Ask HN: How to become a vegan? - <AUTHOR> I live in a modern western culture and my diet contains typical western foods. After being diagnosed with a mild hypertension with family history of hypertension, I've become interested in more healthy diets.
After reading MD Greger's nutritionfacts.org I'm willing to start decreasing animal protein intake with a hope of becoming a vegan one day.
Any advice/stories from people with similar background? <comment><USER2> In a totally neuter tone. Why do you identify vegan + pills with "healthy diet" and omnivorous with "unhealthy diet"? A diet that leads to nerve damage unless you add suplements to avoid it, do not sounds to me as "healthy" by definition.

Lets say that "vegans live longer". This is our null hypothesis. Is the percentage of pure vegans among the longest living people in the world significatively higher?

Jeanne Calment: Smoker. Some alcohol. Active. Diet rich in olive oil and lots of chocolate. 122 Yo.

Susannah Mushatt Jones. Sleeping a lot and eating bacon each day. 116 Yo

Jiroemon Kimura. Favourite food, pickled mackerels. 116 Yo

Christian Mortensen. Moderated smoker, not alcohol, active, diet with a lot of potatoes and vegetables. Some meat. 115 Yo.

Emiliano Mercado: Eating corn and codfish each day. 115 Yo.

...

As a footnote, I'll only buy a book titled "I will show you how to live forever" or so, if it was written by an author 100 years old at least.

<comment><USER3> I think you are trying to draw a scientific conclusion from extremely rare anecdotes.

I would look at the adventists health[1] studies or the Blue Zones[2] for longevity data associated to diet and lifestyle.

[1] - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventist_Health_Studies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventist_Health_Studies) [2]- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Zone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Zone)

<comment><USER2> Not, In fact I'm trying to start some critic discussion.

If somebody claims that a vegan diet is healthier and better, I would expect some facts that support that claim at least. Do you know somebody that became centenary following a strict vegan diet? I think that we can discard directly all historical data of "vegan" people living before 1945 or so, because some vitamins weren't still industrially synthesized. This people either faked their veganism or were really very ill. History after 1945 is relatively well documented; thus should be possible to find inspiring stories about actual vegan people living until 100 Yo.

On the other hand, reaching 100 years with a mediterranean diet or a Japanese diet based in marine food has been proved as uncommon, but perfectly possible, with dozens of cases reported at least.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm genuinely interested in this topic. I'm not saying that vegan diet is the best diet out there, but what I've read so far it really seems to be a much healthier alternative than the "western default".

Some interesting studies about vegan diet and it's impact on health:

[http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/89/5/1627S.full](http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/89/5/1627S.full) [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2007.270/full](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2007.270/full) [http://www.bmj.com/content/293/6560/1468](http://www.bmj.com/content/293/6560/1468) [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1097-0142(1989080...](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1097-0142\(19890801\)64:3%3C598::AID- CNCR2820640306%3E3.0.CO;2-6/abstract)

All these studies contain findings that support the idea of vegan diet being one of the healthiest option: vegans tend to have lower BMI, blood pressure and reduced (prostate) cancer rate.

<comment><USER2> I'll take a look later...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> The /vegan sub reddit is pretty active and supportive. You will find plenty of folks willing to help there.

Dr. Greger's book How Not To Die is a good source of nutritional information.

My 2 cents as someone who's been vegan for almost 15 years:

\- Don't be too hard on yourself. Being vegan is not about being perfect.

\- When eating out, explore ethnic foods. You will find that it's easier to find dishes that are vegan by default or almost vegan on non-western restaurants.

\- Try to find the macro distribution that works best for you and work with it within a vegan framework. I thrive on high carb, but you will find all sorts of vegan diets out there, including keto.

\- Avoid drama. Just by saying you are vegan, you may get negative emotional reactions from people. When confronted, just say it's a personal choice and move on. Too much time can be spent arguing with people who are ignorant on this topic.

</comment><comment><USER4> Take your b12 vitamins too.

Do not eat poorly, take the time to make food lists and get what you need so you don't end up eating less nutritious food. Try tofu. initially eating at bbq may be tough but your friends and family will support you.

<comment><USER5> Lack of B12 is no joke. You can have permanent damage or die from this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> My girlfriend and I have been vegan for about 3,5 years now and are not planning to go back. For me the transition was really easy and I feel it can definitely be so for everyone. It's really all about your standards and perception.

If you want everything to taste exactly the way that non-vegan food does, that's not gonna work out. If you're ready to substitute the dishes you eat now with ones that taste different but just as good or even better though, then you're already all set.

You just have to be open minded about the change and it will come naturally, really. Also you really don't have to substitute meat with soy and other replacement products at all. They often taste bad or are unhealthy and replacing them with something more natural (like lentils, beans, potatoes etc.) is almost always better, across the board.

Really, just buy a vegan cookbook or gather recipes from blogs, try them and discover your favourites. Checking the ingredients of all the stuff you buy is the only thing you have to do.

One thing that could bother you though would be limited options when eating in restaurants. There is almost always at least one vegan option available, but you just won't have as much choice as before, which could be a dealbreaker for you.

You'll have to decide that for yourself. Though there are also many great vegan-only restaurants that serve really great stuff that you might not have discovered until now :)

Good luck on your journey, feel free to ask questions!

</comment><comment><USER7> I became vegan for heath reasons at the same time I started my company (around 5 years ago). I believe it has allowed my body to stay young and my alertness to go up.

Starting out you just think of it as one meal at a time... this meal I won't eat anything with animal protein. Then one week at a time and before you know it you will pass the 90-day mark which is when you stop being hungry all the time and/or craving meat at all.

Another thing to note is I never really think of myself as a "vegan", just someone that is extremely picky and won't eat anything with animal protein :)

Do take b12 supplements, though- I found my eye to be drooping when I became tired because I was deficient. After taking the b12 I was back to normal.

<comment><USER8> Don't forget vitamin K2, it's important for regulating calcium. The most common sources are dairy and eggs. There are non-animal sources (natto, sauerkraut), but they're not exactly typical foods for most people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I've been mostly vegetarian for over 3 years now. I eat fish once every week or two and that is becoming less and less. (I rarely ate fish before that). I had been cutting down on meat previously, then got married to someone that doesn't eat it.

First off, realize that it may or may not ease your hypertension. After all, part of that is simple genetics. For me, the main health benefit is digestive - I don't have a gall bladder and meat doesn't bode well with my system. I do, overall, feel better - which Im sure is part diet and part "exercise" (I walk for transportation most times). In other words, have realistic expectations.

Part of the reason I've not considered being vegan is because 1) Too much work for my lifestyle, and severely limits food options that I really like. 2) It seems to me it takes a good deal of knowledge about health 3) I don't like taking vitamin supplements (B12 being one of those that is difficult). So long as none of this bothers you you'll be fine.

But I do recommend keeping dairy, eggs, and cheese upfront. It will help the transition. I didn't think mine was that bad as I had just moved countries - but still missed a few foods, especially at holidays.

You might find it takes a bit of getting used to the different tastes and textures. It is actually easier to keep up once you get adjusted to the diet.Consider fake meats for texture variance, but be forewarned that they don't really taste like meat. Yet, I'd not suggest eating them daily. For "burgers" and "meatballs", I suggest learning to make your own.

If you don't cook much now, learn to do so. Invest in different spices and explore foods from different cultures. You might have to teach yourself to like different foods - so if you don't like legumes and lentils and the like, you'll need to adjust. It is possible with many things given some time.

I fully suggest buying some varied cookbooks instead of relying solely on the internet for recipies. If anything, there is usually good information in some of them and they make your searches better.

And that's all I can think of now.

</comment><comment><USER10> I'm vegetarian but I've spent a couple years as vegan when I was in my 20.

One day (I was 18, now I'm 40) I've decided to start choosing the vegetarian option whenever its available, after few days I realized that I was already vegetarian.

Being vegan is a completely different thing though, it require time, planning, knowledge and partecipation by the people around you. It can easily become a problem for everybody (not just you) and if you want your decision to be sustainable you don't want it. So my suggestion is to be smart, don't overdo, eventually start choosing the vegan option whenever is available or you have control on the meal preparation.

</comment><comment><USER11> My girlfriend is vegan and I am vegetarian. I am vegetarian for 3/4 of a year now and slowly start to replace all animal based products. The best help for me is to have someone I can rely on (like my girlfriend). Sharing food with someone who already is vegan helped me to get the right feeling for it and made me experience a lot of options food wise. Ultimatively I am vegetarian because living with my girlfriend showed me that I can eat tasty stuff without having to kill or abuse animals

</comment><comment><USER12> I've been vegan for over 15 years. While a vegan diet is generally more healthy than the standard American diet, there are many healthy (easier) diets than veganism. Basically (imho), veganism is only compelling for ethical reasons.

Eating a vegan diet has however never been easier, especially if you live in a major American city; there is wide availability of reasonable replacement products, vegan options at restaurants, plus a general awareness of what veganism is with less of the reactionary responses that you might have gotten years ago.

How to become vegan? Just start slow; you don't have to do everything at once, learn to replace your standard dishes and ingredients one at a time.

Harder: how to stay vegan? Recognize that you can never be completely sure about ingredients and that trace amounts of animal products don't present any ethical issues. Be willing to eat out and chance some milk or eggs a dish, especially when dining with others. Veganism shouldn't be about making your own life an unlivable burden but about reducing harm.

</comment><comment><USER13> I switched to a vegan diet out of ideology, not health issues, so I didn't really plan how to do it. I just eat plenty of vegetables, fruit, and all kinds of beans or lentils. I think cooking fresh meals (instead of eating out or eating pre-cooked food) has a lot to do with it.

Basically, just listen to your body. I don't take any vitamins and I'm reasonably fit.

<comment><USER14> So where does your B12 come from?

<comment><USER11> Either you get it from pills yourself, or (if not vegan) the animals will be injected with it. Either way, there is no perfect solution to fill up your B12 needs

<comment><USER15> That's only true for anti biotics infested farm animals though. Either way if you go for a vegan diet you have to keep up with B12. Don't fall for the naturalistic fallacy ("if I eat fresh and 'natural' it will all be fine").

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Start by just eating less meat and more "sides," like vegetables, at meals. If you eat a lot of overcooked ("Southern style") veggies as sides, expose yourself to stirfries, shishkebab, lightly grilled and other preparations that help preserve the nutrient value. Raw is also good. Learn to eat more fresh produce.

As you improve the nutrional value of the non meat items in your diet, meat will matter less to you.

Diet for a Small Planet is a good source of info. Protein complementarity can help satisfy your hunger. On the upside, most traditional vegetarian diets already practice that. She eventually concluded it isn't hard as her first edition made it sound. But it was useful to me to know some of the nutritional science behind it.

You do not necessarily need to go vegan. Cutting back on meat and eating cleaner meats (Kosher, grass fed, organic, etc) may resolve your health issue with less of a burden in terms of making extreme changes, trying to maintain it, etc.

Best.

</comment><comment><USER17> Your going to have to learn how to cook, and cook well. There is no way around it.

Cooking is a lot like programing, there are general concepts and techniques (functions, algorithms) that translate across all (most) cuisines (that are akin to languages)

Things that will make your life better:

A good set of knives (paring and chefs), learn to sharpen them, and hone them.

A decent set of non stick pans (large and small) these are disposable, the coating always comes off, buy cheep ones (not too cheep) and replace often.

A few pots, and some pans for the oven, a large one for the stove top (stainless for easy cleaning).

Good cutting boards- plastic, flat ones -- to extend the life of your knives.

With tools in hand you need to get some skills, and the best way to do this at home is to master a single dish. Read every recipe you can find, take note of the differences, pay attention to how your cooking it, don't be afraid to turn the heat up or down as you prepare things. The one sin that most people commit is only using the high setting on the microwave and the stove top!

Take copious notes every time you make the dish, what did you change, time/heat/fat/ingredients -- at some point your going to have a perfect version. Only then should you branch out and master another dish. Make sure it is the same style of cooking (Italian, Chinese, Mexican etc...)

Being vegan is hard, but if your willing to eat from every culture you can get by, and almost every culture has things that are accidentally vegan, falafel being a great example!

I can't recommend enough the site [http://www.seriouseats.com](http://www.seriouseats.com) as they feature quite a few tasty vegan and vegetarian recipes. Since I already brought up falafel, you should read their breakdown on it, and try the recipe: [http://www.seriouseats.com/2016/03/the-food-lab-vegan- experi...](http://www.seriouseats.com/2016/03/the-food-lab-vegan-experience- best-homemade-falafel.html)

Your also going to want to learn about Seitan, aka wheat gluten. As far as meat replacements go, it is tops, but making it is an exercise in endurance. Real food daily has the best recipe for someone who is going to attempt to do this at home, they have a cookbook that you can get the recipe from, and is a worth while investment.

</comment><comment><USER18> I just have to recommend this (humor) video by JP Sears: [https://youtu.be/Kvdf6e8birI](https://youtu.be/Kvdf6e8birI)

He's got a whole series like this. Hope it entertains.

</comment><comment><USER19> The great thing about nutrition is that no matter what diet you want to try, you can find a quack willing to endorse it as a healthy option.

The truth about nutrition is that it's incredibly complex, difficult to study, and there are virtually no reliable sources who aren't pushing their own agenda.

If you want to eat vegan, by all means go for it (I'm vegan myself), but you're deluding yourself to think that there's something magical about a "vegan diet"\-- which by the way can contain oreos, cracker jacks, hershey's syrup, and any number of other healthy foods.

</comment><comment><USER20> I was a vegan for five years. I was also into bodybuilding for a couple of years. For unrelated reasons(?), I have leaky gut now.

What I've learned is: fasting is good for you. Fatty meat and seafood is good for you. Mushrooms are good for you.

Root type veggies are the best, except for potatoes. Fuck you potatoes I miss you. Avoid juice and sofa, just eat fruit.

Dairy, eggs, and grains can be a grey area. They are likely best in moderation even if you seem to tolerate them well.

Put a shot of apple cider vinegar in a glass of water erreyday

Most importantly listen to your body

<comment><USER21> What's the cider vinegar for?

<comment><USER20> It kills (in small dosages) bacteria/fungus/viruses and is well tolerated. Try some in a glass of water next time you get sick.

<comment><USER21> I have actually been drinking it for a while to help with a GI issue, was wondering why you drink it. Thanks for the input!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This book may be of interest although not 100% vegan, the introduction in particular is quite inspiring

[https://www.amazon.co.uk/Happy-Pear-Healthy-Delicious- Change...](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Happy-Pear-Healthy-Delicious- Change/dp/1844883523)

</comment><comment><USER23> Go buy the "eat to live cookbook" and eat the stuff in there. Eat as much as you want as long as it's in the book. The extreme is not for me right now (mostly have to prioritize shopping and cooking time) and it takes a few weeks to get used to but the food is good and healthy.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the tip! Looks just like a thing I need atm.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Find Indian or Jain food! It's generally pretty tasty and not all that difficult to find.

</comment><comment><USER25> if west foods do no good to you, try east foods. East Asia diet, especially China/Japan, is considered most healthful.

</comment><comment><USER26> foodgawker.com and filter by vegan, that helped me a lot

</comment><comment><USER27> Why can't you become a vegan now by not consuming animal products?

<comment><USER28> Because it's easy to substitute carbs for animal products and you wind up incredibly unhealthy but "vegan." Big diet changes do take some planning and effort in order to ensure you are eating in a physically sustainable manner.

<comment><USER27> That's a two second google search though. It can start with legumes, beans, rice, fruit, and vegetables.

<comment><USER28> You can down vote me if you want, but I'm telling you why most people should ask and map out a real strategy. Not just rely on a "2 second Google search" \-- most people have a poor understanding of a good diet and health education is rarely offered as a mandatory class. A "2 second Google search" will lead people down a very bad road.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Too Many Leaders Spoil the Group - <AUTHOR> https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ulterior-motives/201602/too-many-leaders-spoil-the-group <comment><USER2> The problem that I see is that people are heavily rewarded by being leaders, and so sell themselves as leaders even when the group incentive isn't there. I encountered this extensively in university, when seemingly every student was trying to be the president of their student group, or trying to found their own group of questionable value.

I see the same issue in the work world- executives are so heavily compensated that there's a strong incentive to become an executive, which requires one to act as a leader. However, that's often not what's best for the group.

<comment><USER3> Totally agree with that. The only way to get better pay for most people is to be a "leader" no matter you are suited for it or not.

Especially in the US there seems to be this emphasis on leadership. There is not much respect for people who are doing a good job.

<comment><USER4> I would say it is slowly changing with the Maker over Manager culture. Companies are valuing more makers and less managers.

<comment><USER3> Maybe they say that. The pay is still with managers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Sure, why not. The word "leadership" doesn't really mean anything anymore. I have met very few good leaders in my day.

It definitely seems like most people leading companies are not any good at it. The best managers I've had haves simply gotten out of the way and defended us blindly. That's the best I've seen.

I'd love it if we adopted a culture of service, rather than "leadership". How can you be a good servant to others? It'll probably take you far, or it might not, but it has the virtue of being the least bullshit thing to do.

<comment><USER6> > I have met very few good leaders in my day.

This is true of anyone at any position. Most people are not good at what they do. In fact I'd say in any position in any company 70% are bad/less-than-good, 20-25% are just OK and 5-10% are actually great. It's just a fact of life, and almost unfair to pigeon hold 'leadership' in these types of articles when it really applies to everyone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> So many times.

If we take the (cough) hackers and painters analogy to weird places, software is painting.

Where when if you have _everybody_ being creative, the vision can get watered down and not as good as it could be.

Companies are the same thing, when different people have conflicting goals, and want to express their creativity, it breeds conflict.

Some conflicts and checks and balances are good, but I believe the most creativity happens when groups are small, vision is unified, and everybody's more or less on the same page.

Working with sharp people is great, but often there are multiple equivalent choices. Arguing over A and B, or compromising to do a little of both, is often way worse than going all in on A or B and then moving on to the next task.

</comment><comment><USER8> Wait.. am I reading the abstract of this study wrong or just misunderstanding what the author of the article is trying to say:

[Abstract [http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/110/2/261/](http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/110/2/261/)]

"However, high power individuals were _more_ effective when working on tasks that required less coordination: they were more creative (Studies 1B and 4) and persisted longer on a difficult task than other groups"

Then in the article:

"The control groups and low power groups generated more creative ideas than the groups made up of high-power individuals."

<comment><USER9> > "However, high power individuals...

I think that's best read as an aside. Low coordination to me reads as not really a group task, or less so.

Take someone used to being "high-power" let them work alone, magic happens. Put a bunch of high-power loners together and your in for a bad time.

A governor being the most "powerful" person in a state can be very effectual, but a group of them together in some sort coordinated task may be a disaster fit for tv.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> My takeaway is that development managers shouldn't put a bunch of lead developers together on a project, unless the project is big enough that each leader could own an independent piece. Otherwise, toes get stepped on, folks start bickering, and progress grinds to a halt.

<comment><USER11> I think it is more about two things.

1\. Learn to flex across roles

2\. Be specific about roles in a project/team/task

Sometimes you need a bunch of strong dudes working together on something. When you do, it is extra important to be specific about roles. Who decides when there is a tie or you are stalled? Who facilitates view points? etc.

If you dont have the flexibility to gracefully and effectively not lead, you are pretty one-dimensional. That doesnt mean the passive aggressive "well it is X's project so I guess he decides" way, rather it means to fully support and believe in the group structure you've set up for this thing, whatever the thing is.

Roles are something you flex into and out of, not something that defines you or is something "you are". If you let a role define you, you will be a lot less effective in getting stuff done.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> For a programmer team, I like to look at the ratio:

      people writing code/people not writing code

The smaller the ratio, the less productive the team.

<comment><USER13> Tell me about it. Our team has 3 frontend developers and 5 backend developers. We also have 3 product owners, a scrum master, a heavily involved scrum master's manager, team manager, team manager's manager, team manager's manager's manager, then the CTO and higher.

Ignoring CTO and higher who aren't directly involved in day-to-day operations, we have 8 management level positions managing 8 developers. Every sprint is a clusterfuck of confusion wherein those 8 managers can't agree on what should be worked on. It's absolutely stunning that 8 people cannot organize work for another 8 people.

<comment><USER12> When I hear "scrum master who isn't also programming" a red warning flag goes up.

My favorite way is to take turns being scrum master, cycling through and switching on each sprint. That way everyone gets experience and understands better how the company operates.

<comment><USER13> I'm not opposed to a dedicated scrum master, but the issue I have is that I have yet to meet one who ever defends the developers' right to have the agile/scrum process respected. Really, they just wind up being another manager that happens to spend a lot of time in Jira. I've butt heads a lot with scrum people who bend over and say "yes" to every single (unreasonable) demand thrown at them from the business side. :'(

<comment><USER12>
      > I'm not opposed to a dedicated scrum master

ok, here's something I've been wondering. Assuming your team is in the 8-12 programmer range (which is typical for an agile team), what does the scrum master do with all his time? How is there enough for him to do to fill up a full time job?

<comment><USER13> I would hope much of their time would be spent _really_ organizing and understanding the scope of each project/task. In my experience, most tasks still get dropped into a sprint without anyone really understanding the full scope. I can easily see 40 hour weeks being spent making sure that everyone is signing off on well-defined tasks. Anything to help reduce the surprise factor is a win in my book.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Here is the stereotypical example of how too many non-programmers ruin the group:

[http://blog.codinghorror.com/content/images/uploads/2004/02/...](http://blog.codinghorror.com/content/images/uploads/2004/02/6a0120a85dcdae970b0120a85dd9b1970b-pi.png)

Funny but true. If you have three people making decisions for one programmer, things are going to go bad.

<comment><USER14> I'm pretty sure that's not the point of this comic...

<comment><USER12> What's the point of the comic?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I think the problem is that it divides your focus, which is bad for success. If an entire group can focus on one goal, they will be much more successful.

</comment><comment><USER16> Too Many Cooks Spoil the Broth.</comment>


Stephen Hawking on time travel, M-theory, and extra terrestrial life - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/07/steven-hawking-on-time-travel-m-theory-and-extra-terrestrial-life/ <comment><USER3> The odd thing about the universe seems to be that the distances are so vast that it almost doesn't matter if there's other sentient life here or not because it's far too distant to be of any relevance.

Travelling between stars is incredibly expensive (in terms of pure Joules) and time-consuming. I can see the logic in the theory that the most likely outcome for any species reaching sentience is to destroy themselves. either through direct means (eg nuclear or biological war) or indirectly (simply running out of resources)

<comment><USER4> Calling it irrelevant just because you can't travel there is short-sighted. We could still learn a lot just by watching the broadcasts of another civilization, even if they're already long gone.

<comment><USER5> Out of all infinite amount of different methods to communicate and broadcast themselves they could possibly be using. Including the ones we didn't even discover yet. Assuming they're using the same ones humans just found out in recent history. The ones SETI is measuring. Even then, assuming it's formatted in a way we would decipher and be able to understand its structure (as in Carl Sagan's movie). That just sounds so improbable.

Even if they are broadcasting it, we're probably listening to it with the wrong technology. Even if we happen to be lucky of listening with the "right" technology. We probably wouldn't be able to tell it from random noise.

I find it extremely unlikely humans will ever be able to watch alien broadcasts during our existence in the universe.

<comment><USER6> I don't think there are many different ways to encode meaningful information. We all live in the same universe and I see no reason to believe that intelligent alien life won't be intellectually quite similar to us. While tricky without context, decoding extraterrestrial signals will inevitably produce something of interest (images, audio) even if understanding e.g. the audio itself will be tricky.

That being said, while I suspect that meaningful, structured information will be, by definition, structured and therefore obvious to spot in a broadcast, the real problem is that these transmissions are likely to be (a) compressed and/or (b) encrypted.

While compression formats may reveal a few hints that there is some structured information present, encrypted data will be all but impossible to distinguish from random transmissions. We may be picking up transmissions from alien life but be unaware simply because the data is encrypted.

I have no idea what proportion of our broadcast signals are encrypted today, but I suspect it's a fairly significant and growing proportion (privacy and intellectual property concerns being the primary reasons).

<comment><USER7> > While tricky without context, decoding extraterrestrial signals will > inevitably produce something of interest (images, audio) even if > understanding e.g. the audio itself will be tricky.

Serious question: How is it presumably simple to decode images and audio, but difficult to understand the audio? Is it because one can assume image representation would tend towards mathematical efficiency, but spoken languages do not?

>While compression formats may reveal a few hints that there is some structured information present, encrypted data will be all but impossible to distinguish from random transmissions. We may be picking up transmissions from alien life but be unaware simply because the data is encrypted.

I would think that encrypted transmissions would be easily distinguishable from background white noise, no? My thinking is, you have the general random noise of space, and then you would have something obviously different, is that totally not the case?

<comment><USER6> Yes, I believe that images (encodings of electromagnetic radiation of particular wavelengths) and audio (encodings of mechanical waves of pressure) are universal concepts aliens are also likely to be familiar with, whereas understanding the information encoded within the transmission requires interpretation within a context we are highly unlikely to have here on Earth.

This is just my intuition and speculation but I would guess somebody could formalise some support in terms of Kolmogorov complexity (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity>): there are only so many ways to represent an image or audio, and over time an intelligent race will discover the least complex method and use it. Therefore, alien races of equivalent levels of technical advancement in a given field should be able to decode raw (uncompressed and unencrypted) transmissions of common types of information (images, audio).

Any additional complexity on top of this method will probably be quite structured, e.g. with television signals we have portions of the signal that are blank because during that time the CRT of old televisions would be retracing and not displaying data. (Actually, I believe these "dead" portions of the video signal are sometimes used to send additional structured data, e.g. Teletext, which would make the structure of the signal even more apparent.)

I suspect it'll be much easier to look at alien video transmissions and figure out what they're about than trying to listen do the same with audio transmissions because video would provide objective context (assuming it's not just a video of talking alien heads, or whatever the equivalent of a "head" for them would be).

With respect to encrypted transmissions, if the entire protocol is encrypted from start to finish, and you're using the right cipher* then no, you can't distinguish encrypted data from random noise. This is the principle behind TrueCrypt's hidden volumes (<http://www.truecrypt.org/docs/?s=hidden-volume>).

* What's the right cipher? So far no nobody has found a distinguisher for AES, and that's in common use, so that's probably good enough to make an alien race blind to us; i.e. we could be picking up signals from a race as sophisticated as c. 1998 humans (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Encryption_Standard>) without realising it.

<comment><USER8> Note that encrypted traffic, indistinguishable from noise, is almost always then encoded for transmission in a format that contains redundancy (frequently, there are more than one such layer).

For example if you electrically sniff an ethernet cable over which only SSL traffic using AES is being sent, the first thing you will notice is a concentration of energy near 200Mhz. Then you may see bursts of a Manchester- encoded signal; further study reveals the regular structure of Ethernet headers and trailers, along with IP, TCP and SSL headers. Only within that will you hit a brick wall at the AES data itself.

Even if the payload is encrypted it should be possible in most cases to detect a modulated transmission.

<comment><USER6> That's a good point. In effect, if we look at this from the perspective of the OSI model, you're saying that whereas the application layer may contain encrypted data the lower layers may contain structured data. So the logical question that follows: is there any reason to believe aliens might use encryption all the way down to the data link layer? Maybe our neighbours are all at war and need to disguise and protect signals from each other?

Have you read ithkuil's comment? <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4188160>

<comment><USER8> Yes, but spread spectrum modulations are very much a minority among all our transmissions, so I see no reason to expect any different from other civilizations.

<comment><USER9> Today yes. But imagine that our technology gets refined in the following 10k years, even assuming no more technological breakthroughs, but only incremental improvements.

Even today we use some technology which is not really necessary to solve a given problem, just because it uses off the shelf components which are cheaper even if more complicated (e.g. a embedded cpu instead of dedicated and simpler electronics)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I've been watching his "Into the Universe" series, and honestly I have been a bit disappointed. I was hoping for more science -- details about subatomic particles, a discussion of the various interpretations of quantum mechanics, an introduction to M-theory (that doesn't involve violins and floating colors). Instead, one whole episode was devoted to ragging on religion -- a bunch of speculation that doesn't teach any of the interesting science to the show's viewers.

How about an introduction to Hawking radiation, the holographic principle, superpartners? At least an overview of the standard model? Nope. Just reasons "God isn't necessary". I'm not sure why he takes this route for the show. Maybe it gets more viewers and more controversy. It's sadly reminiscient of the history channel. It used to be full of a lot of interesting, objective content about -- believe it or not -- history, but now it's just full of alien speculation and religious prophecies.

<comment><USER11> It's not a show about science; it's a show about ratings. Popular science gets ratings, which are still less than non-popular-related shows, and which are far higher than any hard-science-related shows could ever get. You'll have to scratch that itch somewhere else... though I totally agree with you!!!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I love Hawking. But unfortunately, this interview is too short, simple and obvious to be interesting. Reminds me of:

<http://xkcd.com/799/>

</comment><comment><USER12> I don't really see how this is news.

Don't get me wrong, I think Stephen Hawking is a very smart man, and he has definitely done his fair share of work to help people understand science - <USER2> to mention that his scientific accomplishments aren't bad, either. That being said, there's just nothing new in this Q&A that he hasn't already said or wasn't already widely known to anyone who bothered to do a quick search on Google (except perhaps the part about his quality of life, but let's face it, that's not important).

<comment><USER13> I don't think the part about his quality of life is not important.

Lots of people have disabilities, only accounting for spina bifida which is physically less disabling that ALS, or muscle atrophy which leaves cognitive capacity intact, already puts them in the thousands. Someone needs to show them they can achieve many of what they dream about, because most of society only gives them pity and consent. We have Olympic Games for disabled people whose dreams are of being athletes, and we need people like Stephen Hawking to show disabled wannabe scientists and hackers (many of whom I believe read HN and ars) that they can also triumph in their geeky endeavours.

<comment><USER12> You raise a valid point. If that were the case, though, then I would argue the article should've been posted under a different title. The current title suggests that I'm going to see mr. Hawking say something profoud about time travel, M-theory and extraterrestials.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm surprised to hear someone of his intellectual caliber resort to ridicule when someone brings up UFOs. UFOs "appearing" to "cranks and weirdos" doesn't really describe the phenomena, as anyone who spent more than 30 minutes on the subject would know.

I'd would have loved to have heard him debate the late John Mack (Harvard Medical School, won a Pulitzer) on the subject. It's incredibly arrogant for him to think that he can ignore the research of other academics (or remain in ignorance of it) and still speak authoritatively on the subject.

I don't expect him to champion the field but since he's asked so frequently about extraterrestrial life and/or UFOs it would be nice if his canned response was a bit more intelligent.

It's incredible to dismiss so much theoretical/speculative physics in the interview and at the same time say that maybe M-Theory will tie up the loose ends in the Standard Model, but then again, maybe it won't and we'll be back to the drawing board. Even though we admittedly don't understand the universe with any degrees of completeness, obviously these popular ideas are false based on our understanding of the universe?

<comment><USER15>
      > doesn't really describe the phenomena, as anyone who
      > spent more than 30 minutes on the subject would know.

It actually does.

<comment><USER16> There are plenty of credible witnesses to UFO sightings. The problem is people getting their knickers in a twist over the acronym 'UFO' - a product of societal conditioning.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Here's an idea that's been kicking around in my mind for a while: what if it's not that it takes such a tremendous amount of time to travel anywhere interesting in the universe, but that our perception of time is just too fast? Perhaps to an alien race a thousand (or million) years seems like a second. Wikipedia suggests that our perception of time does get (slightly) slower as we age [1], so maybe living significantly longer could do this to us as well. Finally, it seems that our perception of time is largely shaped by the Circadian rhythm; if life evolved somewhere with a much slower "cosmic clock" could that also cause a much slower time perception?

[1]: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_perception#Long-term>

<comment><USER18> While our perception of time night be subjective, as you suggest, the distances involved are not. Even if it only feels like a few moments, the universe doesn't much care how we feel, or what we perceive.

<comment><USER17> Well, yes, obviously, but it would certainly affect how we (read: aliens) approach space travel psychologically, and thus to a certain extent its feasibility - a trip across the solar system could seem like a trip across the street.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Everyone interested in the possibility of alien intelligence should read about the Fermi Paradox: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox>

It is a collection of theories that try to explain why we haven't been contacted yet by aliens.

There is also a very good book on the subject that elaborates further on the theories of the Fermi paradox. In total there are 50 different theories, from life been too young on the universe and thus we're rather alone, to not be able to communicate because they're using superior technology. [http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Aliens-Everybody-Solutions- Ex...](http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Aliens-Everybody-Solutions- Extraterrestrial/dp/0387955011)

</comment><comment><USER20> > _I have experimental evidence that time travel is not possible. I gave a > party for time-travelers, but I didn't send out the invitations until after > the party. I sat there a long time, but no one came._

Why would one need to send invitations if the outcome is already known once the party is over? It seems that merely giving a party for time-travelers is a plenty sufficient evidence.

> _Another frightening possibility is intelligent life is not only common, but > that it destroys itself when it reaches a stage of advanced technology._

Or that it transcends beyond physical 3D realm (as corny as it sounds) and so it's no longer detectable from within it.

<comment><USER21> > Why would one need to send invitations if the outcome is already known once > the party is over?

Well, if you didn't invite anyone, maybe the reason no time-travellers came is that they weren't invited?

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Is it possible that in another universe, time travel is possible and Steven Hawking had the most awesome party imaginable?

</comment><comment><USER23> Lets be honest, there's obviously other intelligent life in the universe. There's probably tons of it, I don't think it's ever visited earth before, and we'll likely never shake its hand, but its out there. One day we can hopefully communicate with one, it would have to be done with radio signals over generations, but it would be amazing to see it happen.

I've always thought it more likely than the fact that intelligent civilizations destroy themselves is the fact that intelligent civilizations are out there and the really smart ones actually know the Earth exists. Interstellar distance is likely a problem that no one has truly solved but I like to think there's civilization out there that knows the Earth exists and is ripe for life, just they're too far away to do anything about it.

<comment><USER15> Obviously? Like I go outside and there it is— obvious non-terrestrial intelligent life? For me it obviously does not exist. It may exist somewhere in the galaxy far away. It might not. We don't know. We will never (by never I mean ~1 billion years) know. I am amazed to see so much wishful thinking and ignorance regarding physics and astrophysics.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> This comment seriously made me laugh out loud:

Maybe they like a higher CO2 level and warmer temperatures, and are masquerading as energy company executives. Alienforming a planet is easy if you can get the natives to do it for you.

</comment><comment><USER25> We will NEVER be visited by extra terrestrial life. The amount of luck required is too great. It's extremely unrealistic and foolish.

1) We need to come to the realization that it is and always will be impossible to travel at the speed of light or anywhere near the speed of light. Doing so would cause radiation particles, micro particles, space dust, and other little things floating around to hit the the crew and ship at extreme speeds and rip the ship apart. A bullet fired from a high powered rifle is only going 1,200 mph and can rip through metal. So imaging your space ship getting pummeled by particles at 670,616,629 mph and the faster you go the more particles you got bombarded with. There are no metals or materials that can sustain this type of damage because these radiation particles are SMALLER than x-ray particles so they'll pass through absolutely everything. And nothing can filter out or block this astronomical amount of radiation that will pummel the crew. We can wish and hope but it's a problem that is out of our control.

2) We need to stop falsely and foolishing assuming that there are aliens far out in the universe that can see us (2012) through a telescope. If you look at the earth right now (2012) from 65 million light years away, to the extra terrestrial, they are just now seeing light from 65 million years ago reach them. So to them there is no intelligent life on earth yet. It won't be another 65 million years until they are finally able to see us humans. By that time WE or THEY will be extinct. Because WE have the same problems THEY have. The vast majority of planets or uninhabitable and we can't travel fast enough to reach a planet, nor evolve or adapt to the bacteria on that planet fast enough to actually live on it.

3) We will most certainly never be able to "move homes" to another planet because the bacteria and organisms on it would be hostile to the point where we can't even safely evolve around it. We can live on Earth because for millions of years our ancesters have built up immunities to all the nasty viruses and plagues and flus that have come and gone. If an extra terrestrial landed here on earth they would not be able to interact with us in ANY way without wearing a bio-suit. They can't breathe our air or drink our water. And you think they're going to travel millions of years to get to a planet they can't even vacation on or enjoy or interact with in any way.

4) Extra terrestrial life that is more advanced than us has no reason to go on a suicide mission to come see us (a bunch of war-mongering primitive hairless baboons)

To any potential aliens who are living millions of years away, we haven't even evolved yet. By the time they see us, we will be gone. By the time they travel millions of light years to finally reach us, both of our species will be dead. Us from extinction and them from getting blasted by radiation. Also, if they are more advanced than us why the hell would they want to come all this way to see us?! That would be like us traveling millions of years on a suicide mission to go see a planet of lemurs.

<comment><USER26> Most of your points are sound, but I think you are too pessimistic about them being interested in us. Mightn't they be just as desperate as we are to not be alone?

<comment><USER27> exactly.

> Extra terrestrial life that is more advanced than us has no reason to go on > a suicide mission to come see us (a bunch of war-mongering primitive > hairless baboons)

Just as advanced western scientists have no interest in going on biology field trips to remote parts of the world to study lesser species.

<comment><USER25> Traveling on your own planet (which is easy and cheap) and traveling to an unknown planet in space which costs trillions of dollars and takes a minimum of 20,000 years are two very different things. Lets keep things in perspective now.

Traveling a few hundred miles to see a creature you can stand a few feet away from, touch, and study /AND/ traveling for millions of years, never seeing the fruit of your labor so that your great X 1,000 grandchildren might be able to reach a planet they can walk around on in an air tight suit for the rest of their lives, then send a signal back to earth which will take 20 years to reach. That's a whole new "field trip".

<comment><USER28> Where are you getting this stupid 20,000 year figure from? Even with current tech, we can travel at 0.1c easily, that is without any extra effort made in actually travelling outside our solar system. Near-by candidates are within 20ly, so at min it would take just 200 year, or 3 human generations.

And if it might give you some peace, there are thing called machines that can be built to contact other civilization without sacrificing your hypothetical children.

<comment><USER15>
      > we can travel at 0.1c easily

Can we? I mean as humans, not just some spacecraft. We can also sustain closed ecosystem for three generations? Last I heard an attempt to do that on Earth failed.

<comment><USER29> > We can also sustain closed ecosystem for three generations? Last I heard an > attempt to do that on Earth failed.

Most things fail before they succeed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I'd say that the chances of us ever coming into contact with intelligent life are worryingly low until well (as in, billions of years) into the future. If we say that "ultimate maturity" of a civilization is to have a technological singularity of some sort, resources wouldn't really be an issue. SETI hasn't picked up anything. Assuming that the universe is infinite in extent, as it currently is hypothesized to be, the only real solution is that life is so spread out as to be almost irrelevantly far away.

<comment><USER15> We don't have billions of years. We maybe have one billion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Pithy.</comment>


Ask HN: Could browsers prevent phishing by blocking HTML form actions? - <AUTHOR> ### Background
As readers here would be aware, many online threats can be mitigated by disabling Javascript and cookies on untrusted websites. However, phishing can still be achieved with a static HTML page that masquerades as the target page. All that is required is CSS to style the page, and an HTML form where the user types their password.
In the thread discussing Exploratirum's phishing attack today, a few ideas to mitigate phishing threats were mentioned / proposed:

  * Two factor authentication
  * A browser extension that checks whether a known
    password is being used on an unknown website.
  * Browser extensions such as lastpass can prevent
    phishing indirectly because the password is based on
    window.location.origin
  * Security images, which are not very effective as per [1]
 I had an idea which seems simple, effective and easy to implement by the browser vendor.
### Idea: Block forms by default
Much like the option of blocking cookies and/or javascript by default, if browsers prevented form actions by default then a majority of phishing attacks could be prevented.
User might type in the password on an unknown site, but if the form action was prevented (in addition to javascript), the site wouldn't receive the password and the user would be alerted to it.
Thoughts?

  [1]: http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/19155/
 <comment><USER2> It's an interesting idea, but attackers would switch to using javascript. And I don't think it's realistic for typical users to have javascript default off.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, indeed, this idea is not meant for typical users; only those who have script blockers and the like installed in their browsers. At present, even such security concious users can be deceived with layout and URL masquerades.</comment></comment>


Cambridge Analytica: The Geotargeting and Emotional Data Mining Scripts - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@d1gi/cambridge-analytica-the-geotargeting-and-emotional-data-mining-scripts-bcc3c428d77f <comment><USER2> I assume this is the "secret sauce"[0] that gained Cambridge Analytica it's infamy? [0] [https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/06/u...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/06/us/politics/cambridge- analytica.amp.html)</comment>


OLPC cuts 50% of staff - <AUTHOR> http://blog.laptop.org/2009/01/07/refocusing-on-our-mission/

<comment><USER3> To me, the OLPC effort is a pretty of potent demonstration of why you need more than good intentions to make a success.

My generation grew up in an age where, for better and worse, the technology leaders also turned out to be pretty savvy businessmen (say what you will about Gates, Jobs, Ellison, et al they knew how to build an empire). But no one seems to realize how extraordinary that is or how important good business management can be.

These guys have failed to meet every deadline, gone over every budget and missed every price point they've ever tried to hit. It was going to catch up to them eventually.

<comment><USER4> Even their intentions weren't all that good- from the beginning this was about sticking it to Microsoft, not about helping kids in developing nations learn.

<comment><USER5> That's really mean.

You can't generalize about that many people - care to name who, exactly, you are talking about?

IMO, everyone has different motives, and those I know anything about were 100% care-driven. The people I know who worked on OLPC have no beef with MS whatsoever, use MS products every day, but believe strongly that proprietary software has a very different role to play in the long-run that it does now.

In countries that can pay it, software and marketing are a significant cost in producing computers, one that is passed on to the customer. Now, in an over- abundant economy like ours (USA), this is not morally questionable - <USER2> advertising budgets, my children would have nothing to eat. However, when you're talking about a country that will be increasing Microsoft's bottom line instead of investing in roads or basic education, that's plain wrong.

<comment><USER6> I mostly agree, but I must take slight issue with the point about imposing a significant cost being morally unquestionable. Microsoft, to follow the example, has gained an unfair monopoly, and has exploited such to prevent possibly superior products from reaching acceptance. Moreover, Microsoft has abused the patent system to shut out still more potential competitors, and enforce vendor lock-in (see, for example, patent disputes with OOXML). Thus, I submit that Microsoft imposes a disproportionally large cost to society for what benefits it gives, and therefore can be said to be acting in an immoral fashion. That is, Microsoft makes their profits directly at the cost of society's happiness, which is immoral by a utilitarian view.

Now, far be it for me to pick at MS in exclusivity-- they were simply a convenient example. Rather, I only mean to illustrate that the moral questions of a monopoly in technology (be it hardware or software) are not completely dissolved in an affluent society, but only reduced.

<comment><USER5> _...which is immoral by a utilitarian view._

I think your argument is sound, but I was thinking about a more intuitive form of morality.

When I have to pay an extra $x for Windows or OSX, that comes out of some books I'll buy, or some extra private saxophone/french lessons for my daughter, or maybe a new Wii. When a third-world country pays extra, that's money which could be spent on building infrastructure for millions of people who will die without it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I support OLPC and I wish them the best of luck.

</comment><comment><USER8> I'm not sure I really get this project. I don't know much about it, but it seems they had a starting vision of how this would work & are now in the process of squeezing it into reality.

Is technology really the issue here? Is the operating system or dust proof case really the bottleneck?

<comment><USER9> There's no bottleneck. The real problems are:

1\. They are giving away machines at about ~100 dollars less than a basic Dell machine (and Dell can probably go even lower when dealing with governments). These machines are vastly inferior to a Dell machine, and Windows, like it or not, is a more suitable OS for business and educational purposes.

2\. They are missing out on a key fact: Computers are _just not that useful for education_. Yes, you can get a world of information from them, but if you actually see young people interact with them, it's mostly games and social sites and porno. This was true when I was a kid (except for the porno), and still is from my observations. A small number of students will actually use the computers to real effect.

3\. AND that small number of kids can be serviced by a few computers per school. Think Gates and Allen at their school's single mainframe hookup.

<comment><USER8> 1 The first one I agree is a huge problem. Their machines are not inherently better then commercial machines that can produced. They may be designed with a particular purpose in mind, but they are vision driven, not market driven. There is an ideological notion here about what sort of machine should be available that just shouldn't be there.

2 & 3 I think they were trying to address these with the software & the personal laptop issue. Sticking a few machines in a school means they support whatever the school was doing before, innovation will probably not happen this way. They probably don't have that much of an advantage there.

The way I see it, they're not that far off base but they still may be completely irrelevant. Computer literacy is important in that later on, at 15 or 18 or 25 those kids will be able to decide "I want to learn to program" or "I need to know accounting" or "I want to know if what this politician is saying is BS" or "I want to start an internet business" & go do it. You need to be comfortable enough with the machine to know where to start.

I know that if I want to know about bookkeeping or the French Revolution or growing sweet potatoes in slightly acidic sandy soil, I can do it online. It's about making it cheaper & easier for people everyone to know this too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> this project seemed so promising at first. now it has become a parody of itself.

<comment><USER11> Really? They're shipping the laptops, the software does work, etc. I don't see how it's become a parody other than the smaller number of laptops shipped. The initial vision was too grand and it's humbling perhaps, but a parody? Bah.

<comment><USER10> Negroponte has a history of not listening to feedback, resulting in a very poor fit for the intended target markets. Based on blog posts and defections, I think the project is run poorly. Abandoning Sugar for Windows makes this look less like a desire to help third-world countries and more like an outreach program for microsoft. And so on.

<comment><USER12> The OLPC people were not enthusiastic in the slightest about going for windows. Unfortunately, they found that in their target markets, people cared basically zero about the software being open source and in principle modifiable, and they cared a lot about getting experience on a standard platform. Many governments explicitly chose more expensive laptops from commercial manufacturers only because they offered windows and OLPC didn't. Like it or not, windows is what most third-world countries WANT. No one is forced to use windows, of course, they are just now being given the option.

<comment><USER5> _Like it or not, windows is what most third-world countries WANT._

Bullshit. Most people there want Windows as much as I want to use the IDE my boss's boss's boss decides to buy for all developers.

It's all about sales: steak and strippers, baby!

<comment><USER13> No, they really do want Windows. They want to use the same desktop software that businesses in the first-world do.

They see people pushing alternatives at them as paternalistic shits at best.

<comment><USER11> Really? Could you point to some government ministers saying that? Thanks.

<comment><USER12> Nigeria, Libya.

[http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071031-classmate- pc-o...](http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071031-classmate-pc-olpc-ink- deals-in-the-face-of-growing-challenges.html)

P.S. Thanks for making a reasonable request for information rather than cursing!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This project has been a Charlie Foxtrot from the first.

Dirt poor kids don't need laptops - they need clean water, vitamins, and malaria vaccines.

The project was a scam by ivory tower intellectuals deeply out of touch with the real world, and more interested in reinventing the wheel than in accomplishing good.

The sooner this project entirely dies, the better.

<comment><USER11> What kids need is education so they can realize that they don't have to live in this way. OLPC is a long-term thing, and clean water, vitamins, etc. are short-term.

You can deliver both the vitamins and the laptops too. It isn't a binary choice.</comment></comment>


SIGGRAPH 2008 Papers - <AUTHOR> http://kesen.huang.googlepages.com/sig2008.html <comment><USER2> This was on engadget yesterday:

[http://grail.cs.washington.edu/projects/videoenhancement/vid...](http://grail.cs.washington.edu/projects/videoenhancement/videoEnhancement.htm)

It's from Eurographics 2007, not siggraph. But the video demo is pretty amazing.

</comment><comment><USER3> In case anyone is interested, the main site - <http://kesen.huang.googlepages.com/> \- lists papers from many graphics conferences. An excellent resource.

</comment><comment><USER4> Unbelievable. A link to an ACM paper that you don't have to _pay_ to read. What's next, open access to IEEE publications?</comment>


Why Would Anyone Want a One-Way Ticket to Mars? - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-09-28/hey-elon-musk-who-really-wants-a-ticket-to-mars <comment><AUTHOR> It's all marketing hype to raise money from investors.</comment>


List of languages that compile to JS - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/jashkenas/coffee-script/wiki/List-of-languages-that-compile-to-JS

<comment><USER2> Am I the only one who just plain doesn't understand the value these tools provide? From my perspective, why not just _write_ javascript? Seems ridiculous. I mean, they're fun and all, but no one sets out to do a project of meaning or scale and chooses these tools, do they?

<comment><USER3> The same reason people don't just write in assembly (or more accuratley, C) to write a desktop application very often. Javascript is the assembly language of the web.

<comment><USER4> That analogy breaks down though. JavaScript is just as much of a high-level language as most of the things that are compiling to it. Most of the time the reason people don't just write in JavaScript is because they don't like it's _style_, rather then with C or assembly, where the goal is to work at a higher level to avoid writing boilerplate and managing things are are unnecessary.

<comment><USER5> It doesn't break down entirely though. Imagine we were all restricted to C++ for writing desktop software (although that's nonsensical, it's the case with JS and the web) - wouldn't it be reasonable to start developing other languages that compile to C++?

If you can output JS that's fast enough, why not?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I note that doesn't read 'good JS' or 'fast JS'. You can put me in a tutu but I won't be a prima ballerina.

<comment><USER7> Define good in this context. I'm inclined to say that if it doesn't have cross-browser bugs and it's fast, then it's good. The output being readable to human programmers probably shouldn't be a goal when JS is being used as a compiler target.

<comment><USER6> I'd define good as it takes full advantage of the javascript language and produces & can be used to create structures optimised for javascript, not the language it was written in.

<comment><USER8> This is why I think it's better to reduce the context-switch between server and browser and not eliminate it. There's going to be a context-switch there no matter what you do, so there's no sense in paying such high prices to try to eliminate it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> For those that think JavaScript makes a good VM format for the web, I've written a couple blog posts recently on this topic:

[http://chadaustin.me/2011/01/native-client-is-widely- misunde...](http://chadaustin.me/2011/01/native-client-is-widely- misunderstood-and-what-google-should-do-about-it/)

[http://chadaustin.me/2011/01/digging-into-javascript- perform...](http://chadaustin.me/2011/01/digging-into-javascript-performance/)

Basically, we need another 10x to 30x in performance for JavaScript to match native code performance...

<comment><USER10> Your lines of code measurement would be more compelling if you used sloccount instead of wc -l. Also, are you counting the lines of code in directories with tests in the name for Mozilla? I don't grok that find(3) incantation fully.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Added emscripten which to my untrained eyes seems like the place where a lot of gains can be made. You can gain a lot by removing the middleman but sometimes you can gain a lot by adding one.

<comment><USER5> Emscripten is the most exciting project IMO - it's basically a more portable NaCl. I wonder if Google will start using it if they're serious about NaCl.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> How about a list of languages that compile to PHP? haXe is the only mature one I know about.

<comment><USER12> I just so happen to have this list.

<http://haxe.org/doc>

<http://github.com/scriptor/pharen>

<http://www.mathgladiator.com/projects/kira/>

<http://www.scriptol.net/>

<http://sunra.nachtkabarett.com/>

[http://users.xelent.net/mlewis/tellpdf.php?seid=12457c30afd9...](http://users.xelent.net/mlewis/tellpdf.php?seid=12457c30afd9fc8170b828f5d1face35)

<http://ialexi.com/portfolio/original-works/components/quirk/>

And a somewhat related list:

<https://github.com/ryantenney/php7> Hacking the PHP compiler and standard libraries in the name of turning it into a not crappy language.

<https://github.com/tenderlove/phuby> Phuby wraps PHP in a loving embrace. Exposes a PHP runtime in ruby

<https://code.google.com/p/japha/> implementation of the Java 1.4.2 library in PHP

<https://github.com/lunant/lisphp> Lisphp is a Lisp dialect written in PHP

<https://code.google.com/p/php-alternative-syntax/> Scala inspired syntax for PHP

<https://code.google.com/p/java-php-toolkit/> a cross language compiler than transforms java code to php code deployable on any server supporting PHP >= 5.3

<https://github.com/bendemott/pyhp> Pyhp is a way to execute PHP Source Code directly within Python Scripts

<https://github.com/ramen/phply> PHP parser written in Python using PLY

<https://github.com/skeltoac/php_app> A PHP eval server for Erlang/OTP

<comment><USER13> Hey, creator of Pharen here. I've been procrastinating on another release for a while but still developing it. If anyone wants to check it out there is a better site over at <http://scriptor.github.com/pharen>.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> NS Basic/App Studio compiles Visual Basic style BASIC to JavaScript + HTML5. Also includes an IDE. Targets iOS and Android. (<http://www.nsbasic.com/app>)

<comment><USER5> Wow, that's a blast from the past, from the Palm OS days. Interesting that they're still around.

<comment><USER14> NS Basic was actually around long before Palm OS, starting with the Newton. (!) We think /App Studio is our best yet.

<comment><USER5> Ah, nice! That's a long history - you've held out better than some of the other tools I remember using for Palm, like CASL, HB++ and AppForge. (Also amusing that Palm got their start on the Newton, with Graffiti.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Two Haskell compilers (UHC and YHC) have JavaScript backends which convert their core languages to JS. I've added them to the wiki page.

</comment><comment><USER16> WebSharper lets you compile F# to JS (it's a commercial product though.)

</comment><comment><USER17> This is a great list. I was just thinking about what might be out there the other day. I'm very interested in Ruby --> JS. However haven't tried them. I followed Charles Nutter's work on JRuby for a while and it seems to me that it's extremely involved to actually compile a fully functioning ruby into another language and/or bytecode.

</comment><comment><USER18> How about Links at <http://groups.inf.ed.ac.uk/links/> and HOP at www.hop.inria.fr in the tierless category. Also, why isn't there a tierless JS since we can already run JS on the client and server side? I asked this question here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2068395>

</comment><comment><USER19> Mascara (<http://www.mascaraengine.com/>) compiles a typed version of ECMAScript (based on Harmony and other proposals for ECMAScript extensions) into JavaScript. It is backwardly compatible with JavaScript, so you can gradually upgrade code to take advantage of it.

</comment><comment><USER20> Thank you for posting this list! I don't think I would have ever heard about <http://cluecc.sourceforge.net/> otherwise. It seems like a really big deal, I'm very surprised I haven't heard about it before. Def. checking it out.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Feel free to contribute, it's a wiki!

<comment><USER21> Wasabi?

<http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/09/01b.html>

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Fantom (<http://fantom.org/>) also compiles to javascript. However this platform is supported via direct AST transformation not runtime bytecode generation as for JVM or CLR.

</comment><comment><USER23> Any tools that work in the opposite direction? ( e.g., JS -> C )

<comment><USER20> Red Daly has a JavaScript to Parenscript (Common Lisp) translator: <https://github.com/gonzojive/js-to-parenscript>

The generated code from that won't run without a JS runtime implementation in CL backing the JS-specific Parenscript forms, which currently doesn't exist to my knowledge (it's not hard to write, just not very useful). This is useful by itself for writing JS analysis and transformation tools and moving JS code to Lisp.

There's CL-JavaScript: <http://marijnhaverbeke.nl/cl-javascript/>

This is a translator/compiler/"simulator" (<http://www.cs.aau.dk/~normark/oo- scheme.html>) that provides good integration between the two languages.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I didn't see haXe on the list so added it. Seems its often overlooked when people talk about languages which compile to JS.</comment>


Scientists 'make telepathy breakthrough' - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29093700

<comment><USER2> Another masterpiece of science journalism from the BBC!

<comment><USER3> That's what British taxpayers are paying for? If I lived in the UK, that article alone would be sufficient reason for me to consider emigrating! Maybe that's why Scotland wants to be independent? :)</comment></comment>


Anybody else having issues with Airbnb? - <AUTHOR> Anybody here having issues with Airbnb? I am traveling the US and I wished so much I had booked a hotel or hostel for my stays. First apartment I arrived in the US there was no lock on the door of the apartment and I would arrive at the home and sometimes the main door would be open. When I woke up on the last night of my stay something had bitten me on the chest and I got very scared. Second apartment I stayed was really nice but the moved to other apartment and the other apartment was really dirty and the door of my room was broken and did not close when I had booked for a private spae. The owner had four bullies as he did not come himself than when they heard me complaining to Airbnb that they were making loud noise they enter the room without my permsission and they told me I should leave because I was complaining to Airbnb or they would hit me. They broke my case and left me on the street in the middle of the night. Airbnb promised me they would pay me the nightly rate for  a hotel and they did not. They told me I could tell the owner to get a refund for my broken case but I cannot do it as the reservation was cancelled. Airbnb is ignoring my messages and now I am in other Airbnb that is as expensive as a hotel and it is extremely dirty. I am not complaining but I am having a horrible holiday due to have made the mistake of booking with Airbnb. This is simply unacceptable. I am wondering if other people had this experiences. I would have been much happier in a hostel I think. Much cleaner that this infected places where I am staying. <comment><USER2> If you search online you'll find many of these stories. AirBNB got already too big, it is really hard to talk to the customer service or get the money back if you're not happy. It's like Ebay, you need to be lucky nowadays.

I prefer booking over Booking.com if I'm not sure about the offer. It's sad where it went... And yes, it's often overpriced...

I'm traveling for a long time now, and all I can say is people are shit. I have seen rooms totally destroyed or made dirty by visitors. It goes also the other way around. If it's not mine, I don't care.</comment>


Under current policies, residential batteries increase emissions in most cases - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/12/residential-batteries-may-save-households-money-but-rarely-reduce-emissions/ <comment><USER2> This seems counterintuitive -- esp for homes with solar panels and extra capacity.

Edit: the logic is that homes with solar should share surplus capacity back into the grid, immediately. Not store it in batteries. (Net metering encourages sharing.)

<comment><USER2> I found a comment that explains it:

"The users in the study were using pricing to their advantage. They were buying power in low demand times (low price) and discharging the battery to avoid buying electricity in high demand times (high price).

The problem is that high or low price doesn't necessarily correlate to high or low carbon so while the arbitrage can save the consumer some money they may not be reducing their carbon footprint and in some cases were actually increasing it." \- username Statistical</comment></comment>


The 7th Continent: An ambitious Choose Your Own Adventure-inspired board game - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/10/the-7th-continent-review-a-board-game-unlike-anything-youve-ever-played/ <comment><USER2> Ambitious is definitely the right word for this game. I've put about 7 hours in to it so far and can definitely say I've not played anything quite like it. It's huge, full of unique art and writing, and has managed to surprise me quite a few times.

I can see it getting repetitive, particularly as there's not a huge amount of storytelling - and from what I've heard, some people aren't enjoying the need to replay hours of content when you die - but so far, I'm impressed.

The second printing (+ expansion) Kickstarter is live at the moment ([https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1926712971/the-7th- cont...](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1926712971/the-7th-continent- what-goes-up-must-come-down)) which seems like it's adding a lot more content. I'm in, but whether I'll still be interested in playing more when it ships in October 2018 is another question...

<comment><USER3> Is it available from a more traditional online retailer (I'd rather avoid Kickstarter)?

<comment><USER4> With tabletop games kickstarter is effectively an outsourced preorder system. The game is finished but they can judge how large this print run needs to be and collect money for it early, you are basically guaranteed a product. This assumes your reason for avoiding kickstarter is that you'll get scammed or not receive a product do to incompetence (which has happened to me with videogames and hardware products). Otherwise its likely you'll have to wait until late 2018 or early 2019 to buy this game or try to find a copy of the first run of the base game somewhere.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> As with many games of this type, epic gameplay comes with complexity, a learning curve and long play sessions. Anyone know of boardgames that deliver something big from a minimal set of rules and items? I wouldn't mind exploring a dungeon in 10-15 minutes with a random stranger on a train.

<comment><USER6> If you're looking for a "dungeon crawler" that plays quickly, check out: Dungeon Roll [https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/138788/dungeon- roll](https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/138788/dungeon-roll)

Dungeon Dice [https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/136192/dungeon- dice](https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/136192/dungeon-dice)

5-minute Dungeon [https://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/207830/5-minute- dung...](https://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/207830/5-minute-dungeon)

Pathfinder: The Card Game (although a bit long) [https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/133038/pathfinder- advent...](https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/133038/pathfinder-adventure- card-game-rise-runelords-base)

Shadowscape [https://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/200359/shadowscape](https://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/200359/shadowscape)

Dungeon Twister [https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/144525/dungeon- twister-c...](https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/144525/dungeon-twister-card- game)

<comment><USER7> Seconding Dungeon Roll. It can be played solo, but it's a lot of fun with 2-3 people. (With more, it gets rather boring for anyone not either playing or running the dungeon.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I've not played The 7th Continent, but from the description, it sounds rather similar in style to the video game Sunless Sea (and the currently-in-beta sequel, Sunless Skies) - exploration-driven, deeply unforgiving survival and resource management, although 7th Continent sounds more art focused as opposed to Sunless Sea's writing-centric approach.

If 7th Continent is anywhere near as enjoyable, I may have to give it a try - if it manages to recapture the feelings from first time you happen across the deadly elysium of Aestival, or the creeping dread as your crippled ship burns through your last barrel of fuel in the deep Eastern Unterzee, it will be well worth the $80.

<comment><USER9> Compared to sunless sea, the 7th continent is less text driven and has more environmental narration through illustrations. The 7th continent has puzzles like Myst and emergent story telling ("We killed my poisonous frog companion and spread its venom on our arrows. We had a good hunt and offered some of the food we caught to the Gods of Frogs in memory of Froggy.").

I enjoyed both, and they may address the same crowd, but in very different ways.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> > _It's 1907, you're an explorer, and you feel like crap. Several weeks ago, > you were part of an expedition to the 7th continent, a mysterious and newly > discovered land off the coast of Antarctica._

This confused me until I remembered that some countries count either North+South America, or else Europe and Asia, as a single continent, for a total of six. Not a great choice of name for the English-language release.

<comment><USER11> Every country considers Europe and Asia a single continent. (Because they literally are.)

<comment><USER10> > _Every country considers Europe and Asia a single continent._

I'm afraid not. "Continent" is a surprisingly poorly-defined concept. [https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Continent](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Continent)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm definitely feeling some #fomo with this game. It sounds great, but is it really worth the $80/$130+ investment to me? I'm not sure.

<comment><USER9> If you look at it from an investment point of view, it was very easy to sell at full price after the first Kickstarter so... Try the print n play version!

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I recently released an audio-based choose-your-own-adventure inspired game for playing in the car called Road Trip Adventures. If 7th Continent appeals to you then you should check it out!

[https://playroadtripadventures.com](https://playroadtripadventures.com)

<comment><USER14> fun game! i love the audio aspect. how hard would it be to use volume buttons to rotate through and select actions? so no reading required?</comment></comment>


USSR Believed a Top Secret Room was at center of Pentagon - was a hot dog stand - <AUTHOR> http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=1049

<comment><USER2> > "They thought this was the Pentagon's most top secret meeting room, and the > entire Pentagon was a large fortress built around this hot dog stand."

I like this story. It neatly captures strangely symbolic, even poetic, meaning. What does Pentagon and its entire defense edifice ultimately protect? The American way of life, which is mostly hot dog stands and burger bars.

</comment><comment><USER3> > The Pentagon was declared a national historic landmark in 1992, and because > the courtyard is one of the five historically protected features of the > building, the hot dog stand must be replaced by a building of roughly the > same size, and exactly the same shape as the Pentagon, Eaton said.

> "In general, the design will kind of replicate what we have here right now, > but it's going to be much more modern and a lot bigger. It will really give > us an efficient food service delivery system for the Pentagon," said David > Gabel, the renovation program manager for Pentagon renovation and > construction.

Really? Apparently in the US preserving a landmark means making it "much more modern and a lot bigger"? I don't understand you guys sometimes.

<comment><USER4> It's the courtyard that's the preserved feature, not the stand itself. Presumably the requirements just translate to "from the perspective of a visitor to the courtyard, there should be a pentagonal thing in the center, yey-big, with an owl on it." It could be a real building or a facade, it wouldn't matter, except inasmuch as it affects the courtyard.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> It obviously is a top secret illuminati bunker as you can easily see by the owl on top. Wake up sheeple!

</comment><comment><USER6> Seems like someone at HN is reading TodayILearned subreddit diligently...

[http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/1il1fm/til_du...](http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/1il1fm/til_during_the_cold_war_the_ussr_thought_the/)

<comment><USER7> As someone who deleted their reddit account 2 days ago to escape the cesspool, I'm glad that interesting articles are floating this way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> > The new building will cost about $1.2 million to complete, he said.

hmmm ... 1.2 million for a hot dog stand ... let the ridicule begin.

<comment><USER9> It has to survive the missiles aimed at it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> The title of this post is misleading because it implies that the USSR believed it was a hot dog stand.

Either use the original title from the article or add the words "it was actually just a" before "hot dog stand".

</comment><comment><USER11> At least the Russians weren't looking to nuke the Wiener Circle. ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wieners_Circle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wieners_Circle))

</comment><comment><USER12> Or, alternatively, it was a known place where the brass congregate, and hence a good target anyway.

Or, alternatively, it was in the middle of the Pentagon and hence the bulls- eye for a missile aimed there anyway.

The story does smack of a little hubris.

</comment><comment><USER13> What is "Top Secret" is what went into those hot dogs...</comment>


Will Rosetta Stone's Stumble Kill that IPO Momentum? - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/08/18/will-rosetta-stones-stumble-kill-that-ipo-momentum/

<comment><USER2> first off no smart investor would invest in rosetta stones IPO or open tables for obvious reasons.</comment>