes. But the gist is that he had an immense respect for her and she was a meaningful influence on his life.

</comment><comment><USER11> This is a good review, and I'm enjoying it thus far; I have my degrees (a bachelor's and a master's) in philosophy, and this is a subject that interests me.

Regardless of my (lack of) regard for Ayn Rand, I won't indulge in any trolling here. I do, however, think it bears pointing out that her philosophy has absolutely nothing whatsoever in common with Aristotle.

</comment><comment><USER12> For the sake of argument, let's set aside all of Ayn Rand's real or imagined foibles and supposed moral failures. Moreover, let's set aside her advocacy of selfishness and capitalism as moral and political ideals since these seem to raise visceral reactions in many people. So what's left? Nothing less than identifying the basic, inescapable axioms of existence and consciousness at the base of all knowledge and a theory of concepts to validate reason. Most people today are incapable of understanding this profound achievement.

</comment><comment><USER13> Another good review: <http://www.slate.com/id/2233966>

</comment><comment><USER14> Whether Rand lived by her own ethics in my mind is less worrying than her so called philosophy itself.

You don't need to go after her as a person to point out what is wrong with what she was fundamentally preaching.

<comment><USER15> What _is_ wrong with what she was -- teaching?

<comment><USER14> There are so many things that are wrong with it.

"The individual "must exist for his own sake"

That "must" in there is basically undermining her own claims about rationality.

It might very well be that the individual exist for his own sake. But "must"? That's a pretty unsupported moral claim and by no metrics rational.

Her focus on the individual is in itself a very naive interpretation of reality.

What individual is she talking about. No man is an island. The very existence of what we call individuals depends on so many factors from our ancestors to the existence of a live-able planet to the air we are breathing.

If anything she wrote self-help books. To call it philosophy would be a crime to philosophy.

Or what about A = A. Existence exist. But what is existence? That is the question you must answer before you venture out from the premise and start prescribing what is right and what is wrong.

<comment><USER5> _must_ is used the same way _should_ is frequently used. Moral philosophy allows that concept.

<comment><USER14> Which makes it no less problematic.

It's still an unsupported moral claim.

<comment><USER7> Rand does actually support this claim. Basically what an organism _should_ do is determined by its nature, ie. what actions are necessary for survival. This is what's good for the organism. Human nature is neither automatic (like plants) or instinctual (like animals), but rational - to survive, man must use reason. Therefore the right/moral/good path is adherence to reason.

The only thing is that it rests on a conditional premise of choosing life over death, but that's hardly necessary to discuss

<comment><USER14> I am sorry but don't force your premise down on me. Choosing life over death is for thousands who commit suicide not such a simple question.

What actions are necessary for survival. In a war what do you think? When you get born who takes care of you?

Besides her actions being obviously wrong (no man exist in isolation) she is also showing a very poor understanding of basic evolutionary theory. You can't prescribe anything based on evolution.

I can see that the Rand fanboys are roaming this thread. Instead of just downvoting perhaps (not you Tycho) you should show some cohonas and actually make an argument.

<comment><USER7> Well the thing is, morality is for the living, if you choose death then it's a moot point really.

In a war you need to take risks to ensure long-term survival (and survival 'qua' man btw, not as a slave or prisoner), there's nothing irrational about that. When you're first born you have only the pleasure/pain mechanism to tell good from bad, and that alone is not sufficient for survival, so as your mind develops you must use reason to live.

Rand never mentioned evolutionary theory as far as I remember, the argument is based simply on the easily observable biological functions that support life. No knowledge of evolution is necessary in order to act morally or come up with a similar moral theory. Meanwhile you keep saying 'no man is an island,' 'no man exists in isolation,' but I'm not sure what you actually mean by that. I could just as easily say 'no man shares the mind of any other' - it's a bit of a platitude - what's your argument exactly?

<comment><USER14> Given that Rand tries to make universal claims your attempt to make exceptions are rather ironic.

Basically your argument about kids are not any different than the religious people trying to explain how a child that haven't been baptized can go to heaven if they die early.

What about the victims that meet the an enemy with overwhelming power. Are they heroic when they flee because that is the rational thing to do? Or are they irrational because they take the risk and attack the enemy?

What about the retarded? Are they not humans because they aren't rational?

You simply skip over all the problematic part with Rands philosophy. That's fine with me, just don't call it careful thinking.

The point about no man is an island is that the idea of the individual is not just naive it's flat out wrong.

With regards to your easily observable biological functions. Let me remind you that the body is a colony of cells that all work together to ultimately maintain the idea of you as an individual.

To claim that the individual is somehow a well defined thing is simply showing the same kind of ignorance that the religious people have towards science.

The survival instinct is hardwired into you only to the extent that it's not being suppressed by a severe depression. The brain is not a mechanical thing it's moldable.

Obviously being young and immortal Rand makes some sense. This explains why she is so popular to young people who lack any fidelity and experience outside the campus.

If anything Rands thinking is that of a immature human being who lack any desire to really understand the world around them because it is to occupied with themselves.

Existence exist, but the question is what is existence. Rand goes from description to prescription but forget to do the check and balances of her premise.

<comment><USER7> Rand makes claims based on clearly defined concepts - if you change the definition of the concept or misinterpret that's not her fault. When she says 'man' it is shorthand for an adult human capable of rational thought. If the human in question is not capable of rational thought (infant, retarded person), then most of Rand's theory does not apply. It consists of _qualified_ universal claims, all depending on the nature of the organism (on a case by case basis, but we generalize for convenience).

Meeting an overwhelming foe in war is an ethical emergency where there is no good outcome, just a choice of bad ones. As such, do whatever seems to best protect that which you value most, either fleeing or fighting (or even dieing to save others) could be moral decisions. These are not the problematic parts of Rand's philosophy, the rules themselves don't change - but they are in fact the problematic parts of almost every other philosophy I come across: ie. the unhelpful focus on emergencies and exceptions, rendering the 'answers' irrelevant to everyday life. See Rand's essay 'The Ethics of Emergencies' for more on this.

You say the concept of the individual is wrong but just as morality only has meaning to the living, _this very discussion_ only has meaning if it involves conscious, self-aware individuals, so there's literally no point entertaining any idea to the contrary (even though I'd like to point out that molecules still exist as unique entities even though they're made up of quarks).

Also it's irrelevant whether there is a hardwired survival instinct in place or not - as I said the whole thing rests on a conditional premise, a choice. Look at what Rand's saying like this:

 _Do you, lifeform, wish to live?_ If so then [insert Objectivism here]

<comment><USER14> It doesn't matter if Rand makes claims on clearly defined concepts. Her concepts are wrong. The premise is wrong.

I don't change the definition I am telling you what is wrong with her definition. There is a world of difference.

Again you speak of conscious self-aware individuals as if it's well defined what that means.

This is exactly the problem with Rands philosophy and your belief. Words are not reality, words are simplifications of reality.

No matter how many descriptors you put around the word individual it won't become more well defined. There isn't any clear cut easily observable individual when you start to really dig into it.

"Do you, life-form, wish to live? If so then [insert Objectivism here]"

This obviously isn't what she is saying since there are other ways to live than by the gospel of objectivism. Ways that have no problem supporting life. Religion being one of them.

<comment><USER7> Words are symbols for their referents, which are concepts - concepts that are a condensation of many, many observations about existents or other concepts. So yes words are simplifications of reality, they encode the essential aspects of some part of reality - but their definitions are right or wrong depending on the truth or falsehood of the condensed observations. Rand observed that biologically developed men were autonomous agents with the ability to perceive, reason and conceptualize (ie. conscious, self-aware individuals) and proscribed an ethical theory accordingly. She declares her definition so if you want to invalidate it you need to refute those observations or the manner in which they're integrated into a single concept.

Individuals are extremely easy to recognize, we do it all the time. We just don't know exactly _how_ all the systems supporting our individuality work, but then we don't know exactly how _all_ the systems supporting _anything_ work either. Quantum mechanics, anyone? Humans are rational animals: that means as animals they have all the usual biological considerations of growth/development/decay but the end product of that growth/development (when successful) is always a being with the type of consciousness (ie. awareness) that allows him/her to not only respond to the environment and act autonomously, but also to abstract, conceptualize, and reason.

Also I think you misinterpreted my last line - Rand is only addressing or 'trying to reach' life-forms who choose life. Of course they could choose to follow some other advice and still choose to live (although not wholly consistently, Rand would argue)

<comment><USER14> I have refuted those observations simply by showing that men are not ONLY individuals. That they don't exist in a vacum, that they are not ONLY autonomous.

That's all I need to do. I don't have to buy Rands observations if they don't fully account for the reality they are trying to make claims about.

You are confusing what seems to be the case with what is the case. You take one interpretation of phenomena and makes it the only interpretation.

Then you (or Rand if you like) take that an try to make universal claims.

That is exactly what is wrong here. That is only one interpretation not very well thought out and certainly not grounded in any deep thinking on the matter.

Humans are not only rational animals they are also irrational animals. Sometimes that irrationality actually have benefits for survival. And then we haven't even looked at the problem with claiming that something is rational outside of it's context as you are fundamentally arguing.

No I didn't misinterpret it I understood very well what you said.

To boil it all down. The problem that you find yourself in is that every time I give you examples of where Rands universal claims don't apply you simply exclude them from the claim. You don't need to think about this very long until you realize that this is not what constitutes careful thinking. That's sloppy thinking.

There is nothing well defined about reality. No slam dunk easy peacey way to get to certainty in these matters no matter how many words you use to describe it.

Listen you will grow up meet the woman in your life, perhaps get kids. Then you will realize just how wrong Rands thinking is.

And don't get me wrong. Rand did have some clever things to say and sure did inspire many to do better. But a philosopher she was not. That requires careful thinking something that she and the whole objective school that came after her so sorely miss.

<comment><USER7> I think a lot of the things you say are contradictions. There's no reason why individuals can only exist 'in a vacuum.' Saying men are 'not ONLY autonomous' is like saying the president is not ONLY elected, he is also unelected. Men are rational beings, ie. they possess the ability to reason (regardless of whether they use it properly or at all), saying men are rational but also not rational is like saying 'this car is a diesel but it is also not a diesel.' If you think irrationality has benefits for survival you need to actually state your case, give examples.

I don't think you understand very well what Rand is arguing, either - <USER2> reason I responded initially was because you said 'rationality is good' was an unsupported claim by Rand, as if she used it as an axiom but she doesn't. I'm not making any effort to 'exclude' examples that you give - you just don't seem to fully grasp that which you're criticizing, so it's no surprise that you give inappropriate examples.

And of course something cannot be rational outside of its context - in man's case the context is the environment (and his own thoughts/memories), hence 'consciousness.' Consciousness implies something to be _conscious of._

Look, you can try to deny statements like 'doves can fly' (all doves? baby doves? retarded doves? doves with broken wings? doves in cages? war doves?) all you want. You seem determined to deny the basic tenets of human existence - we just think we're individuals, but we're not; we just think we perceive reality, but we don't; we just think words denote reality, but they can't; etc etc. You know, _the things that let us go about our daily lives._ And let's face it that's what most philosophy does, which is what leads to endless pages of borderline unintelligible _and almost always completely useless_ treatises and critiques about 'pure reason' or 'phenomenology' or whatever. But this is not deep thinking or careful thinking... it's just a sneaky attempt to sidestep the facts of existence and hence shirk responsibility for one's decisions.

<comment><USER14> Welcome to philosophy, that is how it's done.

If you want to make universal claims as Rand obviously wanted then you naturally need to take all factors into account. You can't just cherry pick those that seem to support your argument and then skip over the rest.

Well you can but then you are not interested in making philosophical arguments. You are just making claims.

With regards to _rationality is good_ I was responding to that not claiming that, please read the thread.

But let's look at something she did claim.

"Existence exist"

The question obviously is, what is existence. You can't just say well the environment seems to have individuals, therefore individuals are a fundamental property of reality. And then use that as if it's a well defined entity.

 _You know, the things that let us go about our daily lives. And let's face it that's what most philosophy does, which is what leads to endless pages of borderline unintelligible and almost always completely useless treatises and critiques about 'pure reason' or 'phenomenology' or whatever. But this is not deep thinking or careful thinking... it's just a sneaky attempt to sidestep the facts of existence and hence shirk responsibility for one's decisions._

But that _is_ philosophy whether you like it or not. Philosophy isn't there to let you go by in your daily life.

That is not the job of philosophy, luckily as there would have been no intellectual progress.

You are confusing what could be called life philosophy with philosophy. You wan't simple answers but in philosophy answers only lead to new questions. You want certainty were none exist.

And just to be clear here. Science is disagreeing with Rand, QM, Biology, Neuroscience. Reality is disagreeing with Rand.

Even if we were to take experience of reality for what it is. You try and have some children and you will realize that this egomaniac approach is nothing but an illusion that speaks to a very tiny part of the human mind.

That doesn't mean that you can't make rational decisions but to claim that it's somehow well defined is simply yet another non philosophical, non-sceptic approach.

Your last sentence really says it all. You want a life philosophy, that's all fine and good. Some follow Gods word you follow Rands. But independent rational thinking it is not.

<comment><USER7> _With regards to rationality is good I was responding to that not claiming that, please read the thread._

In this case it is _you_ that needs to properly read my reply. That's the second time you've misread my post (the first was the [insert Objectivism here] bit).

I want philosophy to help guide me through life, yeah. Whereas you want philosophy for, um, what exactly? I feel like there's a lot of empty rhetoric in your responses. First you just keep asserting that individuality and certainty are impossible. You think you've made the case for this by mentioning the words 'context' and 'vacuum' or something. You also try to use the prestige of science (QM, biology, neuroscience) to trash Rand without offering any specific evidence/argument, and try the same thing with the emotional appeal of family. Maybe you do have arguments involving those things but I've yet to hear them. You also keep saying 'universal claims' without really explaining what you mean.

Put it like this. Objectivism is only for rational beings, that is beings with the power to reason. Which is fine, because non-rational beings could never understand/use it anyway. She says 'man' in place of 'rational animal' or 'rational being' because on Earth as we know it humans are the only entities that develop rationality. Anyway, if you don't think that usage of the word 'man' is correct, it doesn't really matter - again the point is that anybody reading Objectivism qualifies as a subject.

By the way, Rand does discuss epistemology and metaphysics in some detail in her paper 'Introduction To Objectivist Epistemology' if you were interested in reading more about these low-level details of Oism.

<comment><USER14> Well you are asking philosophy to do something that it can't.

Guiding you through life is the job of self-help books and religion and objectivism.

I don't want philosophy to help guide me through life. I use philosophy to constantly question assumptions in order to push my understanding of the world around me, not dictate what is right or wrong which is how Rand uses it.

 _First you just keep asserting that individuality and certainty are impossible._

Well by all means please show me something that is certain. Existence exist just isn't going to do it as existence itself is an open question. What is existence, how can you with certainty say something is the way you experience it.

I would be more than happy to be proven wrong. But if it goes like in most cases when I ask objectivist to prove their claim there will be silence.

 _Objectivism is only for rational beings, that is beings with the power to reason._

So the ability to reason makes you rational? Surely you can see what is wrong with that statement. A religious person is able to reason, a communist is able to reason.

That isn't what Rand was doing. She was reasoning a specific way based on specific premises. The rationale that followed her premises are what makes for objectivism. It is a specific moral claiming how man ought to be.

Of course as most first year student's of philosophy will quickly learn is that there aren't any certain premises.

Existence isn't a certain premise as you need to describe what existence is. That is the whole point of philosophy.

It's not to give you ten commandments to follow.

<comment><USER7> I too use philosophy to 'push my understanding of the world around me' but for what possible reason should I want to do _this_ except to better inform the decisions I make in my life?

All of Objectivism can be extrapolated from 'Existence exists.' That statement implies that 'something' exists (hence law of identity, A is A) and that you are conscious of it (hence consciousness). That gives us the three axiomatic concepts on which Objectivism rests - everyone directly perceives them - <USER4> they cannot be denied because any argument against them would inevitably _involve/imply_ existence/identity/consciousness resulting in self- contradiction. In a similar way, the validity of the senses is not up for debate because any attempt to negate this validity would at some point rely upon it. So you need to accept the three irreducible primaries (existence/identity/consciousness) and the validity of the senses - <USER4> happily basically everyone does accept those things, and lives accordingly, and would only so much as _attempt_ to deny them during rare philosophical debates.

When I said rational beings are defined by their ability to reason, I did not mean such beings are automatically acting _rationally._ Its a different sense of the word, like _a fast car_ vs _a car that is actually going fast._ Just a misunderstanding.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I like to read my copy of 'Atlas Shrugged' in the morning...

<comment><USER17> I always preferred `Telemachus Sneezed'.

<comment><USER18> Kallisti!

And yes, I always enjoyed RAW's jabs (or nods) toward Rand, Joyce, and Pynchon. That man was a treasure.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Ayn Rand was very successful at running a religious cult, I have to give her that, at least. However, despite all her love for the "productive people", I just can't think of her as one of the heroes her cult so worshipped. More to the point, has Ayn Rand ever worked? All she did was write poor novels of enormous length, and socialize (and have sex) with her cult followers.

Rand created no new knowledge, no new art. All she did was write pseudo- philosophical treatises on why it's OK to behave badly and selfishly, and a bunch of self-important wankers decided to deify her for creating a moral code that legitimized their assholery. Compare Rand to the philosophers of the Enlightenment. She's less than a lightweight, she's nothing.

<comment><USER20> > has Ayn Rand ever worked?

Dude, writing books is work. Try it some time, it's not so easy to make a living that way. Do you think when people at 37 Signals worked on writing their book, that was vacation time?

As to the rest, don't troll here. Insulting people you hate doesn't contribute to the discussion.

<comment><USER19> Please note:

1) I don't know who the folks at 37 signals are. Please refer to people that are widely known outside of your little bubble, please.

2) Writing a scientific paper is hard work. Writing a thesis is hard work. Writing a _book_ is even harder. But Rand's novels are not in the same league as Dostoevski's. Not even close. Everyone can be an author, only few can be writers.

3) The irony is that Rand glorified a class of people she did not belong to. The world would have been different (and poorer) without Edison, Tesla, Bell, Shannon, and the like. If Rand had never existed, the world would have been exactly the same. She had zero real impact, like most philosophers of the 20th Century. Discussing "ideas" that are not even properly defined is mental masturbation, not profound thinking.

<comment><USER13> _"If Rand had never existed, the world would have been exactly the same. She had zero real impact, like most philosophers of the 20th Century."_

Ayn Rand came from Russia to a US society that was giving socialism serious thought. She articulated for capitalism an ideology; before her it seemed to have none. She was widely read for 2 generations. Her students managed political office and monetary policy in the US. I see all this as more than zero impact.

<comment><USER19> I am all for capitalism. But, frankly, Hayek was lightyears ahead of Rand in terms of making a strong case for capitalism and exposing the evils of socialism. Among Rand's followers we have people like Greenspan and Niederhoffer, both notorious intellectual charlatans. I am all for free enterprise and being productive, but don't claim that Rand was anything more than a brainless cheerleader, because she was not.

<comment><USER5> The difference is that Rand made a purely moral argument for capitalism. Let me guess, you are religious?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>