Veteran executives and financiers helped fuel WeWork's rise and fall - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-money-men-who-enabled-adam-neumann-and-the-wework-debacle-11576299616 <comment><AUTHOR> As the fallout of WeWork being bailed out played out in the public eye it was obvious that there were tremendous problems at the company. But this article really goes into detail to show the true dysfunction that existed.

I mean a CEO that skipped board meetings entirely? An entire board that basically sat quietly as valuations grew ever further out of touch with reality and that the first time they brought it up as an issue was already after the failed IPO had been halted, really is something straight out of an episode of Silicon Valley on HBO.

<comment><USER2> > An entire board that basically sat quietly as valuations grew ever further > out of touch with reality and that the first time they brought it up as an > issue was already after the failed IPO had been halted

Um, like, duh.

The whole point of that IPO was to leave the public holding the bag. If Adam Neumann had only been slightly less of a douchebag, it might have happened.

<comment><USER3> Banking on the public being stupid is not a good idea. Wisdom of the crowds is real. As long as there are regulations about financial reporting, these false valuations will come out eventually.

They needed to go all in, and commit fraud like Enron, if they really wanted to leave the public holding the bag.

<comment><USER4> The aphorism that I'm familiar with is, "the wisdom of a crowd is proportional to the square root of its members."

<comment><USER5> Does that actually mean anything?

<comment><USER6> It's apparently a Terry Pratchett quote: "The intelligence of that creature known as a crowd is the square root of the number of people in it."

A sixteen-year-old newsgroup poster explains it as follows:

> Sorry to disagree, but I thought the quote worked extremely well the first > time and on further reflection, still do. I think it's very apt and I would > hesitate to say that perhaps you didn't see the intended purpose on first > reading.

> Terry talks about the crowd as a creature, therefore implying one single IQ. > So, to use your own methods, let's say a crowd of 100 people would have an > IQ of 10 - not each, but altogether. Each person would have an IQ of 0.1 if > you wanted to break it down, although to do so would be completely counter- > productive, because we are talking about a crowd and not a single person. > Once you start talking about single people, they are no longer part of the > crowd and their IQ would revert to normal status. The crowd is a whole, and > the description provides a picture of it being a single organism with one > purpose (to imply the fervour that people get swept up in, in crowds, e.g. > race riots, Paedophile lynchings, vigilantes that one person would not do)

> I think the purpose behind the description was to provide the metaphor of a > crowd being a big, dumb, violent animal composed of intelligent, reasoning > people - a sort of paraphrase on "the sum is greater than the parts".

[https://alt.books.pratchett.narkive.com/nVL49SnZ/quote- from-...](https://alt.books.pratchett.narkive.com/nVL49SnZ/quote-from- jingo#post3)

As an aside, I find it amazing that I was able to go from a paraphrased description of a quote to an in depth discussion of the accuracy of the quote with suggestions for alternative functions. Despite all its flaws, the hacks upon hacks upon hacks we call the internet is incredible when you step back and consider it all.

<comment><USER7> An interesting idea, but taken literally, it implies that any crowd larger than 22,500 people (150^2) has genius-level intelligence, which is kind of laughable.

<comment><USER8> The lower boundary of the 99 percentile goes up as 1/sqrt(N) and approaches the average member intelligence, but never reaches that level. At the same time, the upper boundary of the 99 percentile goes down at the same speed. However the number of super smart members, with IQ higher than say 160, grows linearly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Why does the article say, "It was a watershed moment for Silicon Valley"? WeWork was started in NY, has a bunch of facilities in SF but in SV just one in RWC.

<comment><USER10> Because Silicon Valley has become a synonym for the American tech scene.

Many great films are made in New York but they still fall under the moniker Hollywood.

<comment><USER11> Its not a technology company either though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> So even Mr. Schwartz spoke only after all came crushing down? Do I feel bad about their rich investors? Nope, they got way too greedy and got burned.

</comment><comment><USER13> Why isn't the DOJ looking into him? He should be brought up on charges just like Elizabeth Holmes. There has to be a clear fraud cause in here somewhere.

He can't be allowed to get away with what he has done, he needs to be stripped of his money and spend some time in jail to act as a deterrent for others who would seek to do the same.

<comment><USER14> He didn't really commit fraud, though. He really did create a successful business. He didn't defraud anyone, he just convinced supposedly smart investors that he was somehow going to generate billions in profit from a company that just didn't have the business model for that.

He found a little glitch in the system, and honestly, that's fine. This is how the system learns, and hopefully fewer investors will waste their money on someone like him in the future. But at the end of the day, what he did wasn't really illegal, and it shouldn't be.

The bare essence of what happened is he asked some supposedly very smart and sophisticated people to give him billions of dollars, and they said "we like you, so yes". There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, it's their money to throw away how they please, and they should have known better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> > In late 2015, WeWork was completing an investment round led by Beijing-based > Hony Capital Ltd. that pushed its valuation to $16 billion. Mr. Neumann > invited its CEO, John Zhao, to a party at 110 Wall Street, where WeWork was > about to open its first WeLive dormlike apartment building. Toward the end > of the night, Mr. Neumann led others to the roof of the 27-story building. > There, guests passed around tequila shots. Mr. Neumann picked up a fire > extinguisher and set it off, spraying Mr. Zhao and others with white foam.

> The deal went through. Mr. Zhao joined WeWork's board in July 2016.

Spraying potential investors with a fire extinguisher... now there's a fundraising technique I won't be trying.

<comment><USER16> Matt Levine wasn't so far off with his characterization of the Son Masayoshi Adam Neumann conversation:

"""

Son: What does your company do?

Neumann: We lease office buildings, spruce up the space and sublet it in small chunks.

Son: Hmm I invest in visionary tech stuff, this doesn't really sound like my thing.

Neumann: Did I mention we are a state of consciousness. A generation of interconnected emotionally intelligent entrepreneurs.

Son: Okay yeah that's more like—

Neumann: The world's first physical social network. We encompass all aspects of people's lives, in both physical and digital worlds.

Son: You're crazy! I love it! But could you be, say, ten times crazier?

Neumann: You're going to invest $10 billion in my company, which I will use as kindling to light the whole edifice on fire, and then when we are both standing in the ashes you will pay me another billion dollars to walk away while I laugh at you.

Son: All my life I have dreamed of meeting someone as crazy as you, but I never really believed this day would come.

Neumann: I'm gonna use your money to buy a mansion with a room shaped like a guitar, where I will play the world's tiniest violin after all your money is gone.

Son: YES PUNCH ME IN THE FACE.

Neumann: Also I'll rename the company "We" and charge it $6 million for the name.

Son: RUN ME OVER WITH A TRUCK.

"""

[https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2019-10-23/mon...](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2019-10-23/money- stuff-how-do-you-like-we-now)

<comment><USER15> Geeze... I thought you were being hyperbolic about the mansion with a room shaped like a guitar. But nope! Really bought that.

[https://www.mansionglobal.com/articles/wework-founder- adam-n...](https://www.mansionglobal.com/articles/wework-founder-adam-neumann- s-trove-of-pricey-properties-132037)

This has to be one of the all time biggest pre-IPO delusional ego trips ever, right?

<comment><USER17> It's not a delusional ego trip if it made you a billionaire.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> [http://archive.md/p0KYR](http://archive.md/p0KYR)

</comment><comment><USER19> > The sixth floor of its low-slung headquarters was redone, with a large > section just for executives, including an exercise room.

Building an executive oasis in the office probably counts as some kind of warning sign. Departure from reality.

<comment><USER20> Pretty much every company has special amenities for executives.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> What I find the most depressing in this saga is that all the people mentionned are now sipping champagne from their 5 star hotel room. All are billionaires/millionnairs thanks to a fraud. While good/normal/working people are just trying to pay their bills. How do you build a society where lying/cheating/bullshitting is more valuable to the community than working ?

<comment><USER22> Well, all societies are bound to collapse, and that's probably one reason. More tactically, the wealthy are often polite, non-violent, and spend a lot of money in their near vicinity, and this serves to _completely insulate_ them from the social/emotional effects of how they acquired the money. Nasty looks, shunning, or the threat of it, goes a long way toward enforcing social norms.

Another issue is the often jaw-dropping cynicism of a business world so obsessed with doing things, that any concern with how they are done is totally ignored. It's a world in which "cheating" loses its meaning; anyone who is incensed at unethical, or even illegal (but not enforced) behavior is a naive rube. Ultimately, I think this happens because of a catastrophic failure of the justice system.

<comment><USER23> The numbers in a billionaire's net worth include no contextual information - nothing about the lives damaged, the jobs lost, the opportunities eliminated, the time wasted, the scamming, cheating, and manipulation, the ecological support structures destroyed.

Business and personal accounting systems deny, ignore, and suppress those contextual details. So does the "investment" industry. And that makes a mockery of "price discovery" because the nominal market price always excludes critical externalities.

It's possible to become extremely rich without negative externalities. It just happens to be _incredibly difficult_. The looser your ethics, and the less empathy you have for competitors and victims, the easier it gets. It's a feedback loop which rewards unethical behaviour.

Essentially, money itself is a form of morality-laundering. It's an integer when it should be a complete trace through a common contextual event map.

<comment><USER22> Indeed, and what makes it interesting is that the information can (and should) travel in both directions: just as I want to know what my dollar has done when I buy an apple (e.g. I paid starvation wages to farmers and justified clear- cutting of a piece of rain-forest, gave political contributions to some dictator, etc) and the vendor gets to know how I earned that money (e.g. an office job where I make software content that tricks users into giving up more personal info, ultimately to get a higher ad price).

You run into a technical issue in that you can trace a dollar _indefinitely_ in both directions. But perhaps there's a solution, like some sort of decay.

<comment><USER24> I don't know if you've ever seen "The Good Place" but it's a driving plot point of a recent season that it's almost impossible to be "good" because every action you take has all these unintended consequences/ supports all these negative systems.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Interesting first two lines. :( Anyone have a mirror?

<comment><USER26> [https://luxorr.media/the-money-men-who-enabled-adam- neumann-...](https://luxorr.media/the-money-men-who-enabled-adam-neumann-and- the-wework-debacle/)

<comment><USER27> "Mr. Neumann mesmerized them together with his pitch"</comment></comment></comment>


Nudifier: Turn Any Photo Into a Hilarious Censored Nude - <AUTHOR> http://nudifier.com/

<comment><USER2> Seems like a good candidate for an HTML5 app vs native. Not feeling the love here on android per usual _sigh_

</comment><comment><USER3> app actually places pixels to make it seem as if somebody is nude when they are not

</comment><comment><USER4> Very entertaining, wish there was an Android/online version.

Though the title is misleading - nothing is censored. It seems like a variant of bubbling: making fully clothed people look nude in a SFW way.

</comment><comment><USER5> First five comments looks like a voting ring...

<comment><USER6> I had exactly the same vibe. But the posting history shows no indication that that's the case. Except of course for the OP, nathangs

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The title says different, but it looks fun judging by the pictures in the website. Currently downloading it! :)

Edit: Tried it! OMG. Nudifying your friend is so easy! I love its simplicity. And I'm laughing because of what I did. Can't wait to share it with my friends.

</comment><comment><USER8> This is such a simple and entertaining idea, something I wish I thought of. Definitely going to try this out.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Edited the title to reflect what the app actually does.</comment>


Portugal released a webpage to see number of deaths - <AUTHOR> https://servicos.min-saude.pt/sico/faces/statistics.jsp

<comment><USER2> I saw this announcement on local news some days ago. There's data from the past but no easy way to see it at a glance. In any case if you scrape it and do a nicer interface it could be cool to check things like mortality in the winter vs summer, decline in crime / road kills. It was announced in a public safety thingie so I'm guessing its purpose was to track epidemics, just not sure who is going to use it. Journalists maybe if they can deal with the shitty UX.

Not complaining though, more access to data is always better.

</comment><comment><USER3> Is there a specific purpose of this tool ? To track epidemies, or weather related deaths (like in summer)? I can see a number of applications, but the n size at the scale of Portugal is rather small.

<comment><USER4> Well, it's Portugal. Probably someone in some state department wanted to _do a favour_ to a friend with an IT company.

<comment><USER5> unless you know something we don't, I think you're jumping into conclusions too fast.

we (portuguese) _do_ have a tendency of complaining - if you don't have an open data government policy, it's wrong... the minute you have a tiny fraction of that data available for you, it's wrong again...

<comment><USER4> Assuming you are portuguese: go to [http://www.base.gov.pt/base2/html/pesquisas/contratos.shtml#...](http://www.base.gov.pt/base2/html/pesquisas/contratos.shtml#pesquisa) and search for "Administração Central do Sistema de Saúde" (the contracting entity for this service).

<comment><USER5> fair enough... from the beginning, I assumed you had more knowledge about this than the rest of us - and you do :P

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Memento mori.</comment>


Closing the Math Gap for Boys - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/01/opinion/sunday/intense-tutoring-can-close-the-math-gap.html

<comment><USER2> > Here's why you should pay close attention to this experiment. After just a > single year in Chicago's intensive tutoring and mentoring program, known as > Match, participants ended up as much as two years ahead of students in a > control group who didn't get this help. A report that is being released > Sunday by the University of Chicago Crime Lab also finds that they performed > substantially better on the Chicago school system's math test; their scores > on the N.A.E.P. math exam reduced the usual black-white test score gap by a > third. This success carried over to nonmath classes, where these students > were less likely to fail. Greater success in math also helped get them on > track to graduate. It also led them to become more engaged in school, and > they were 60 percent less likely than members of the control group to be > arrested for a violent crime.

> I know of no initiative for disadvantaged young men of color that comes > close.

Neither do I. I look forward to the post-mortem explaining why this program will turn out to be a failure like all the others.

<comment><USER3> Programs that seek to better explain math will not last, I agree.

What is needed is to change the kids' MINDSET about math. How do we make them WANT it? They've already decided it's boring and difficult.

<comment><USER4> they didn't 'decide' it was boring, it was taught without any context, and the average kid did not have the imagination to be able to know how useful math is going to be.

Basically, instead of teaching, i think the school ciriculunm should try to pique the interest of the students, and make them intrinsically motivated to find out more. How to do this depends on how good their teachers are, and atm, not many teachers can do this even if they want to, because they are required to teach a certain amount of 'standard' stuff, and leaves not much room for the teacher's own brand/style.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Does anyone really find it surprising that close instruction by people of similar age, who actually know math, made a difference? I remember my math teachers. I remember them talking down to us. I remember teaching myself how to handle quadratic equations after being made to look a fool in class. I also remember the joy of programming my first HP-48sx graphing calculator (donated to me when I got into an AP math 11 course). Like the old speak-and-spell, that little machine never insulted me, never said I wasn't trying hard enough. Math became easy. I still miss R-P notation.

Look at this from the UK a few years ago. Most teachers were found to lack basic math skill. I doubt US/Canadian teachers are any different.

"Only one third of the teachers tested for a Channel 4 Dispatches documentary were able to calculate that 1.4 divided by 0.1 is 14, while only four out of 10 could work out that 2.1 per cent of 400 is 8.4. " [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/7236780/P...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/7236780/Primary- teachers-fail-basic-maths-test.html)

"Fewer than four out of 10 of those who sat the test – designed for 11-year- olds – could calculate 2.1% of 400, and only a third answered correctly that 1.4 divided by 0.1 was 14. Overall, four out of ten scored 40% or below, only one got all the answers correct and the average mark was 12 out of 27 or 45%."

[http://www.theguardian.com/education/2010/feb/14/primary- tea...](http://www.theguardian.com/education/2010/feb/14/primary-teachers- fail-maths-tests)

</comment><comment><USER6> I wonder if the `control group` were students that did not want to be enrolled in the program (introducing significant bias into the results) or students selected randomly to be tracked and not enrolled or given such an opportunity (the ones 60% more likely to commit a violent crime).

<comment><USER7> I wanted to say that as well - however in this particular case I'd say the ends justify the means if they get funding for more tutoring, even if their statistical methods are unsavoury.

<comment><USER8> Many schools see a ratio of teachers to students around 25:1 (or higher).. they're talking about getting a ratio of 2:1 for even 1/6 of the school day... that's roughly the need for double the number of teachers/tutors over current needs. Of course there are other offsets.

I'm not sure I'm completely with the economists on this one, but I can definitely see some of the points. I think doing something like this in the K-8 years would be far more effective than in the H.S. years where kids should start to be more independent.

If cities could work with local businesses to allow STEM employees to volunteer (paid by the company) a couple days a month at a local school, in addition to getting parents to volunteer 2-3 days a month, this could get the coverage needed and starting at much younger ages before a lot of the issues start to settle in.

<comment><USER7> > If cities could work with local businesses to allow STEM employees to > volunteer (paid by the company) a couple days a month at a local school, in > addition to getting parents to volunteer 2-3 days a month, this could get > the coverage needed and starting at much younger ages before a lot of the > issues start to settle in.

I think that's a great idea. Some management types can checkmark 'social responsibility' that someone added to the company's mission statement, and employees get to have some mini sabbatical and feel good about themselves, probably come back with more energy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Not just minorities the gap between boys and girls in education increases every year.

<comment><USER10> Have you, or someone else, got a source for this or articles/studies done?

Not questioning it, just curious.

<comment><USER11> PISA is a long term comparative study of child education in about 60-70 countries including USA; [http://www.oecd.org/pisa/aboutpisa/](http://www.oecd.org/pisa/aboutpisa/)

The 2012 results for USA, [http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results.htm](http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results.htm), for Maths, Reading and Science show the gender gap to be better than the average with a trend towards constancy; ie contrary to the GP's claim. However, I wouldn't want to say on my cursory view of their summaries that the GP was wrong.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It's a glaring case of gender inequality! They should obviously use positive discrimination to make sure that average grades are equal.

</comment><comment><USER13> We should just let the math gender gap go until it counteracts the gender gap in STEM employment.

<comment><USER14> The gender gap in certain sectors is a problem, but this is also a problem. I have no doubt that strong feminists don't want to see boys (even white ones) doing worse as a whole from a young age.

<comment><USER15> This is more of a problem than the gender gap. The gender gap is largely due to differences in interests. You'll see the same sort of gap in nursing, auto repair, primary education, construction and number of other occupations. If it's down to interests it's not clear it will ever be solved completely. Maybe that's okay.

<comment><USER16> Why is this gap more of a problem? Maybe boys just aren't interested in math, the same way they are naturally not interested in nursing.

<comment><USER17> One difference that seems relevant is that math is a general discipline/skillset that has applicability to a variety of career paths and industry sectors, and also can be a base/prerequisite requirement when pursuing further education in fields that don't necessarily seem very "mathy". In other words, one often doesn't necessarily study math to become a professional mathematician, but as a means to another end, such as providing a grounding to enable meaningful study in another area (a psychology degree requiring study of statistics would be one example).

Nursing, on the other hand, is in itself a vocation. One studies nursing, presumably, to become a nurse, and not usually as a means to some other end.

Therefore, a lack of boys' interest in math would be potentially different from a lack of boys' interest in nursing, in that innumeracy (just like illiteracy) tends to limit individual outcomes much more severely than lack of interest in a particular vocational path such as nursing.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What not to do with AWS Lambda? - <AUTHOR> I am working on my thesis and I need advice from the AWS community. Lambda has become a golden hammer though it's important to know how to use golden hammer properly. Once people starts understanding how to use it, they see golden nails everywhere!<p>With AWS Lambda, I have heard a lot of stories about what you can do and lessons to build an event-driven architecture. But I want to hear what are the part of architecture where you should absolutely not use serverless aka antipatterns. Here are few of what I have come across:<p>* async calls * too many dependencies * redundant functions * too much granularity
* shared code * tight coupling <comment><USER2> I'm giving an entire talk on this in two weeks at Open Source Summit Tokyo called "Silence of the Lambdas."

You're on the right track, but a lot of poor use cases are less theoretical, and much more "in the weeds." A great example of this would be "can't guarantee execution within 300 seconds."</comment>


This magic exoskeleton for industrial workers is the future–we know, we wore one - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/07/why-you-might-be-seeing-mechanical-exoskeletons-on-construction-sites-soon/ <comment><USER2> I think the exoskeleton designs in the Stalker series of games are the most accurate, judging by this and similar projects.

</comment><comment><USER3> Won't be long before that power tool is replaced by heavy weaponry, the rear holds a heavy shield, and there are bunches of these supporting more mobile troops. If they can help troops carry more weight, that will allow more ammunition to be carried, etc.

</comment><comment><USER4> The design looks mostly to be made of steel with simple joints. So how come it costs around $12,000? All the components look like they could be mass produced with a total cost just a fraction of that?

<comment><USER3> I imagine that it's partly because their research shows that their target market will pay $12k for it.</comment></comment>


A Detailed Look at the Koenigsegg Gemera's Mind-Blowing Engineering - <AUTHOR> https://jalopnik.com/a-detailed-look-at-the-koenigsegg-gemeras-mind-blowing-1842073757 <comment><USER2> What happens when Twitter makes mistakes like this, or when Facebook let Trump run very misleading census ads? It makes Twitter and Facebook look like thinly-veiled Trumpists. This can't be good for Twitter or Facebook's credibility, and it could allow hyper-partisans to accuse them of pro-Trump bias, which they don't need.

<comment><USER3> Are you lost? This article is about an exotic car.

<comment><USER2> Well, yes, I was lost. It's a cool car, however. Thanks for letting me know in a non-threatening manner, I appreciate it. Also, I read the article because of you, and I enjoyed it.</comment></comment></comment>


This is How Wrong Kurzweil Is - <AUTHOR> http://asserttrue.blogspot.com/2013/01/this-is-how-wrong-kurzweil-is.html <comment><USER2> Honestly fully-sentient machines in 16 years seems totally ridiculous on its face to me regardless of what kind of graphs and charts about technological progress can be shown off. While I'm not really up to speed on AI research, in the consumer space at least we've just barely achieved a semi-automated house- vacuuming robot and fumbling speech-recognition in call centers. Unless I'm totally off-base with what's capable today, emotions and intelligence in a decade and a half would seem to require breakthrough after breakthrough in a vast number of nearly unrelated disciplines; plus there'd have to be the commercial demand needed to fund it. (Space stations and flying cars may be technically possible today, but nobody wants to pay for them.)

Kurzweil has invented a few cool things but today the guy is essentially a talented sci-fi writer. While those kinds of people are important, I have no idea why so many people take him so seriously.

<comment><USER3> People take him seriously because he has a good track record at making predictions.

<comment><USER4> Plenty of people also don't take him seriously because lots of his predictions turn out to be hand-wavey or quite obvious.

[http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/ray-kurzweils- sl...](http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/ray-kurzweils-slippery- futurism)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Less inflammatory title: These are some cherrypicked reasons why Kurzweil might be wrong, ignoring reasons why Kurzweil might be right.

But that wouldn't make the front page.

Also, I'd be a little less critical if this article wasn't citing all this quantum consciousness pseudoscience as one of the main reasons why Kurzweil is wrong.

<comment><USER4> Cherrypicked? He's describing how consciousness currently manifests itself. Which cherries did he forget to pick?

Also considering much of Kurweil's "evidence" is best-fit graphs of cherry- picked data points, it's kind of ironic to lob that the other way.

> if this article wasn't citing all this quantum consciousness pseudoscience

Yeah, I guess if by "all this pseudoscience" you mean a two mentions of two very minimalistic claims. It's not like he's fabricating Deepak-Chopra-esque word salad.

<comment><USER5> _Cherrypicked? He's describing how consciousness currently manifests itself. Which cherries did he forget to pick?_

Any cherry that doesn't fit his preconceived conclusion. Kurzweil has eloquently made his arguments in his books and elsewhere, which are summarily ignored here. But it's not like Kurzweil is some random crackpot that nobody supports, there are tons of scientists who agree with him. For instance, Henry Markham and his collaborators have made similar predictions about how their work will lead to human-level AI in the relatively near future.

 _Yeah, I guess if by "all this pseudoscience" you mean a two mentions of two very minimalistic claims. It's not like he's fabricating Deepak-Chopra-esque word salad._

Two brief bullet points out of a list of six brief bullet points is a fairly substantial chunk of the argument.

<comment><USER6> Why not supply some actual reasoning to make your points? Such as 'bullet point x' should be valued lightly because of 'insert evidence/arguments here'. Just calling things pseudoscience or stating that he has 'lot's of support from other people' only implies that you're being defensive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > But to say that we will see, by 2029, the development of computers with true > consciousness, plus emotions and all the other things that make the human > brain human, is nonsense. We'll be lucky to see such a thing in less than > several hundred years—if ever.

2029 may be a bit early, but I think that actually to say it will take at least several hundred years is nonsense.

Look at the timescales of scientific and technological progress. Pretty much 99% of all knowledge and technologies we use are less than 200 years old. Most of it is less than 100 years old. We went from zero to space in a single life time. And the progress is not steady, nor is it slowing down, it's _accelerating_. One thing Kurzweil is definitely right about is that people don't understand exponential growth. Or any superlinear growth for that matter.

</comment><comment><USER8> It's a bit presumptuous to think a sentient AI/machine has to replicate the human brain. While there are complexities we still do not understand there are also many shortcomings/defects that we do not necessarily need to replicate to a machine. One of the cognitive biases happen to be us thinking very highly of ourselves. Our brains are far from "perfect" (natural selection and all).

While 2029 may be too early (note that it actually might not be. Nature doesn't exactly follow Moore's law, but so far electronics and computing do), I doubt it will be several hundred years. The other thing to keep in mind are geo-political event which may have adverse effects on scientific development/progress. To expect there to be relative peace in the next 15 years is a far better prediction than hundreds of years. We might even loose some advances by then.

<comment><USER9> Expecting an AI to replicate/model every detail of a brain is like expecting a house to replicate/model every detail of a cave.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> So after reading "On Intelligence" by Jeff Hawkins [1], it would seem that the algorithm of the cortex is mostly figured out and it missing only the hardware capable of simulating enough neurons. One comment I read a while back was that the description in the book was good as far as it goes but there's more to do with regards to making it a two way process. I.e. the part where the nervous system takes action to confirm a prediction (I probably didn't explain that very well).

My question is why would you want to build a human like intelligence? Wouldn't it be enough to build tools that simulate parts (pattern recognition, inference, reasoning etc) of our own intelligence so that me may augment what we're capable of? What purpose would it serve to include emotions feelings and what makes us human?

I'd love to hear from people who actually know more about this stuff than reading a couple of popular science books!

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Intelligence>

<comment><USER11> Upvoted for the OI reference, which I found to be a remarkable book. I highly recommend it.

But I wouldn't go so far as to say "it would seem that the algorithm of the cortex is mostly figured out": my takeaway from the book was that a lot of it was solid educated guesses and connecting of dots. E.g., the concept that the brain stores and manipulates patterns and this is the key intelligence behind all the senses, and the multiple "levels" of intelligence and how they connect to each other.

I totally agree with your second para (this is another point that is present throughout in the book). Jeff Hawkins did a good job (for me) to distinguish between intelligence and "human-ness". Recreating the human cortex will still leave us _far_ _far_ away from creating an artificial human brain.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Whenever I see these Kurzweil naysayer articles, I always feel like they are overly pessimistic, or short-sighted. Just because problems seem insurmountable now, doesn't mean that they will be in a few years. People always seem to forget about the exponential growth of information technology. If you look at an insurmountable problem in the context of today's technology and speed of discover, then yeah, it will be tough to believe that we'll have sentient machines any time soon. But please do not forget that tomorrows technology will be exponentially better, faster, stronger than what we have today. In five years, the problems outlined in the article may seem like child's play.

<comment><USER13> The hardware may be exponentially better, faster, stronger, but you've still got the same people writing the software. I don't buy the whole "Moore's Law will give us strong AI." - it just feels a bit like Asimov-era sci-fi with "nuclear power will fix everything".

<comment><USER13> To provide a more concrete objection, I'll say that a human-level AI would have to have a general and expandable framework for _learning_ , and I don't think we really have any idea how to build one. Watson is cool and all (and probably the best current counterexample to my point), but it needed a lot of domain experts with doctorates to set it up to "understand" problems in a relatively limited field.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Kurzweil's Discover article says if we build a sufficiently complex machine it will be conscious as fully as humans are conscious. And he says we might do this by 2029.

This blog post says there are all sorts of low-level physical processes in the brain like detailed interactions of neurotransmitters and calcium ion channel dynamics which are super complicated and scary. And it will take hundreds of years to figure it all out and replicate it.

The answer is we don't have to replicate the human brain to create a system complex enough to exhibit consciousness. Modeling is not simulation, we can model a system after the human brain without simulating every last detail.

<comment><USER15> >> Modeling is not simulation, we can model a system after the human brain without simulating every last detail.

Maybe so, but I think the author is arguing that those details are part of the emergent whole; in other words, without them, you might get an intelligence, but a very alien one.

<comment><USER14> Thomas waves his hands and says "the brain is really complicated". He doesn't address how much complexity needs to be modeled, but he implies a lot of it does. Kurzweil says a "sufficiently complex" program will exhibit consciousness. So the rub is exactly what are the essential properties of the brain, and what are the accidental ones or the ones that can be implemented some other way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Is there really a strong argument that human cognition and/or consciousness relies on quantum effects? (That is, stronger than the vacuous argument that _everything_ relies on some properties of a quantum mechanical system, including our computers, by virtue of being made of matter.)

I seem to recall Roger Penrose's argument to that effect a couple of decades ago being soundly criticized.

<comment><USER17> No, there is not. The linked article is vacuous, and the quantum consciousness has not come up with a testable hypothesis yet that explains any observed data better than simpler models.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> We're talking about a guy who believes he will be able to literally resurrect dead people by feeding primitive personality data into an AI which in turn would emulate the deceased. So, yes, he's been wrong for a long time. He has always been simplifying issues to the point where they become absurd parodies. This is not new.

Having said that, I'm glad he's around though. AI and transhumanism are need of a skilled public advocate, which he is.

</comment><comment><USER19> While I instinctively agree with the author's conclusion, I have some questions about his argument.

1) The foundational assumption is that, by "sentient", Kurzweil means "Homo- complete":

        > Because of some of the criteria Kurzweil has set for sentient machines (e.g. that they have emotional systems indistinguishable from those of humans), I like to go ahead and assume that the kind of machine Kurzweil is talking about would have fears, inhibitions, hopes, dreams, beliefs, a sense of aesthetics, understanding (and opinions about) spiritual concepts, a subconscious "mind," and so on.

I'm not sure how Kurzweil feels about that but to me the whole point of creating sentient machines is to achieve human-like intelligence without all hindrances and idiosyncrasies that come with being a human. I'm thinking of a thing like Data (or Spock) from Star Trek. Are these guys not "sentient"? I know they're not real but they don't seem outwardly implausible or self- contradictory.

Furthermore, wouldn't some humans fail to qualify as "sentient" (or, at least, "Homo-complete") based on this definition? What about early homo sapiens? Do we know for sure they had the capacity for schizophrenia or autism? Is it at least conceivable that very early humans lacked the capacity to love in the same way as modern humans? How about future generations? If they find a cure for depression, won't tomorrow's pill-popping, ultra-content humans also be "sentient"?

2) Even if you grant him this assumption, it seems like the author is essentially saying that the only way to be "Homo-complete" is to be a "Homo" (pardon me). That may very well be true and I think the author makes a compelling argument that it is. But I still don't see why being a human is the only way to be "sentient".

</comment><comment><USER20> So in addition to serifs being worthless now Kurzweil is completely wrong! This guy is going to debunk all the truths we hold dear.

</comment><comment><USER21> It is cool to learn about dendrites: [https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:FIejhf3q_y4J:...](https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:FIejhf3q_y4J:www.columbia.edu/cu/biology/courses/g6002/2003/Euler- Denk.pdf+dendritic- dendritic+processing&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESilRTCj0U6DwT-n-- B1QlJo2iUwgo5K1rPheFccDm0c96g48xFlPZoVlJMw00bUeotH6uSEPq_HPrrRjH7DHhK_5-l-zVcwXkgF4-ZWvxF6bGMGFDSsa5-MLyyVd_cxTytyvKAa&sig=AHIEtbRUBN6Mjv0uPjCpkx362m0_7KXeww)

I see now, more intuitively, how the brain's nonlinear triggering might come about, and how plasticity can be achieved.

Isn't it worth noting, however: that the singularity may not require 100% replication of the human brain, but rather replication of aspects of it? In other words, mental illness should not be viewed as a requirement... it should be avoided, if possible, in such modeling, assuming we're developing these models to help run our infrastructure.

Creating an exact replica of a human brain on a machine seems an unnecessary goal. What we want is a machine that can think like us but orders of magnitude faster/broader. That doesn't mean we want it to think like us in every sense, but rather to accomplish specific goals: like the end of poverty.

</comment><comment><USER22> "imagine that you are the subject of some mental event--perhaps you are experiencing an intense pain. Now imagine that one of your neurons is replaced by a silicon chip prosthesis that has the exact same input/output profile as the neuron it replaces. At the core of this thought experiment is the presumption that such a replacement would be unnoticeable to you or to anyone observing your behavior. Presumably, you would continue to experience pain even though the physical realization of those mental events includes a silicon chip where an organic neuron used to be. Now imagine that, one by one, the rest of your neurons are swapped for silicon prostheses. Presumably there would be no change in your mental life even though your brain, which was once made of lipid and protein neurons, is now entirely composed of silicon neuronoids." This thought experiment, first presented by Pylyshyn (1980) does not seem too far fetched today.

</comment><comment><USER15> TL;DR: we are very, very far from understanding the human mind, much less simulating it.

<comment><USER15> I have always thought that SF accounts of intelligent robots were far too hand-wavey.

I predict we'll never have machines with minds like humans. They will always exceed our abilities in certain tasks for which they've been programmed, but will never pass a long-term Turing test; for example, you'll never mistake a bot for a human remote programming colleague, with whom you chat and collaborate on features every day.

I take it as an axiom that the human mind cannot understand the human mind fully, for the same reason that a box cannot contain another equal sized box. The "singularity" requires a series of boxes, each of which contains a bigger one.

<comment><USER23> Out of curiosity, why would you take that as an axiom? Do human minds possess some qualities above physical reality? Are they unknowable in principle? If you answer yes, how did you arrive to that answer? Isn't there a physical experiment or demonstration that will change your mind?

I think the box analogy is flawed. We have certainly come a long way in understanding our own brains and bodies, even in the past couple of decades, and you could've said the same thing about boxes when people were first venturing into e.g. neuroscience.

The model doesn't have to be entirely contained in a human mind either, that's why we have a series of tools to aid us in modeling new tools, layer after layer. A human mind cannot contain a complete specification / working model of a modern computer either (if you think of all the layers involved), but modern computers do exist.

<comment><USER24> That would be philosophical questions.

In addition to that, human minds may possess some qualities above _our current understanding of physical reality_.

And wouldn't the experiment "proving" that we understand it all, precisely, be the creation of an AI equaling or surpassing the human mind?

<comment><USER25> "human minds may possess some qualities above _our current understanding of physical reality_."

While you are free to believe that, you should be aware that you've chosen to leave science and logic behind, and expect to be treated as such. I do not mean that in the sense that you are therefore wrong, or that that is necessarily a bad thing; we must all make choices that leap beyond the light that science can cast, as the light is quite limited in some ways. But nevertheless, you have explicitly tossed anything that can be discussed in concrete terms overboard.

Usually I'm saying this in the context of whether we'll ever have FTL. Yes, you are free to believe that the next supercollider will produce some bizarre result that turns out to be something we can harness for FTL... but meanwhile, in the real world, the evidence gets ever tighter that it is impossible. If you wish to take a flight of fancy, fine, but please be aware that is what you are doing. And do not mistake it choosing to toss rationality overboard for rational argument; you can't have it both ways.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> > ... not only computational capabilities but all the things that make the > human mind human. .. this requires a developmental growth process starting > in "infancy." A Homo-complete machine would not be recognizably Homo > sapiens-like if it lacked a childhood, in other words. .. have the potential > of becoming depressed, .. compulsivities, .. panic, .. addictions, ...

I don't see all that. I don't see why a strong AI would necessarily be equal in emotions to humans and even develop similar behavior.

I haven't read any books by Kurzweil though, so I cannot tell if he makes that requirement on a strong AI.

</comment><comment><USER27> Other great impossibilities: sequencing a human genome in 15 years.

Cost of first human genome: $2.7b

Cost 20 years later: $250.

I think 2029 might be pushing it, but neither would I be surprised. Strong AI is always "20 years away". One day it wont be.

<comment><USER28> That presumption, that strong AI is inevitable, is precisely the point in contention. The fact that it has been a decade away for nearly a half century argues against its inevitability, not for it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> This is spot on, and something I have thought for a long time without the time or ability to elucidate it so clearly.

The complexity of the human brain is not just difficult, not just complicated or hard to understand, it is _several orders of magnitude beyond our ability to comprehend_. IMHO we will need a fundamental leap in our own intelligence before we have the means to comprehend even how the brain works, and one more leap to understand how we might reproduce its behavior.

It's a long way off. People who believe otherwise are doing just that—believing.

<comment><USER30> The bits about the brain using quantum computing are only theories. TMK there isn't any evidence of these theories being true or false.

I would hesitate to use the term 'spot on' when discussing something we know so little about.

What we do know is that by 2030, a standard CPU will be doing somewhere in the neighborhood of 10^19 computations per kw/hr. That capability, presumably on a single chip, will rival or exceed the brain's computational ability, perhaps by an order or two of magnitude.

What we do with that horsepower is up to us coders. Maybe we'll code up a brain. Maybe we'll figure out how to sell you soap faster.

<comment><USER31> Uff, 1st theory =/= hypothesis, 2nd if the brain quantum computation in microtubules is true, 10^19 computations per kw/hr is not going to be nearly enough.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Ellen Ullman's "Programming the Post-Human" from the October 2002 issue of Harper's sheds some really interesting light on AI research, how the brain functions & what it means to be a human. Definitely worth a read if you're interested in the subject & available for free on Harper's site:

[http://harpers.org/archive/2002/10/programming-the-post- huma...](http://harpers.org/archive/2002/10/programming-the-post- human/?single=1)

</comment><comment><USER24> People really ought to read "On Intelligence" if they want to understand how wrong the entire academic AI field is.

It's not just the approach that is wrong. It is the entire mindset that is wrong.

At the same time, people in this field are so wrong that "machines as intelligent as human" may not be that far off because we really cannot be that smart if we have so many experts so wrong in such a field ; )

<comment><USER33> But "On Intelligence" is a subset of "the entire academic AI field". And, for any of its variances from the norm with regards to opinion, it's fairly typical of the "academic AI mindset".</comment></comment>


US embassy closures used to bolster case for NSA surveillance programs - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/05/us-embassy-closure-nsa-surveillance

<comment><AUTHOR> It's the modern-day version of raising the terror threat-alert level to RED.

</comment><comment><USER2> So basically admitting that they completely failed pre-9/11?

> the NSA had identified threats that were the most serious for years and akin > to levels of "terrorist chatter" picked up before 9/11.

At that time it wasn't enough to cause any action, but now the same information is enough to close multiple embassies for a week? There's just no way to frame this news in a positive way for the NSA.

</comment><comment><USER3> The hilarity is that if the surveillance is so good, then why do they need to close 21 embassies? They apparently received a "specific threat" specifically involving over 20 embassies? Doesn't sound too specific to me.

This entire situation is politics. I don't doubt they've received threats and possibly even credible information, but this public show of duck and cover is a farce.

The US needs a really loud scare tactic right about now and this seems to fit the bill (regardless of the validity of the threat.) The funny thing is that I historically have been a flag-waver, although the last few years have put a major dent in my perspective.

<comment><USER4> > The hilarity is that if the surveillance is so good, then why do they need > to close 21 embassies? They apparently received a "specific threat" > specifically involving over 20 embassies? Doesn't sound too specific to me.

It _could_ be a specific threat regarding a plan of coordinated attacks on all of those targets.

Not that I think that it _is_ , however.

<comment><USER3> Very true, it could be, but you're right, it's unlikely. The amount of coordination required for an embassy attack is fairly significant because most embassies in those countries are fortresses, especially in Kabul. In this case, we're talking about over 20 embassies! The man power and communications requirements for such a coordinated attack makes that a threat of almost insane proportions. The likely actual threats (assuming there are any, which is still up for debate) are likely against soft targets. Let's not forget there's a worldwide travel alert as well; threats against specific embassies rarely prompt blanket travel warnings or alerts.

I even received a warden message from the Seoul embassy warning potential "danger." Most travelers don't hang out at the embassies, but closing the embassies is a highly public action that gets more headlines than a non- specific worldwide travel alert.

It's likely this is a public relations/propaganda move, however if there's a real threat this was exactly the wrong way to handle it. A terrorist doesn't even have to do anything to force the United States government to close over 20 embassies. It's embarrassing. It would be like closing down New York city because of a threat. Interestingly, given such a "serious" threat, no messages have been sent suggesting non-essential personal and family evacuations, which would be one of the first things they would set in motion if the threat were so serious.

However, that being said, I hope I'm wrong.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's an extreme political over-reaction to the massive political attacks over benghazi.

BTW Benghazi turns out to be just a CIA front and not an embassy at all.

If the terrorists haven't figured it out already, they now know they can cause mass panic and hysteria by just talking about terrorism without lifting a finger.

</comment><comment><USER6> This is exactly what I thought when I heard about it. I would also expect a lot worse (real CIA terror plots in some countries?), if they feel the anti- surveillance movement grows to the point where it might actually end everything.

<comment><USER7> Do you actually think the US government would engage in false flag attacks against its embassies in the Middle East because they're concerned about a nascent anti-surveillance movement, or are you just saying that for effect?

I cannot even begin to describe how ridiculous I think this is. Alex Jones- esque tinfoil hat fear-mongering should have no place on HN.

<comment><USER3> They don't need a false flag attack. Just the threat of an attack.

"We are at war with Eastasia. We've always been at war with Eastasia."</comment></comment></comment>


Google Adwords Click to Teleport Extensions - <AUTHOR> http://www.google.com/adwords/extensions/teleport.html

<comment><USER2> " Please note that while in beta, there is no "teleport back home" option for users; you are responsible for providing return transportation or calling a taxi for any teleport customer." I hope that recent Domino's project won't be promoted that way [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/8734456/Dominos- pla...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/8734456/Dominos-plans-pizza- on-the-Moon.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> Best April fools'idea!!!</comment>


Drift of the North Pole forces early magnetic map update - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/02/drift-of-the-north-pole-forces-early-magnetic-map-update/ <comment><USER2> Glad I emigrated from the center of that red area of the south Atlantic anomaly. No desire to be the guinea pig of a magnetic hole.</comment>


The $2.2 Million Affiliate Who Wouldn't Let Me Interview Him with Mike Colella - <AUTHOR> http://mixergy.com/mike-colella-adbeat-interview/

<comment><USER2> cf. <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1955263>, particularly the threads by il and patio11.

</comment><comment><USER3> this type of interview makes me wanna start with affiliate marketing although it seems strange to do it. I guess that comes from the bad reputation some affiliate marketers have...

Interesting though my backup plan now is affiliate marketing if all goes down.

<comment><USER4> I have the same feeling - it seems like such a (comparatively) low-effort way of generating income. However, I am always put off by the fact that we are probably too late to catch this boat - can you imagine how many other people listened to that interview and are now researching affiliate programs for eBooks?

It is an interesting idea though, and one that I will throw a few hours at once my startup is a little closer to complete.</comment></comment>


Exercise Increases Brain Size - <AUTHOR> http://neurosciencenews.com/exercise-brain-size-7928 <comment><USER2> This is a met-analysis. The majority of available hippocampal data was processed using FreeSurfer, an outdated and generally inaccurate segmentation method for the hippocampus (Lee et al., 2015; although FreeSurfer is good for cortical thickness and surface estimation). However, given large potential changes due to age-related atrophy, that particular method might be sensitive enough in aggregate.

I've seen lots of older brains in the MRI, and it is not pretty. A lot of atrophy is probably due to cardiovascular-related disease and degeneration. Seeing enough of those brains finally got me off my chair and jogging. I feel great because of it too.

<comment><USER3> cardiovascular disease causes brain atrophy? whats the mechanism supposed to be?

<comment><USER4> Blood flow restriction to the extremities, reduced oxygen supply, cerebral hypoxia, slow-motion brain tissue death.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Title is a little misleading; from the article:

"Our data showed that, rather than actually increasing the size of the hippocampus per se, the main 'brain benefits' are due to aerobic exercise slowing down the deterioration in brain size. In other words, exercise can be seen as a maintenance program for the brain"

Though, the article also says:

"Overall, the results – published in the journal NeuroImage– showed that, while exercise had no effect on total hippocampal volume, it did significantly increase the size of the left region of the hippocampus in humans."

It's a meta review of other articles, with all the caveats such meta reviews come with.

</comment><comment><USER6> Translated from sci-hype-speak: Aerobic exercise can help _maintain_ brain size after age 60.

 _" [T]his meta-analysis found no effects of exercise on total hippocampal volume, but did find that exercise interventions retained left hippocampal volume significantly more than control conditions."_

[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811917...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811917309138)

</comment><comment><USER7> The title normalizes inactivity, which I prefer to consider normal, making exercise abnormal.

Everyone is free to define normal for him or herself, but I'd normalize activity and say lack of exercise atrophies the brain.

Logically the same, but motivates me differently.

<comment><USER8> I read it as normalizing the null hypothesis, which is that exercise _doesn 't_ increase brain size.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> E=MC^2 Move more, be more.

Granted, the article gives you more than a bumper sticker.

<comment><USER10> You lose more energy while exercising than while sedentary.

<comment><USER11> That's short sighted.

Work out more = eat more.

Overtime your metabolism goes up. Then you eat even more. Since energy can't be created or destroyed, you're technically just letting it pass through you –in and out. Since over time, the amount of energy going through your body increases, I'd argue that you gain more energy, both in and out through exercise.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Were you against gun ownership? Opinions changed lately? - <AUTHOR> I'm a gun owner. Have been for many years. And it always pains me when I see people telling me that I _should not_ have the right to own a gun. I see it as short sighted. Now that it is clear the government is spying on pretty much everyone, without permission. I'm curious: Those of you who didn't believe in gun ownership... has your opinion changed at all? Knowing that things aren't always what they seem and that maybe we aren't that far off from other countries where we may need to overthrow the government some day.... would you feel better if you had access to (and it is your constitution given right) firearms? <comment><USER3> Gun ownership has fuck all to do with the "need to overthrow the government some day". That's idiocy, that's lunacy. Go ask the Weather Underground or the Branch Davidians what happens when you have guns and think you can challenge the government.

If you can't defend your desire to possess guns EXCEPT by threatening the rule of law, you have a shoddy argument. The same goes for "home defense". The purpose of rights is not defense against tyranny. If it is, then you're implicitly arguing that it would be okay to take your rights away, as long as there is no danger of tyranny.

<comment><USER3> ps: I'm totally pro-gun. I think gun control arguments are flawed as well. But the pro-gun arguments made, including this one, are usually awful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Violent revolution puts violent people in charge. You're going to just shoot the government with your gun? I think not. Especially not the American government - you'll be blown to bits by a robot. A proper revolution has the military on the side of the people. Join the military if you want to protect your people from oppressive government - that's what it's for. Non-violent revolution is also possible - why is that never considered by National Assault Rifle Association members?

Take a look at Yemen's attempt at non-violent revolution during the "Arab Spring". Yemen is the only country that has more guns per capita than us. What you saw were government loyalists sniping peaceful protestors from rooftops. The same in Bahrain. I worry about National Assault Rifle Association members on rooftops sniping me when it comes time for revolution.

Beat your swords into plowshares.

</comment><comment><USER5> In my humble opinion (and I'm stressing that, I'm not a historian and I haven't studied the subject), successful revolutions that create a lasting, peaceful and prosperous society are mostly the ones that are not won with weapons. Examples include India (Gandhi as the quintessential peaceful revolutionary), the whole Eastern block (East Germany, Romania etc.), South Africa.

On the other hand, revolutions fought with weapons tend to lead to long simmering civil wars (Afghanistan, many African nations), or oppressive governments (Cuba, Libya, Iran).

Sure, there are counterexamples, the US being the main one, but I think that is a somewhat unique setting (emigrant colonists).

</comment><comment><USER6> It's interesting that you've asked this question, because I've seen an odd parallel between privacy laws and gun control laws:

There's a segment of the population that feels an inherent human right to knowledge/guns. Another segment of the population is worried about threats to their privacy/safety. Only a rare fringe argue that knowledge/guns are inherently evil, but it's also a rare fringe that admits that knowledge/guns can't be used for evil. For instance, I could use (data mining)/guns to (find southpaws to kill)/(kill southpaws I find). Those in favor of knowledge/guns tend to argue that the threats posed by knowledge/guns can really only be combated by more knowledge/guns. For instance, knowledge/gun advocates argue that the only real security comes from using knowledge/guns to (locate threats)/(shoot threats). Privacy/(Gun control) laws fundamentally restrict our ability to gather knowledge/guns.

Now, I'm not arguing that what the NSA did was right. I'm pissed that the NSA spent my tax dollars collecting this beautiful data sent and won't even let me read it. I want to start data mining every e-mail you've sent, every website you've visited, and every location your cell phone has been. If the thought of me doing that makes you uncomfortable, you now know how I feel about your guns.

Of course, I don't begrudge you your guns. Just because they make me feel uncomfortable doesn't mean that you lose your rights to own them. In the same way, I hope that you respect my right to gather your personal information, even if it makes you uncomfortable.

</comment><comment><USER7> I am not exactly pro-gun or anti-gun. America is obviously founded to protect freedom of the individual and I believe everyone has the right to at least go to a local gun range and have fun shooting things, it's fun as fuck. At the same time I believe every gun that is sold should have background checks done and the owner to go through psychological tests as well as extensive safety courses.

Everything in moderation.

</comment><comment><USER8> I continue to believe firearms are toys for their owners. Useless other than conveying a false sense of personal power to certain personalities.

</comment><comment><USER9> I would rather argue for infinity, than injure or kill another human being.

<comment><USER10> Would you rather die than kill? Would you rather let someone else die than kill?

I know good people who would answer yes to both, so I'm not judging - <USER2> asking.

<comment><USER11> I would want to say yes to both, and I might, right up until the moment comes. At that point I don't see myself saying yes any more, especially if it involved family.

So though I say yes, I also know it is most likely a lie, or just wishful thinking.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: A viable approach for cell phone privacy? - <AUTHOR> Lately we've seen multiple stories about major carriers selling location information,  spyware apps,  etc.
Could the espionage principle of a "cut out" be used to protect cell phone privacy.  It goes like this:
Customer A aims his phone number at a VoIP gateway controlled by company B.  Company B gets a cell phone and plan in the name of Company B and leases it to Customer A.  Some kind of relaying happens between the customers phone number and the actual phone so there is no connection between A's cell phone number or other personal information and the phone.
Presumably the phone is locked down and doesn't allow installing apps from open App Stores to prevent spyware from getting in.
Is anyone doing this now?  Would Company B encounter insurmountable barriers in terms of doing this? <comment><USER2> Sounds like Google Voice.</comment>


Ask HN: How to Decline Cofounder Requests? - <AUTHOR> Hi, I am a male technical solo founder who has founded startups before and am working on a really exciting project. As a solo founder, I feel like a single girl who everyone is hitting on. How do I decline cofounder requests? <comment><USER2> > How do I decline cofounder requests?

Are you signalling that you are looking for cofounders?

Does your project page/contact page say "Thank you for your interest in being a cofounder but I'm currently not interested."?

</comment><comment><USER3> Keep saying "no thanks" and stay strong. You don't owe them a reason or anything. You know you've got a good idea and you're on the right track when everyone wants to simply ride on your coattails!</comment>


Freebase Hack Day in SF - <AUTHOR> http://freebasehackday.eventbrite.com/

<comment><USER2> I'm really looking forward to this. The last one was great.

</comment><comment><USER3> Freebase FTW yeah!</comment>


10 Mistakes Small Businesses Still Make Online - <AUTHOR> http://fulldime.com/blog/10-mistakes-small-businesses-still-make-online

<comment><AUTHOR> If anyone has any feedback, it would be highly appreciated!</comment>


Is us-east-1 network issues again? - <AUTHOR> <comment><AUTHOR> for the past 30 minutes we've been experiencing network issue on us-east-1. This happens more and more lately. AWS status page is green</comment>


Walking and Talking Behaviors May Help Predict Epidemics and Trends - <AUTHOR> http://news.psu.edu/story/413617/2016/06/06/research/walking-and-talking-behaviors-may-help-predict-epidemics-and-trends <comment><USER2> Travel patterns mapped before, during and after events helps predict future spread patterns.

Search-engine queries and pharmacy sale histograms by SKUs, especially with geolocation metadata, are vital for pandemic and bioterror surveillance.

</comment><comment><USER3> Url changed from [http://phys.org/news/2016-06-behaviors-epidemics- trends.html](http://phys.org/news/2016-06-behaviors-epidemics-trends.html).</comment>


Ask HN: How many hours per day do you spend on Hacker News and Reddit? - <AUTHOR> <comment></comment>


Noteleaf (YC W11) Takes Mobile Meeting Notifications To A Whole New Level - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/03/noteleaf/ <comment><USER2> Congrats, super simple sign up and great VxD.

When will you offer SSL on your account create / login forms?

I'm hesitating connecting my Gmail, Google Contacts, Google Calendar.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, we'll be adding SSL to the account create / login soon. It's very high on our current list of things to do. :)

<comment><USER2> Sweet!

I noticed you are using Woopra, how is that working out?

<comment><AUTHOR> Every time someone loads a page, a circle explodes out of where the person's located.

It makes the world look like an earthquake zone.

Beyond that, it's pretty good. I can things coming in live, which is nice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> holy shit, i just got super excited about this. if it works as advertised, it will be absolutely amazing. i would easily pay for it.

</comment><comment><USER4> Ah! That's just like a side project my old startup and I had called "Fready." Basically Fready gives you news on the people you are meeting with before you meet with them. It uses NLP to pull out any names/companies/locations from a google calendar event to give you pretty relevant news. Here is an old blog post about it: <http://blog.getfready.com/> Perhaps we should have pitched it at our YC interview...

Unfortunately I took it down recently but it might be a good time to bring it back.

<comment><USER5> did you use a particular ranking function for information retrieval or text analysis like bm25? i'd be curious

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Congrats, guys! I'm really happy for you. It's been amazing to see how you guys have kicked ass over the past two years.

I'm still got that $40 waiting for you to fix my email problem, though. :)

</comment><comment><USER5> congrats jake and wil! this solves a problem i have nearly every time i meet with someone new. i'll look them up on facebook and linkedin, i'll try to figure out more about them or at least get a picture so i know who i'm looking for. noteleaf makes this a lot faster and easier. it's one of those problems that's not excruciating, but it's so repetitive that it becomes very annoying to do manually.

i'm not sure how much you've thought about making it easy to remember things about people but that's still a pain point for me.

<comment><AUTHOR> We started with remembering things about people, and found that the simple way to do that was to take notes.

However, note taking has such a high barrier to entry, that we ended up pivoting here. However, I think there's different ways about it that we'll play with down the line if we revisit the topic.

<comment><USER7> Since you already know when I'm meeting with someone, I would love to be pinged shortly after the meeting and prompted to add some notes while it's still fresh in my mind. I'm not very good at taking notes during meetings, but would love to be able to record a short summary afterwards (with the recording being saved with metadata about which meeting it applies to - having this would have been invaluable to me in certain situations in the past)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think it's strange that the meeting location is at the very bottom, below all the contextual info. It seems that should be higher.

</comment><comment><USER9> Perhaps the best and the worst thing for the app are interdependencies on other apps/service like Gmail and LinkedIN.

I am sure they will be adding other email services as well as Outlook support. Let's face it a lot many people are still stuck to Outlook/MS Exchange servers for office emails.

</comment><comment><USER10> I recognize the "frame" graphics on the homepage from keynote. Very scrappy - good quality design accents with nearly 0 time or money. I like it.

</comment><comment><USER11> Congrats guys and great TC article. I had a hard time conceptualizing Noteleaf until I read the article. Brilliant.

</comment><comment><USER12> Congrats Jake and Will! Great progress since last time i checked noteleaf! Must be YC gave some great feedback :))

</comment><comment><USER13> Congrats. You can shave for PDay now.

</comment><comment><USER14> Congratulations Wil! I love the pivot.

</comment><comment><USER15> Congrats Wil!!! I still remember mobtropolis man

<comment><AUTHOR> Haha, thanks. I still have the domain, but I haven't put it back up. It's on Rails 2.3.8, and I haven't had a chance to port it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Congrats will!

</comment><comment><USER17> Congrats guys!

</comment><comment> old-gregg Congrats guys!

</comment><comment><USER18> awesome job Jake & Will!</comment>


LSD – My Problem Child (1980) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://maps.org/images/pdf/books/lsdmyproblemchild.pdf <comment><USER3> I once took a "hero dose" of 1500 units, (15 ministamps) as my first dose - <USER2> used LSD 3 times after that.

My first experience was ... very holy. Time stopped. I had hallucinations of spider webs weaved into my visual space, and it mixed with sunlight. I felt i was eternal.

I understood what love is, and what grief is, and why (bear with me now ..) if god would to exist, he would have been the loneliest thing, and in his grief and loneliness, he gave birth to otherness, and here we are. I was my own mother, i was my own father, i was everything that ever was, and i did it all because i had one moment of terrorizing loneliness that i (as god) couldn't take.

It was all for me, a show i put on to entertain my eternal self, i thought about death and i felt immense gratitude, and i suddenly realized how scared everyone else must really be ... i felt extreme grief and love for my parents.

My other experiments, at much lower doses just made me feel anxious. I watched the joker on 400 units, and I nearly cried. it was extremely intense and jarring. I generally find that LSD will amplify your base emotions, sort of like turning a volume dial to max.

It's a drug to be respected, the kinds of convictions it can generate in the human mind are intense and the impression they leave is significant.

Its definitely not something i would lightly take, or take often, but am thankful for trying.

<comment><USER4> I don't know the dose and will ask, but your experience matches my only experience and I hadn't looked into it before. Everything resolved to one entity, which was almost nothingness at the same time. As a solipsist, the experience and events leading up to it, including the peers that appeared to be guides, remain with me today. This was something I read leading up to it, [http://www.galactanet.com/oneoff/theegg_mod.html](http://www.galactanet.com/oneoff/theegg_mod.html)

This video, during the experience, now defined as my most manic episode, was ... [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYWOdtReCVw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYWOdtReCVw) It's hard to define.

<comment><USER3> Yes! This is how my time loop began! Everything collapsed into one thing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I've did LSD quite a bit in college. When it goes right it's unlike anything you've ever experienced, when it goes wrong it's... unlike anything you've ever experienced.

For anyone thinking about trying it, i'm not going to say you should or should not. Just understand, you're dealing with something poorly understood and incomprehensibly powerful.

<comment><USER6> I think everyone should experience it in some way. I hate the hazy feeling of being "high"-high, but there's a depth to LSD which I find incredibly fascinating. I think the mystique and non-communicability of the experience add to that. Lots of oxymoronic phrases come to mind.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Many more related books here:

[https://www.erowid.org/library/books_online/books_online.sht...](https://www.erowid.org/library/books_online/books_online.shtml)

<comment><USER8> Thanks, anyone considering taking any drugs would do themselves a great service to look it up on erowid first at the least. It doesn't have all the information, but it has enough to make a decently informed decision.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> My experience with drugs is limited to stuff like mdma and cocaine. I've always wanted to try a powerful psychoactive / hallucinogenic but I have issues with depression and I've been told if you have mental issues LSD and their like can make them much worse! But I've also heard they can be great for people with depression / self asteem issues.

Honestly, despite them being safer than other drugs with regard to things like addiction... They kinda scare me! In ways that harder drugs don't!

<comment><USER7> _" I've been told if you have mental issues LSD and their like can make them much worse!"_

That's the usual received wisdom. However, back in the old days there was some research in to treating various mental disorders with LSD. Here's an example of treatment of childhood schizophrenia with LSD and psilocybin: [1]

LSD has also been used to treat alcoholism (with the most famous case being that of Bill Wilson, the founder of Alcoholics Anonymous).

All of these studies were done decades ago, so I'm sure contemporary scientists would have lots of objections regarding their methodology, ethics, and so on. But the early studies do show promise, and I hope one day these avenues of research will be further explored with modern tools.

Even now there is ongoing research in to using psilocybin to treat depression and end-of-life anxiety in cancer patients.

Of course, it is important to note that such research was in to using psychedelics in a therapeutic setting, with trained, experienced therapists, and not just haphazardly taking psychedelics to "get high", "party" or "have a good time". The results of haphazard use without proper guidance, particularly for people with mental health issues, is likely to be far riskier.

[1] - [https://maps.org/news- letters/v07n3/07318fis.html](https://maps.org/news- letters/v07n3/07318fis.html)

<comment><USER10> To add to this, Michael Pollan (author of Omnivore's Dillema and a Berkeley/Harvard prof) recently published a lucid account of the history of psychedelics and 'psychotomimetics' (as they were originally named, owing to their perceived ability to mimic psychosic) with the title 'How to change your mind' [1].

In the book, Pollan details the recent renaissance in clinical psychedelic research to treat depression and help terminally-ill patients. The hope is that the 'noetic quality' of psychedelic trips--a term coined by William James in the context of religious experiences--can help pierce through the defences of one's ego. This 'noetic quality' refers to the perception that a psychedelic trip feels like 'total reality'; a series of 'revealed truths' rather than drug-induced illusions. This bears resemblance to revelatory experiences in religious contexts and the two are intimately tied in many Shamanic practices.

By inducing a long-lasting feeling of transcendence, researchers hope that psilocybin et al. can act as a more direct way to short-circuit destructive patterns of thought and help one come to terms with death (as opposed to, or in conjunction with, traditional therapy).

Pollan writes that in controlled settings with a trained guide, 'bad trips' are quite rare, though they can occur.

[1] [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/36613747-how-to- change-y...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/36613747-how-to-change-your- mind).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> >Experiments on mice with radioactively labeled LSD have established that intravenously injected LSD disappeared down to a small vestige, very rapidly from the bloodstream and was distributed throughout the organism. Unexpectedly, the lowest concentration is found in the brain. It is concentrated here in certain centers of the midbrain that play a role in the regulation of emotion. Such findings give indications as to the localization of certain psychic functions in the brain.

The Irony...

</comment><comment><USER12> Why would copying an entire book be fair use?

<comment><AUTHOR> >Note: LSD, My Problem Child appears in this library under the "Fair Use" rulings regarding the 1976 Copyright Act for NON-profit academic, research, and general information purposes. Readers requiring a permanent copy of LSD, My Problem Child for their library are advised to purchase it from their book supplier.

<comment><USER13> I wonder if that really would hold up in court, were the Hofmann estate to sue.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I wrote a comment here attempting to appeal to a specific segment of Anglo- American intelligence and knowledge. I actually expected to receive upvotes, social currency, and acceptance, but instead the opposite effect occurred. As a result of having processed the event after a long amount of time, I decided to apologize for any disruption of intended human activity and for my presumptions: I apologize for any disruption of intended human activity and for my presumptions. I promise to do better next time as I learn to interact with your valuable Hacker News society and culture.</comment>


U.S. Orders China to Close Its Houston Consulate in 72 Hours - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/22/world/asia/us-china-houston-consulate.html <comment><USER2> I'm not sure how to interpret what's happening between the US and China at the moment - especially from a business perspective...

If I'm a US company operating (i.e., selling) in China, should I be worried? What if I don't operate in China but have outsourced manufacturing/coding/whatever there - should I seriously be looking at relocation?

<comment><USER3> The DOJ just recently brought charges against two Chinese hackers selling information to the Chinese. If I had to speculate this location somehow was involved. However, that's just a guess.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> What are your guys' thoughts on the fire? Link to news report below. They're stating that the consulate members tried to burn down some sensitive documents. Seems really odd that you would use fire over a precision shredder in 2020. Looking to hear other perspective on this. Definitely some strange times we're living through currently.

Link: [https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/22/us-orders-china-to-close- con...](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/22/us-orders-china-to-close-consulate-in- houston-texas.html)

<comment><USER5> For paper, burning is fast-ish and makes sure nothing can be recovered, still good tradition. As far as I know embassies etc even sometimes have safes with included fire charges that burn the contents on button-press.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> In terms of diplomatic escalation is this higher or lower than expelling diplomats?

<comment><USER7> I think higher. You can always send other diplomats but you can't make a new place for them to crash.

<comment><USER3> There are multiple consulates in the US though. They server a different function compared to embassy, but there is overlap.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Election is coming up and somebody is tanking in the polls. Some good old saber rattling and stoke up the fervour.

</comment><comment><USER9> Seems like the pot is calling the kettle black and waiting to blast it for its retaliation. I wonder which way we will spin it. Fun times, this was probably going to happen earlier if not for covid. What really kicked this off? Was it when they stopped accepting the world's garbage? Cant recall if we were poking them this hard before that..</comment>


Show HN: A global survey of when people think the pandemic will end - <AUTHOR> https://covid19guess.com/ <comment><USER2> JUNE 2021</comment>


Oz, from Eran Hammer-Lahav (core contributor to OAuth) - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/hueniverse/oz

<comment><USER2> > A web authorization protocol based on industry best practices, putting > mobile and native apps first.

funny. OAuth was initially invented in order to fix the problems of _web applications_ having to store end-user credentials, so putting the web first.

For native apps, we've long have the problem solved by just doing BASIC auth.

OAuth was in-fact always problematic for native applications (embed web views, very easily mitm-able) and it always left a sour feeling in my mouth that it's more about controlling your API clients ecosystem than it is about increasing the security for the end-users (see twitter)

<comment><USER3> Basic auth doesn't solve most of the problems OAuth attempts to solve, namely not having to give 3rd parties your password, and more fine-grained permissions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Can this not be named Oz? Oz is the name of a perfectly fine programming language.

<comment><USER5> There aren't any GitHub tickets on the repo at the moment, so if you hurry, you may be able to get this renamed to Issue 1.....[1]

[1] For those who don't get the (admittedly poor) joke: <http://code.google.com/p/go/issues/detail?id=9>

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Although I am very excited to see what Eran is going to build, and I am glad someone posted this so I can follow it and perhaps contribute to it if it becomes clear that it is indeed worthwhile, isn't it kind of rude to post someones project to HN before he has even put up a decent README.md?

No one can gain anything from this post except the knowledge that Eran is working on it, if that wasn't already clear from his past blog post.

Not to make this comment all whiny, do you guys think Eran stands a chance in making Oz become as popular as OAuth?

<comment><USER5> > Not to make this comment all whiny, do you guys think Eran stands a chance > in making Oz become as popular as OAuth?

Do I think anybody else stands a chance of making something as popular as OAuth? No - as jklio pointed out, there are already alternatives that are likelier to catch on, not to mention OAuth 2.0 itself.

However, if anybody has a chance at adding a new contender to the mix, it's Eran.

Whether or not he will is another question - it'd be hard to judge either way until the project is further along.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> After the horrible mess that is OAuth, is anyone really expected to give this a second look?

<comment><USER8> Yes. Because OAuth takes aim at an important problem area, so having a better go at it is important.

<comment><USER9> The barn OAuth aimed at is entirely unscratched.</comment></comment></comment>


Building a tiny ARM-based server - <AUTHOR> http://users.softlab.ece.ntua.gr/~ttsiod/arm.html

<comment><USER2> Well done, OP.

I forsee Apple and Google (and Microsoft?) devices will increasingly be aimed solely at consuming content. This will be the "interactive television" of the future.

If you haven't noticed, it is not easy is it to turn an iPad into a router/server. Perhaps it was not meant to be. It is an "interactive TV", for sharing and consuming content. These type of devices are not under the control of users; they are ultimatly controlled by large corporate interests, in the same way that TV is the medium of government and large corporations. That is not "revolutionary", just business as usual.

As such, I posit that it is another computer -- the computer that retrieves data from the internet and sends the content to your TV-like device -- that is the most interesting, and hence the most "revolutionary". That is your router/server. The OP, a programmer, calls it "one of [his] best hacks."

This I believe is the "PC" of the future. The "PC" was at one time a revolutionary device that brought the power of computers, once reserved only for those who could purchase and administer mainframes, to the home and business. Where would Apple, Google if not for the PC revolution?

I believe the home router/server (not your beautiful form factor, high priced device) is, going forward, the "PC" of the future. This is the device that you can program for free, that can run open source software, including an open source OS of your choice, that you the user can fully control, and where real innovation can occur. This is where the "PC revolution" can continue.

The OP says he does not see why there should be a separation between programming and administration (e.g., a subset of programming that, allong with basic networking know-how, allows the user to install and configure her own "server" at home).

As a user, if I could only master one and had to choose between the two, I'd pick administration over programming. This is because I feel it is more useful to me as a user (like the OP, "one of my best hacks"). As such, I am biased toward administration and believe if there is to be another "PC revolution" I believe it should be focused on the home server/router and, if so, must be lead by those who can at least administer computers performing these crucial functions.

<comment><USER3> I agree that the "curator" role you're describing will be important, but I doubt it'll come in the form of user-programmed home servers.

Sure the techie types will always want to get into the nitty-gritty, but my mom can't even set up a router, let-alone program it.

I think the future is cloud-based (ugh, buzzwords, but true) services like IFTTT ([https://ifttt.com/](https://ifttt.com/)) that let non-technical users manipulate content/events without touching code.

<comment><USER2> It is the "techie types" I'm focused on. They are the ones who drive progress in computing, not your mom.

When every device in your home is connected to a public network, I imagine that you, a techie type, are going to want some control over what and how those devices communicate with the public network.

That control will not likely come through the device (at least, not easily, anyway). However it could come through your router/server.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> ah- After being not very satisfied with OpenWRT on a router as a fileserver (it's great overall, but file transfers are just too slow), I'm now using an IFC6410 as my home server.

It doesn't use much more power than the linked NAS device, but comes with basically the same hardware as the Nexus 4, on a nice board with all those useful connectors. Quad-core 1.5 Ghz CPU, 2GB of RAM, SATA and Gigabit ethernet.

<comment><USER4> This is something I am looking for to experiment with. Where did you buy your IFC6410? I keep looking for a source of ARM based machines where I can play with Linux or Android...but in a different form factor than a phone (Something I could put on top of my rack), and a little more power than a Raspberry PI.

<comment> ah- I bought mine directly from inforce ([http://www.inforcelive.com/index.php?route=product/product&f...](http://www.inforcelive.com/index.php?route=product/product&filter_name=ifc6410&product_id=53)). There are a few similar boards like the odroid-xu, but the IFC6410 is currently the only one with both SATA and real gigabit ethernet, not something attached via USB. And it uses the GPU with the best open source driver support ([https://github.com/freedreno/freedreno/wiki/Ifc6410](https://github.com/freedreno/freedreno/wiki/Ifc6410)), so it runs the full Gnome 3 desktop and even weston/wayland.

There's a small community forming around the board, so there's some degree of support available. But currently it's not comparable to what's available for the Raspberry PI, you still need decent linux skills to set it up. But that's half the fun anyways.

<comment><USER5> Thank you!

I've been looking for something to replace my Dreamplug for a while and this might do it

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Great post!

On a side note, for the newer (not the newest) edition of the WD My Book Live (and its 2-disk brother My Book Live Duo) NAS device, the OS is a full- featured Debian already, and you can easily enable SSH to login and `apt-get` almost everything you want. The processor is a MIPS one, though, not an ARM one, which might affect the availability of Debian packages. However, I've heard the newest edition called WD My Cloud NAS runs on an dual-core ARM processors.

People who are less hardware-hack-oriented (like myself) should definitely give those a try.

<comment><USER7> Or you could buy a Beaglebone Black. I did the exact same project above, with more memory and way faster speed for $49. I just nfs-mount my drive instead of using the onboard SATA.

<comment><USER6> I looked at the alternative ARM boards too, but unfortunately they are only 100Mbps ethernet, which is really slow for a media server :(

Any ideas of boards with gigabit ethernet?

<comment><USER8> Also worth checking that the hw is good enough to fill a gigabit connection. Many of the cheaper machines (for instance, the WD MyBook World, like in the article) cannot really sustain gigabit disk<->network transfers. The limiting factor is often the CPU or a slow bus connecting the NIC, hard drive and CPU.

<comment><USER9> Some hardware (such as the raspberry pi) has its network speed limited by the usb network adaptor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Great post. I've got an old WD MyBook lying around, I should try and get some use out of the thing.

You don't have to hack it too much in order to get a 'full' linux on there. You can enable SSH access on the system via the web UI. From there, you can set up a simple packaging system to install most other common binaries (and a functioning build environment to add anything else)

Take a look at: [http://mybookworld.wikidot.com/optware](http://mybookworld.wikidot.com/optware) for instructions.

</comment><comment><USER10> This is pretty cool and (disclaimer) the reason I started Amahi: running a low power home server for my media.

If you are interested in this space, join the Amahi community! People interested in building hardware are especially welcome [https://www.amahi.org](https://www.amahi.org)

Edit: one person asked how to join - there's the forums and there are the github repos to contribute[2]. There is also the developer mailing list[3]

[1] [https://forums.amahi.org](https://forums.amahi.org) [2] [https://github.com/amahi](https://github.com/amahi) [3] [http://sourceforge.net/p/amahi/mailman/amahi- devel/](http://sourceforge.net/p/amahi/mailman/amahi-devel/)

</comment><comment><USER11> FYI the freedom box project had a list of hardware you can buy for this type of thing. It sounds like raspberrypi 's raspbian project isn't really considered a Debian in their eyes, and instead the ones on list run a purer Debian than the pi.

[https://wiki.debian.org/FreedomBox/TargetedHardware](https://wiki.debian.org/FreedomBox/TargetedHardware)

</comment><comment><USER12> nas-central.org is full of useful information about hacking with different NAS hardware. It helped me install debian with a custom kernel on my Lacie NAS without even opening it up.

</comment><comment><USER13> Great post, OP. Always love this type of HN content the most.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! I really enjoyed building the thing :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> As someone who doesn't own a soldering iron, I've found the $35 Raspberry Pi board [1] [2] [3] to be an excellent choice as a low-cost low-power general- purpose ARM-based server.

It also has a number of GPIO pins, UART, i2c and SPI, which may be of interest to those who do own soldering irons :)

[1] [http://www.raspberrypi.org/faqs](http://www.raspberrypi.org/faqs)

[2] A model with no Ethernet is available for $25, but Ethernet is kind of non-optional for a server :)

[3] The price doesn't include power supply, case or boot media.

<comment><USER15> While we are plugging fun toys I'm going to piggie back on your comment, for those who don't own a soldering iron the Weller WES51 [1] is great! Extremely high quality, great selection of tips, very durable and reliable. You get by far the most for your money with it. The price is low enough for a hobbyist but the quality is high enough for some professional work.

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000BRC2XU/?tag=googhydr-20&hvadid=...](http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000BRC2XU/?tag=googhydr-20&hvadid=27113928363&hvpos=1t2&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=2823871302008355468&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_4h0bek3vqx_b)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is all very cool, but I can't help but think that it would be easier to get a used 12" HP 2530p for ~$150, install 2 hard drives inside it, install whatever distribution of Linux you want and connect it via its fast Gigabit port.

Less headache (though not as fun!), more storage space, less latency, more processing power at a still very low power consumption :-)

</comment><comment><USER17> Always agreeable to see a link from softlab.ntua.gr high in the HN front page!

<comment><USER18> any .gr would do the job for me :-P

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Are there any suggestions for a low-energy (possibly arm) server with raid 1? I guess software raid over USB would not be very satisfying, right?

<comment><USER8> Synology NAS servers will do that. Many of them are ARM-based, they run Linux - albeit a cut-down version, but there are add-on package managers to install more stuff (and SSH access is available without any hacks). They are quality IMO. However, they are not cheap hardware.</comment></comment>