JPEG image glitching / corruption - <AUTHOR> http://snorpey.github.io/jpg-glitch/ <comment><USER2> This is interesting in terms of information theory. When you compress information you are basically figuring out the pattern behind something, and encoding that pattern instead of the entire image. For example, PNG which assumes that pixels are more likely to be the same or similar to the pixels above or to the left of them. So you only have to encode how much difference each pixel has to it's neighbors, rather than the entire value of every pixel.

If you were to randomly corrupt a highly redundant format, like a bitmap, it would just change a few pixels. On more compressed formats like JPEG it seems to affect the entire image, and in very specific ways (mainly the color of every block of pixels after the point that was corrupted.)

If you corrupted a perfectly compressed image, it would give you a different image entirely, possibly of something very similar. I.e. if you had a image format very good at compressing faces, corrupting it would result in a different face entirely, not randomly misplaced pixels or colors. And the face would be similar to the original, maybe with stuff like a different nose type, or an extra freckle.

The corruption is revealing what kinds of assumptions it is making about the content.

<comment><USER3> I never thought about it that way, thank you!

It makes me wonder what audio format could be fun to corrupt this way. FLAC, maybe?

<comment><USER4> FLAC would probably be a bad example, since it is lossless. It makes fewer assumptions about the content of the audio file, since it anyway has to encode all of the noise and minor stuff. Making too many assumptions of the content would only necessitate a facility to introduce specified noise into the audio later. Which I can't imagine would be both fast and small.

<comment><USER5> I don't think it has much to do with the fact that it is lossless, but rather that it does not compress in a suitable way. In the scheme of things outlined by GGP. Whether such scheme implies lossy is a question that needs to be demonstrated imho.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Anyone got a jpeg un-glitcher? I'm thinking of a tool to fix these sorts of minor corruptions in the jpeg bitstream. The tool would load up the corrupt image, let the user visually select where the glitch starts by clicking the first "weird" looking pixel and then iterate through different values until the user says the picture looks better. Rinse and repeat.

<comment><USER7> Its doubtful that the image can be recovered. The information really is gone. I suspect it would be easier to make it simple to have redundant copies of the data, rather than trying to fix the images after they're gone.

<comment><USER8> If it's only a single bit that's toggled, you can just iterate through all the bits until you find one that fixes the image after you flip it.

<comment><USER9> For a 1MB JPEG, that'd be over 8 million different images.

<comment><USER8> If you could point to a region of the image where the corruption begins, you would reduce the number of possible images significantly.

<comment><USER10> That sounds plausible. Another idea: choose a section of "bad image" and a section of "good image" which should have similar colours and then generate mutations of the corrupted DCT square until you have a close match between the two areas.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I want something that can do the opposite of this. I have a bunch of old photos that are messed up where the bottom half is pink or offset or something else. I just haven't had the time to dig into the spec to figure out how to undo it.

<comment><USER12> It's just a huffman code. When you encounter an undecodable sequence of bits you can skip bits until you find the next symbol (i.e. the stream is decodable starting from current position + X bits), then just guess which symbol it was that you skipped. The symbols are a run length encoding of quantized zigzaged DCT coefficients of (usually) 4:2:0 YCbCr. Wikipedia has details and the spec is readable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> My method for doing this involves writing gibberish into or deleting content from a jpeg opened in HexFiend

[http://ridiculousfish.com/hexfiend/](http://ridiculousfish.com/hexfiend/)

It's very trial and error, but the results can be fun when you screenshot each progressive glitch and then gif them together to get stuff like this:

[http://24.media.tumblr.com/4d77ff1ee75c119a03cac1eb90952505/...](http://24.media.tumblr.com/4d77ff1ee75c119a03cac1eb90952505/tumblr_mm6z85Xi841rszypmo1_400.gif)

Neat that someone automated the process, though.

<comment><USER14> After a fair amount of trial-and-error hand editing I devised a simple Ruby script to auto-glitch.

[https://gist.github.com/Neurogami/6208325](https://gist.github.com/Neurogami/6208325)

Later I combined this with another script to gather up the generated images and create an animated GIF.

An example: [https://plus.google.com/107781042718674753240/posts/icwnoyHY...](https://plus.google.com/107781042718674753240/posts/icwnoyHYNTE)

<comment><USER13> Very cool! Going to check this out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Here's a subreddit dedicated to producing (or locating) interested corrupted images: [http://www.reddit.com/r/glitch_art/](http://www.reddit.com/r/glitch_art/)

<comment><USER16> Also [http://www.reddit.com/r/brokengifs](http://www.reddit.com/r/brokengifs)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> While on the subject of JPEG in JavaScript, I made a web page[1] to repeatedly encode an image in order to bring out the artifacts. (Works "best" on text.)

[1] [http://minimul.ro/enricher](http://minimul.ro/enricher)

<comment><USER18> This cheats a little by shaking the image, though. Without that you're hitting a fixed point much earlier, with less dramatic results.

<comment><USER17> I don't call it cheating... I call it simulation of the effects of cropping.

But seriously though, I was quite was surprised by how little is lost if you repeatedly encode the same image. Then again, it makes a lot of sense if you look at how blocks are encoded.

<comment><USER18> There was a nice article about that: [http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/355-How...](http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/355-How- I-Met-Your-Mother-Through-Photoshop.html)

Turns out, not every JPEG encoder is identical in that regard and Photoshop destroys more than others.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> When I arrived to New Zealand, from a trip to US (California mostly), my hard disk turned to be damaged. I managed to restore only a small part of photos. Only less than 10 % photos turned out to be unaffected by a specific digital effect (it is clearly seen in the post). In the beginning I got upset (that is why I did not post that long) but after, perhaps, the tenth view of the half- damaged photo archive I started to notice interesting frames.

[http://travelwithacam.com/glitchy-san- francisco](http://travelwithacam.com/glitchy-san-francisco) [http://travelwithacam.com/glitchy-death- valley](http://travelwithacam.com/glitchy-death-valley)

</comment><comment><USER20> That's actually pretty nifty, and shows what a little bit of corruption does to an image.

Hopefully more systems will start shipping with checksumming file systems by default. Even better if they have error correction.

I still have some of the first MP3s I ripped back in the late 90s. They still play, but it sounds like a scratched CD. HDDs aren't as robust as we'd like to think.

<comment><USER21> Have you had those MP3s on the same disk since the 90s? That would be the only practical way that bits would flip.

<comment><USER20> They've been across about 4 different disks. I copy using SCP, so it's unlikely that the corruption happened over the network, most likely it was between the CPU and disk as it was being read/written.

<comment><USER22> Another possibility is that the encoding program did something slightly non- standard which is no longer recognized by modern decoders?

<comment><USER20> It's possible, but I'd expect modern decoders to be more resilient to out of spec files.

I'd share them, but copyright and all that.

<comment><USER6> A couple of things you could do.

Get an mp3 error checker and see if it has anything to say about the particular files.

You also might want to grab EncSpot Pro (free, for windows) to figure out exactly what codec you used. Chances are that if the codec was buggy, then it's been documented such a google search on the specific codec and version will probably turn up people talking about the known errors.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> This technique is often used as a puzzle in ARGs[1]. It reminds me especially of I Love Bees[2]. Bits of plaintext data were added to jpgs on a supposedly- corrupted website[3], which then had to be combined in the correct order. As well as fitting the theme of the game, it's a good puzzle since the corruption gives a huge visual clue to investigate the image and it's relatively easy for anyone to load it up in notepad and find the 'hidden' data.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternate_reality_game](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternate_reality_game)

[2] [http://www.wonderweasels.org/apiary/guide.htm](http://www.wonderweasels.org/apiary/guide.htm)

[3] [http://www.wonderweasels.org/apiary/guide1b.htm#killer](http://www.wonderweasels.org/apiary/guide1b.htm#killer)

</comment><comment><USER24> Nice :-) One can do something akin to this by using Radamsa -- [https://code.google.com/p/ouspg/wiki/Radamsa](https://code.google.com/p/ouspg/wiki/Radamsa) (shameless plug) -- to fuzz bitmaps. Similar imagery is common when fuzzing browsers with image-containing samples and can be quite mesmerizing to observe. Fuzzing other media formats (such as MIDI or audio files) can also yield "interesting" results.

</comment><comment><USER25> You can find lots of great looking ones here: [http://www.reddit.com/r/glitch_art](http://www.reddit.com/r/glitch_art)

</comment><comment><USER26> hah! [http://glitcher.korny.cc/](http://glitcher.korny.cc/) \-- i made this a couple of days ago as well :p

</comment><comment><USER27> Nice concept and experiment! In a similar vein, reminds me of this curious JPEG glitch [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3937885/cross-browser- inc...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3937885/cross-browser- incompatibilities-in-decoding-jpeg-files)

</comment><comment><USER28> Probably can take this to the next level and make a cool effect with javascript such as a noise effect.

<comment><USER29> Or play this along some electro music, and adjust the glitch settings based on the sound levels...

<comment><USER30> This sounds like an awesome afternoon project!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I did the same thing with video over here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6350463](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6350463)

</comment><comment><USER32> My first thought was "oh, this could be used for art" (I recall Trent Reznor used to route music through broken speakers to get a certain effect)

</comment><comment><USER33> This is so cool. The really surprising part to me is that sometimes the glitch is much _more_ noticeable when you increase the quality.

</comment><comment><USER8> I've always wanted to create something like this as a video editing effect plugin. Very cool.

<comment><USER22> Check out music video Chairlift - Evident Utensil. I don't feel like they took advantage of the effect in any meaningful way in this video though. I also seem to remember another one with a similar effect.

<comment><USER8> Looks like applying the motion vectors from one video to the starting conditions from another, which sometimes happens when fast forwarding with a buggy video decoder or a glitchy video.

I wonder, could you do this just by chopping I frames from one video with B and P frames from another?

<comment><USER34> That (removing I-frames) is exactly what they were doing - the technique's called datamoshing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> [http://asdf.us/imbreak/](http://asdf.us/imbreak/)

</comment><comment><USER36> This is a cool movie effect in scenes with poor telecommunication is projected.

</comment><comment><USER37> This is a blast to play with.

</comment><comment><USER38> HxD lets you fill bytes with random data, making it an easy way to fuzz files.

</comment><comment><USER39> Fuck you for making this, I'm serious. You ruined my pseudo-art tumblr now.

<comment><USER40> It is sickening. You may now feel entitled to rage about hacker privilege misappropriating glitch culture and the injustices against those _without_ the choice of unbiased data that have to make do with corruption, a reality with no digital integrity net to fall back on, when you need bits to be determinate or a file "format" that stops being forgiving just when you need it most. There is an invisible underlying source of so-called "malfunctions", yet the author of this tool, emphasizes a convenient transformation/generation of "error typical" data and contrasts it against subjective compliance with a file "format", projecting a rigid labelling, totally side-stepping these issues and the subsequent injustices.</comment></comment>


How to thumbnail an image in real-time (line by line)? - <AUTHOR> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5916865/how-to-produce-thumbnails-in-real-time

<comment><USER2> This needs a "what are you really trying to do?"

<comment><USER3> I would guess on the fly optimizing for mobile/etc devices, shaving up to 100s of kilobytes off page sizes in a best case scenario - zoomed right out where all the images are really tiny, without the delay of having to wait for them to fetch the completed file first.

Another interesting approach would be to not only resize them like the guy's doing but to patch it all together into a spritesheet along the way - on the fly transformation of 30 requests/120kb of images becoming a single request for the shrunk down, merged version.

Even outside of mobile it could "speed up the web" by optimizing & resizing uncompressed or resized-in-html images everywhere.

It sounds like it has some really interesting applications.</comment></comment>


Illinois judge: law barring recording police is unconstitutional - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/03/illinois-judge-law-barring-recording-police-is-unconstitutional.ars <comment><USER2> Very related case: [http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-08-25/news/ct-met- ea...](http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-08-25/news/ct-met- eavesdropping-trial-0825-20110825_1_eavesdropping-law-police-officers-law- enforcement)

"In the recording, which the one juror said was replayed several times in the jury room, Alejo was heard explaining to Moore that she might be wasting her time because it was basically her word against that of the patrol officer. Alejo also said they could 'almost guarantee' that the officer would never bother her again if she dropped the complaint.

"'When we heard that, everyone (on the jury) just shook their head,' juror Adams said in a telephone interview. 'If what those two investigators were doing wasn't criminal, we felt it bordered on criminal, and she had the right to record it.'"

</comment><comment><USER3> Of course it is.

Now try filing a complaint about the police, but you have to go through the police to do it - good luck with that. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8v7lF5ttlQ>

No online form, no independent civilian agency, no state or federal oversight - they make you go through them, and you most certainly do not want to do that (warning that video is going to make your blood boil halfway though).

<comment><USER4> >Now try filing a complaint about the police, but you have to go through the police to do it - good luck with that.

If city police officers intentionally violated one's rights, one can sue the offending officers (and the municipality [1]) in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (However, under Supreme Court case law, officers have qualified immunity for honest mistakes.)

>No ... federal oversight - they make you go through them

You can file a complaint with the US Department of Justice. <http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/polmis.php>

It is true that police officers get away with too much misconduct, but it's not true that there is no independent oversight whatsoever.

[1] _Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Svcs._ , 436 U.S. 658 (1978).

<comment><USER5> _under Supreme Court case law, officers have qualified immunity for honest mistakes_

And thus, police agencies have incentive to keep their officers ignorant about the rights of the people. If the police are never taught the law, then any "mistake" they make is clearly the result of ignorance rather malicious intent. But if they're properly educated, then they'll be responsible for their own actions.

<comment><USER6> Ignorance of the law is not a valid excuse, ever. What's your point?

<comment><USER5> _Ignorance of the law is not a valid excuse, ever. What's your point?_

No, and that _is_ my point. Government agents enjoy qualified immunity. They aren't personally responsible for their actions if they can show that they were ignorant of the law.

(and since you weren't aware of this, I think that demonstrates that it's an important point to make)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Continuously stunned by the general acceptance of the public to the right of secrecy of those entrusted with the power of life and death over them. Police should be continuously monitored from the moment they pick up their pistol in the public service until they are off duty.

<comment><USER8> I'm not too keen on that. They should have some privacy when they aren't interacting with the public. Nobody wants to be taped while they are eating, or discussing things with a colleague. And the more unpleasant it is to be a police officer, the worse officers you'll get.

However, they should monitor themselves (with video) whenever they are interacting with the public. This helps them gather solid evidence. If they "forgot" to turn on the camera, or "lost" the disk, the judge and jury should be asking why.

<comment><USER7> Absolutely agree. I meant for 'on duty' to imply public interaction. Public servant labor should be as transparent to the public as humanly possible.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Class 1 felony charge? Something's wrong with law enforcement in Illinois... or I guess slightly less wrong now. But how does this kind of BS pass muster in the first place.

<comment><USER10> Two reasons:

1\. The proponent of the new law wants the support of the police union, appear to be tough on crime, and point to his support for law and order in the next election. 'Protecting people' -- with a subtext of 'people like you, my campaign donors'.

2\. The rest of the legislators are either in on party lines, want to show law-and-order support, or just didn't pay attention. Yes, I'm serious about that last bit.

When was the last time you heard of laws being repealed voluntarily rather than being found unconstitutional? Massachusetts' knife laws read as though the person who wrote them had just been watched a 1970s martial-arts film marathon and called it research. In New York you can sell slingshots that you can't legally possess.

Look at the incentives for legislators: they're not well-aligned with the goals of having a good government, no matter what you think that means. All the incentives are to pass more legislation or to score political points that bear little resemblance to what ordinary rational citizens want.

It's not just Illinois.

<comment><USER11>
      > When was the last time you heard of laws being repealed

For the most part, laws aren't 'repealed' anymore. They just pass a new law that says the old law doesn't count anymore, making the legal code even more obtuse.

<comment><USER12> On occasion I've idly wondered about what would happen if you started enforcing a relatively strict '1 in, 1 out' policy.

There must be plenty of crap on the books that either is completely outdated, subsumed by other more recent statutes, or could be implemented as an amendment to another item.

Extreme refactoring! (also potentially life imprisonment if you fail a test- case)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I reviewed the Illinois law a while back -- if you even had a security system on private property you were breaking the law. I imagine that a large percentage of Illinois' business were being run by non-convicted felons.

</comment><comment><USER14> Couldn't have come at a better time, with the G8 and NATO summits taking place in Chicago this summer. Should be a fun time.

</comment><comment><USER15> There's no expectation of privacy in public area. I thought that has been pretty well established.

<comment> steve-howard There's no expectation of sanity in Illinois. I hate living here.

<comment><USER15> Haha, but Illinois will set a precedent to lead the rest of the country in this case. Kudos to the judge.

<comment> steve-howard I wish I could agree, but I doubt it. It's a matter of state law for one, and for another,

" In this particular case, however, Judge Sacks seemed to declare Illinois' law unconstitutional not because it's a citizen's right to record interactions between the police and the public, but because the law was too far-reaching. "

i.e. the judge is saying the law is unconstitutional not because the cops should be held accountable, but because it has the potential to criminalize almost any recording made in a public place. The article in the Sun-Times linked says the legislature is trying to fix the root problem, which is good. Pisses me off to see the police unions pushing back, even though it's to be expected.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This sort of story helps restore my confidence in the justice system. Even when stupid (well-meaning, whatever) legislation like this gets passed, it eventually gets challenged and thrown out.

<comment><USER17> Agreed. However you'll notice the reasoning for the lack of constitutionality was the reach (and the example of capturing side conversations at the soccer game was good) not the intent.

Some original legal theory behind the 'one of the participants is ok with it.' was based on the notion that this person could also testify to it (being a participant). I would really like that reasoning to be re-asserted more widely but that has yet to happen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Doesn't matter. Given the authoritarian manner the US federal government has been acting lately pretty much guarantees some sort of ban on recording authorities at "international events" will be in effect for Chicago G8 meeting in May. And when the shit inevitably hits the fan they'll just use the revolt as an excuse to implement similar nation-wide bans.</comment>


Show HN: Favicon Kit – get and embed Favicons from any web site (CDN and API) - <AUTHOR> https://faviconkit.com/?ref=hackernews <comment><USER2> Very interesting service! As an aside, I would love to know how someone can afford to run "30+" edge servers for a personal SaaS project. It seems that there will be a paid plan — but for such a niche service I wonder if it's sustainable long term. I ask because:

1) I may be looking for static content cdn(s) in the future for a personal project (would love recommendations!)

2) I would love to know how much money people are spending infrastructurally (at least in the beginning) to kickstart their projects

<comment><AUTHOR> Good question MVorlm, thanks!

1) Static CDNs

We live in a wonderful time where CDNs are essentially free for small projects. I use CloudFlare for almost everything, simply because it's so easy to set up, it gives you a free SSL endpoint, it allows you to use naked domain names (faviconkit.com instead of www.faviconkit.com) and it just works well. The HTML is hosted on Github Pages, which is also free.

1a) Number of edge servers

CloudFlare: 151 [https://www.cloudflare.com/network/](https://www.cloudflare.com/network/) CloudFront: 117 [https://aws.amazon.com/cloudfront/details/](https://aws.amazon.com/cloudfront/details/) KeyCDN: 30+ [https://www.keycdn.com/global-cdn](https://www.keycdn.com/global- cdn) Google Cloud CDN: 90+ [https://cloud.google.com/cdn/](https://cloud.google.com/cdn/)

There are a few unique aspects of Favicon Kit specifically - the setup here is a tiny little bit more "sophisticated", which is why I chose Key CDN for the API itself.

2) Money spent on infrastructure (at least in the beginning)

\+ Favicon Kit used to run on Heroku until recently, so I spent a few bucks on their hosting and CI plan. (It now runs on AWS Lambda) \+ I have a paid Github account. \+ CloudFlare is free. \+ KeyCDN so far cost me < 100€

<comment><USER3> Can you say a little more about the reason you chose KeyCDN over CloudFlare or the other providers. What features are you using?

<comment><AUTHOR> Sure!

Favicons change very, very rarely, so they are perfect candidates for caching; fast extraction and caching are core features of Favicon Kit.

It was mainly the fact that Cloudflare does not cache by MIME type, but by file extension ([https://support.cloudflare.com/hc/en- us/articles/200172516-W...](https://support.cloudflare.com/hc/en- us/articles/200172516-Which-file-extensions-does-Cloudflare-cache-for-static- content-)) and/or would require page rules ([https://support.cloudflare.com/hc/en- us/articles/11500320685...](https://support.cloudflare.com/hc/en- us/articles/115003206852-Origin-Cache-Control)) to honor cache-control headers. (It's been a while since I've made that decision, so I hope I'm remembering the reasons correctly!)

KeyCDN was simple to set up and their pricing was equally simple and very reasonable, so I ended up staying with them.

I hope this answers your question, JohannesH!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Or use Google: [https://www.google.com/s2/favicons?domain=twitter.com](https://www.google.com/s2/favicons?domain=twitter.com)

<comment><USER5> Unless that endpoint can also return other resolutions, Favicon Kit offers more:

[https://api.faviconkit.com/twitter.com/144](https://api.faviconkit.com/twitter.com/144) [https://api.faviconkit.com/twitter.com/16](https://api.faviconkit.com/twitter.com/16)

(Though, I will say, the URIs returned for Twitter and the image sizes don't actually align in those cases. The first is actually 192ˣ192 pixels, and the second is 32ˣ32 pixels. That seems odd. Maybe they should have endpoints like domain/large, domain/medium, domain/small?)

<comment><AUTHOR> Great feedback, thanks.

The number after the domain is meant to be "this or the next greater size"; the actual size depends on what the source web site offers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Really cool! One minor nitpick: A loading indicator might be nice, especially if you're switching between domains.

The large icon can take a while to load and you can end up in an inconsistent state where you see a mix of the old and new input.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks timvdalen, that's good feedback - I'll add this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm curious what a use-case for this service would be. Why would I want to use some company's favicon for my own website?

<comment><USER8> Any service that stores/indexes information linked to a domain could use this to increase the recognition factor for the customer when listing a set of domains.

A great example is 1Password, when you type in the url of an account, it fetches the favicon and displays it when listing your accounts, making is very easy to quickly scroll and recognize what you want.

<comment><USER9> Yet it feels like this is something you could just build a library for in your web app. I'm sure there are favicon pullers/cachers for every language out there. I know tt-rss has one for it's RSS job.

It seems like something silly to depend on an external service for.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Pretty cool. I tried bestbuy but it gives a broken image. Not sure if you do any scraping but bestbuy tries to prohibit it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for reporting this great edge case, hotpockets!

Did it actually give you a broken image? It's supposed to return a "B" on a grey background in such a case.

<comment><USER10> [https://screenshots.firefox.com/t5VF86dioR3EBaNX/faviconkit....](https://screenshots.firefox.com/t5VF86dioR3EBaNX/faviconkit.com)

<comment><AUTHOR> Ouch, that's a sting in my pride :) Fixing!

<comment><USER11> I think part of the issue is that, when you return a fallback icon (the B icon in this case), you serve it with an HTTP 404 status.

In Firefox (and possibly other browsers), the browser will not attempt to render images returned with a 404 status. Changing it to return a 200 status should work.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is fixed now. Thanks again, ldjb!

<comment><USER10> Can I suggest at least attempting the default favicon location, like bestbuy.com/favicon.ico?

<comment><AUTHOR> It does do that, actually.

I'll check this on the weekend; very curious what's causing this. Will fix & let you know.

Thanks for your feedback and suggestion!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Good project. Just wanted to say that your own site doesn't have a favicon.

</comment><comment><USER13> Nice, I've been looking for something like this for my new tab page extension. Will it remain free after the beta? How does it compare to [https://github.com/mat/besticon/](https://github.com/mat/besticon/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Glad to hear iza, thanks for the question!

There are/have been a few free and open source alternatives out there. I built Favicon Kit because I wanted something fast, scalable and - most of all - reliable.

Most of the free alternatives vary in features, disappear after a while or just become inactive (even besticon's Heroku demo).

Favicon Kit wants to be the sustainable, reliable, solid, production-grade service for favicons.

There will eventually be a paid plan which guarantees availability for paying customers.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do you navigate a new codebase? - <AUTHOR> Let's say you want to contribute to a large open source codebase like rails, or openssl. How do you go about learning the ins and outs, are there any tricks? <comment><USER2> There was a previous discussion here on HN that covered this in depth. You may find it interesting:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9784008](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9784008)

In short, top-voted strategies include:

\- Try to find out "hotspots" in code using some scripting (e.g. [https://github.com/gilesbowkett/rewind](https://github.com/gilesbowkett/rewind)). According to user tessierashpool on the last thread:

> we tend to view files in a list, but in reality, some files are very > central, some files are out on the periphery and only interact with a few > other files

So, finding out where most things happen in the project is a good way to get up to speed.

\- "Deep-diving": starting from a high-level point (say, the moment you type _ssh-keygen_ on your terminal), go down the subroutine rabbit hole. You're likely to cover a lot of ground this way.

But really, read the previous discussion, many many great strategies shared - many of which I already used before reading that discussion and some I've incorporated since.

</comment><comment><USER3> I try to find the place I need for the feature I want to add. If I can't find it then I ask. If I don't have a feature I want to add I ask myself why I'm looking at the code.

</comment><comment><USER4> Look at the tests and see what breaks them.

</comment><comment><USER5> openssl and rails are two completely different set of circumstances. For the former, you should look into unix debugging tools like `gdb`. You can trace the execution of the program line by line

</comment><comment><USER6> printf :-/</comment>


Millions in Middle East Lose Internet - <AUTHOR> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/31/internet.blackout.asia?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront <comment><USER2> And, Internet services badly affected in India - <http://www.rediff.com/money/2008/jan/31net.htm>

</comment><comment><USER3> Anyone here seeing their site numbers drop as a consequence of this?</comment>


The Financial Sector Is the Greatest Parasite in Human History - <AUTHOR> http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2014/03/financial-sector-greatest-parasite-human-history.html <comment><USER2> The problem isn't the financial industry. Or, rather, the financial industry is only a special-case of the problem. The problem is middle-men. Specifically, it's the fact the Internet has made a certain class of people, whose job it was to take money from people and give it to people who need money (in exchange for a cut) obsolete.

The financial industry is the man-in-the-middle between lenders and borrowers. The recording industry is the man-in-the-middle between listeners and artists. Auto-dealerships are the man-in-the-middle between car companies and car buyers. Realtors are the man-in-the-middle between home buyers and home sellers. In every case, these used to be vital services in a pre-Internet, pre-cheap-communication world. But now, they all look like parasites, simply because we don't need their services any more. And, instead of refocusing their business around providing information and helping the market clear, all of these industries are trying to carve out regulatory havens that would allow them to continue business as usual whilst imposing higher costs on the rest of us. It is this rent-seeking behavior that makes them parasites.

<comment><USER3> It's funny how the Internet only become widespread about 20 years ago, yet we need people like you remembering us how it was like before.

It's amazing how fast we changed, and how fast we got used to it.

<comment><USER2> They funny thing is that I'm only in my 20's :) It's not that I necessarily remember how times were before the Internet (I was but a child then), but I study a lot of history in my spare time.

So maybe everyone needs to sit down and read a few books and think about how different life was when you couldn't just look up whatever you wanted to know in a matter of minutes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The financial sector provides no services? What?

If I want to sell my company, the banks sure as hell provide a service. They provide a valuation, put together a pitch book, shop the company around and close the deal.

How is that not a service?

<comment><USER5> You can provide a service that is a net loss overall, but still a benefit to a few. It's the tragedy of the commons.

Let's make it simple and say there are two villages. Some people in village A decide to start raiding crops from village B, because they find they can steal crops more easily than growing them, so stealing is a net benefit to village A.

Village B, noticing the theft, decides to start paying some farmers to defend the village instead of farming. This is a positive outcome for Village B, because the cost of their new security force is less than the cost of the stolen crops.

Ostensibly there are two positive outcomes; both sides now maintain a security service and find themselves at an equilibrium.

But if you look at Village A and B together, you'd see that they'd both be better off if there were no raiders and no defenders and could concentrate on farming. The overall drain on society gets worse as the situation escalates.

Imagine that Village A decides to create more thieves to overwhelm B's security, and that turns out to be profitable.

Now imagine that this exact thing is taking place, at every scale, millions of times a day.

Let's say I'm competing with Dave to buy a house we both want. The only thing holding that price down is our collective willingness not to borrow huge sums of money to outbid each other. Let's say the bank starts to offer a 60 year mortgage, so that Dave can outbid me by shackling himself to a loan he probably won't pay off in his lifetime. Dave is a moron, so he does that. It's a free country.

Dave, in this circumstance, is acting like Village B, where he shoots himself and the rest of society in the foot by dedicating most of his future income to paying a bank in order to get a short term gain and win a house bid with me.

But the real winner in the scenario is the bank, not Dave.

Edit to add: I believe the article was talking about "service" in terms of the overall gain to society, not the individual services that a bank typically provides, many of which are completely legitimate like helping you sell a business.

<comment><USER6> What is unjust or inefficient about your example with purchasing the house?

Should Dave not be allowed to borrow money to own a house? Should only the wealthy, with sufficient cash reserves, be permitted to buy a house, without financing?

If you don't value the house as much as Dave -- on a net present value of the future payments you have to make to own it -- why should you have it, instead of Dave?

Should real estate prices be capped, by a central planning board, so that Dave cannot borrow too much to own it? If so how does the seller choose who to sell to, between you and Dave? Who says the house is worth X, and not Y, when Dave is happy to pay Y?

Or is it unjust that Dave likes the house enough to commit much of his future income to it?

Why is Dave a moron? Because he disagrees with you on what to use his future income for? Should you be able to tell Dave what to spend money on, and what not, out of your view of what is socially efficient?

Perhaps not just you; you could get a few of your neighbors together and call a vote on what Dave can spend his money on. Based on social utility, of course.

But to go back to your example. Suppose you choose not to outbid Dave, because you are smarter, and instead opt to rent an efficiency studio and save up over your life and build a sizable amount of investment assets (because you did not spend frivolously on a large house). As you age, you look for your savings to work for you, because you were smart enough to defer consumption and now you feel you should be rewarded.

Where to put your assets? There are many choices. Should one of them not be the option to lend Dave's son, Dave Jr., money for his own house, in return for a level of interest to compensate you for use of your capital? But that's a pain to find the borrower and vet him, and risky if it's just relying on Dave Jr (who may be a moron like his father).

What if there was an agent you could pay, who would originate the loan, check that the title was valid, check Dave Jr.'s credit, author the loan documents, and then provide it to investors like you -- or even bundle them together, so that you could spread risk of default over a few different mortgages, instead of just one?

That would be great -- you could earn a return on your saved capital, and Dave Jr. would get what he wants too (even if you disagree with what he should want)!

Ah, but of course, agents like that are just parasites. So instead of reinvesting your saved capital with someone willing to borrow the money, you stuff it in your mattress.

To make society more efficient.

<comment><USER7> The prices of things are not what they are worth, but what the market will bear.

The 30 year mortgage allows a rich man to outbid you on the home that you want to buy to live in, a property that he has no personal interest in, so that you can pay interest on the money you only had to borrow so that it could not be loaned to someone else, such that they could afford to pay more than you. That money pumped into the market only serves to raise prices. Houses are built larger and more expensively than they otherwise would be because the buyers are able to pay more.

If there were no mortgage loans available, the market would be producing a greater number of cheaper homes for sale, and a greater number of rental homes for investors, with more economic separation between those markets. The rich man outbidding you for property would have to actually assume ownership of it, and would shoulder some risk of carrying vacant rental units. Venturing into property-owner-land as a rentals investor would evoke a nasty NIMBY response.

Believe me when I say that it is possible for every person in America to own their own home, even with just a single minimum wage job for the whole household. But it isn't bloody likely, thanks to mortgage lending, zoning laws, and building and occupancy codes that completely eliminate entire classes of low-cost housing as either unprofitable for developers or outright illegal.

This same phenomenon is now occurring in higher education, wherein loans inflate the price, the product remains essentially the same, and the buyer is saddled with an enormous burden of debt. Debt is a trap laid by the wily for the foolish. But it persists because the practice nestles snugly into a Nash equilibrium. The practice is not at an absolute maximum, but neither player alone can improve his position by making a different move.

The only way for the erstwhile borrower to win is to form a cartel able to punish anyone who takes a loan to pay for a good or service too scarce to supply everyone in the cartel. In other words, non-rich folks win by regulating the hell out of lending, to reduce the number and amount of loans available.

<comment><USER8> OK, so loans taken for purposes of speculation on scarce goods are a Bad Thing. But loans taken to build up real infrastructure and support innovation still seem to be a very valuable service that the financial industry provides.

<comment><USER7> And they have leveraged this one valuable service into a massive industry that, while still engaged in the valuable service, has also branched out into destructive parasitic services. One cannot remove the parasite, because no effective alternative exists for the necessary and valuable function.

So what is to be done? The only plan likely to work even a little bit would be to establish a government bureau of capital and infrastructure investment, such that if the financial industry vanished overnight, the small businesses engine would not putter out. But such an agency would be an obvious target for lobbying, regulatory capture, and personnel rotation to and from the financial industry.

They have us over a barrel, and they know it.

If lending were abolished entirely, people who would otherwise lend would be forced to buy shares, with all the associated risks of ownership.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Bigger than government? Arguably at least the military and internal-to- government overhead is a direct parasite on everyone else, and its only value is fighting other parasites (other governments). Some parts of government seem to be very useful, but it's a big enough sector that just the parasite parts are probably the biggest parasite.

<comment><USER10> yes. why even bother to argue your point? while a lot of government spending might not benefit you directly, the odds are that someone out there is getting some kind of service from it. Also, a sizable fraction of government money is going to salaries of middle-class workers. They, in turn, are likely to spend that money on things you might consider useful or neat, thereby helping the overall economy. The process might be inefficient (or less efficient than a perfectly executed and fictitious counterpart) but that doesn't make it a parasite.

<comment><USER9> The military part is negative-sum for the world.

A competent engineer designing weapons, even if he makes $150k to spend on food/cars/etc. and support those people, is still depriving humanity of the $100k to near-infinity of positive contribution ("consumer surplus") he could be making, some of which he'd capture as additional expected income, if he worked on something genuinely useful to humanity.

The only reason we have a military is to protect from other militaries; therefore, militarism is a parasite.

<comment><USER11> What has DARPA done for me lately?

Money seems to be an excellent motivator, but when death is on the line people seem to embrace a little more out of the box thinking. Rent seeking and collusion to avoid innovation seem to be problems with both the money and violence types of power.

<comment><USER12> "What has DARPA done for me lately?"

How about the internet?

If that's too last-century for you, you can look forward to the benefits of DARPA funding the development of the basic tech and Open Source software that's driving the rapid development of robots right now.

<comment><USER11> Easy tiger. The point was not all military spending is a waste.

<comment><USER9> Useful side effects for sure, but even if you took away the direct non- financial costs of the military (non-zero chance of nuclear armageddon...), I think there are things we as a species could work on which would produce the same kind of competitive, focused effort. The "space race" accomplished a lot, and consumer IT tech (say, mobile phones) has progressed even faster than military tech (outside maybe an existential war like WW2).

<comment><USER13> I don't disagree with your wider point that their are other useful motivators out there but it's worth noting that the space race was militarily motivated. Sputnik flying overhead effectively showed the soviets had/would have the ability to drop bombs anywhere in the world. Even the space shuttle was influenced in design by militaristic influence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Who keeps pushing this meme? If anything, the worst parasites are lobby groups and politicians.

<comment><USER15> It's a populist call to arms. You'll be seeing a lot more of it over the next few years, expanding ever more loudly toward the rich, wall street, bankers, and corporations, with calls for much higher tax levels and minimum wage. The Fed's asset bubble-based fake recovery did absolutely nothing for the bottom 50%, but has _vastly_ increased the wealth of the top 10%, the future social consequences of that are obvious.

<comment><USER16> Indeed. If you take a populist rant like this, and replace keywords like '1%', 'rich', 'banker' with words like 'Jew','Semitic' and 'Zionists' \- you start to get an appreciation for how ugly these latest movements really are through the lens of history.

Do I mean that some of the public policy choices of the last decade are beyond criticism? No, definitely not. 'Too big to fail' is a terrible phrase because it calcifies economies and entrenches bad practice.

But the latest meme of 'if you're rich you're a parasite and should be stripped of your property' is disturbing for me. It lumps a class of people into a 'generally bad' category without looking at specific problems. There are angry young people out there who have been fed a simplified story and are running around with 'eat the rich' style placards. That is worrying to any ordered society.

<comment><USER17> To be fair, the actions of many (not all) of the rich in this country have brought it on themselves. When the middle class is stagnant or declining, and the wealthy keep getting richer and richer, then the populist rhetoric will take root.

And who can blame them exactly? When wages are stagnant, income inequality is rising, most companies have little-to-no loyalty to their employees and discard them at will, and many of the rich and comfortable push relentlessly towards eliminating the safety net, then those at the bottom are going to feel more than a little resentful. They feel ignored and powerless, which is a correct assessment of their position.

While not all the rich are bad, it's very hard in the current climate to have the slightest bit of sympathy for them. They, as a class, have the power to change things and avoid the coming storms, but, they've already shown they're not the least bit interested in addressing the immense financial inequalities and the problems to an ordered society caused by such divisions.

<comment><USER7> If the rules of the game seem rigged against you, there is a great incentive to either stop playing or to cheat. Some people don't seem to realize that a _gigantic_ portion of everybody's wealth in developed nations is the ability to go out in public without fearing for the loss of your life, liberty, or property.

When you intentionally cultivate a class of people with little to lose and much to gain by brutal and violent action practically on your own doorstep, you are very likely to be hoist by your own petard. If I were a billionaire, I would be quite certain to conspicuously make myself an obvious asset to the whole community, particularly with respect to the folks that might be thinking of me as they rescue mostly-edible food from garbage containers. Public relations are important, if you wish to be a man that is not an island unto himself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Just like the transportation industry parasites, all the finance industry does is move things around. Neither makes anything. /s

</comment><comment><USER19> Warren Buffett's Gotrocks anecdote is an interesting take on this: [http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/05/news/newsmakers/buffett_fort...](http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/05/news/newsmakers/buffett_fortune/)

</comment><comment><USER20> The military has been worse historically surely? At least the financial sector has some function you'd miss if they didn't exist - banks, insurers etc are useful although I'll give you that about half their activities are parasite like. I'm basing that number on Krugman [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/opinion/27krugman.html?_r=...](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/opinion/27krugman.html?_r=1)

<comment><USER11> It really depends. Traditionally, the US navy was to stop pirates from screwing with US exports. IMHO it was a pretty effective policy. we pay taxes, our stuff gets to new markets.

Iraqi oil is apparently doing nice things for XOM, not sure if they payoff will be worth the price. Afghanistan seems like a loser. There's nothing there we can take to pay for the war.

<comment><USER21> Reviewing the history of the US's first six frigates is a very interesting take on a lot of sides of this issue.

<comment><USER22> Can you elaborate?

<comment><USER21> The conflict between the desire not to have a Navy and the problems being caused by pirates presented interesting arguments for both sides. The conflict generated the conditions to build the 6 frigates.

[http://www.amazon.com/Six-Frigates-Epic-History- Founding/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/Six-Frigates-Epic-History- Founding/dp/039333032X/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> If the scandals described in this article and Taibi's articles are the result of a few bad actors, and if the result of these scandals is a broad perception on the part of the public that the entire financial sector is corrupt, then Goldman Sachs should be interested in policing its own.

I wonder if G.S. feels unable to police itself, or maybe they feel the aluminum story is not a problem, or that what they did was harmless. I don't know what they think about what they do. I can't really blame below average people for cheating -- they're not good enough to win playing by the same rules as everyone else.

But if I'm to draw a circle around the corrupt people should I draw it around a piece of G.S., or around the whole company. It seems like the scandals keep happening, and that market manipulation such as laddering and hoarding are considered by the financial industry as another way to make money.

If the financial industry isn't greased entirely on deception, then I'd like to know what percentage is deceptive and what percentage is figuring out a hedge plan for e.g. BMW's exchange rate risk. I can see how billions can be made one way, but I don't see how billions can be made the other way.

</comment><comment><USER24> Maybe it's just me, but the maths seems strange.

I just quickly glanced at some figures, like "Have they earned it?", and it seemed wrong.

The author says the total return for say Barclay was 12.61%.

bc -l running in a terminal disagree

Taking 100 as the base value to ease our math:

100x1.112x1.0825x0.9452x1.1088=126.156497322240000

That's a 26% something cumulative return in 4 years. What is this 12.61% meant to represent?? The average per year was closer to 6.5% if that's what he meant.

(Edit- replaced the * by x and added an =)

<comment><USER25> >The rule of thumb is that hedge funds charge a 2% per year management fee and keep 20% of all profits,

>All returns shown are net of fees

So, subtract 20% from the 3 positive numbers, and that's about 6% in fees (this may be off by a bit, I'm quickly approximating the math in my head). Subtract another ~8% for 4 years of fees, and that's about 14% combined fees. 26% - 14% = 12%. Seems to be about right.

The author could have made the way he calculated the fees more clear, but his point stands that a huge % of hedge fund profits go to fees.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> The article doesn't address the question: Why has the GDP share of the FIRE sector recently grown so much so fast?

If its growth were the result of increasing authentic demand for financial services, or increasing efficiency in the supply of financial services, then that would be OK. However, I see three main bad reasons for the recent explosive growth in the FIRE sector:

1\. Their cost of borrowing is artificially low. They don't need depositors anymore. They can borrow limitless funds from the Federal Reserve now at 0.25%. Their real borrowing rate is actually negative if we're honest about inflation, rather than relying on fabricated government numbers that leave out housing, healthcare, food, fuel and education.

2\. The Fed is creating artificial demand for financial products. After the 2008-9 crisis, the Fed has created $3T out of thin air and used half of it to buy mortgage backed securities.

3\. Over the last 30 years, the federal government has shown its willingness to bailout failed financial institutions that took on too much risk-- We saw it with the S&L crisis of the 1980s and 1990s; we saw it with the 1998 bailout of LTCM; and we saw it again with the $700B TARP in 2008.

If we would simply allow the free market (rather than The Fed and federal government) to determine interest rates, and the demand for securities, and the appropriate level of risk appetite, then we'd see the FIRE sector shrink back to its historically low share of GDP. Page 37 of this paper by Thomas Philippon charts the growth of the US Financial Industry as a share of GDP from 1860 to 2007: [http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~tphilipp/papers/finsize_old.pdf](http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~tphilipp/papers/finsize_old.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER27> Thanks HN! Although, there is an element of overcompensation in finance, as well as a lot of overconfident people with more testosterone than knowledge, it still does provide hell of a lot of services. I'm happy to see that the HN crowd doesn't really "just believe" whatever is said in that article. True, I agree the management fees are high. However, the argument about HFT is basically "kitchen level" of someone who doesn't know a thing about it and just read some blogs and watched something on TV. HFT firms get paid for providing liquidity in the market. How exact that happens is actually easy to understand, but not many people bother. All these stories about front running "fair investors" are almost a complete fake (there was some issue about flash trading but that has gone away now).

</comment><comment><USER28> "The Financial Sector" is too broad to make a statement like that.

</comment><comment><USER29> That brush is so broad it's blocking out the sun.

</comment><comment><USER30> "The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits or be so dependent upon its favours that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests" .- Self

<comment><USER31> Fake, according to [http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Conspiracy](http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Conspiracy).

<comment><USER32> Even if it is a fake quote, the point it makes is true.</comment></comment></comment>


Golang Sucks - <AUTHOR> http://www.golang.sucks/ <comment><USER9> Better if parent had linked to the source: [https://github.com/ksimka/go-is- not-good](https://github.com/ksimka/go-is-not-good)

<comment><USER10> Yeah the motivations should be read first.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> This seems very counter-productive.

A quick find-in-page, also reveals a skew towards older articles. Some of these might not be relevant anymore.

2012 - <USER2>

2013 - <USER3>

2014 - <USER4>

2015 - <USER5>

2016 - <USER6>

2017 - <USER7>

2018 - <USER8>

2019 - 0 (© 2019 GitHub, Inc.)

<comment><USER12> It does raise the question if there's less complaining now because older issues have been resolved.

<comment><USER13> A quick scrolling through the list shows various issues that have indeed been resolved:

\- GOPATH is a mess (not needed anymore)

\- bad dependency management (Go now has a somewhat conventional package manager built in)

\- immature GC (now one of the best of breed)

\- slow JSON parsing (has significantly improved since 2015)

Also, a large part of the supposed evidence for "not good" is a matter of taste.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This site clearly explains why containers hve flopped so badly in the market.

</comment><comment><USER15> Wow....why would anyone go through so much trouble just to create such a site?

</comment><comment><USER16> Not sure who flagged this.

It's not a great site, but flagging it seems more like a suppression tactic from someone a bit over-enthusiastic, rather than a solid call. :/

<comment><USER17> I did. Yes, I'm obviously over-enthusiastic, not having written a single Golang program in my life. _eyeroll_

If you find a landing page consisting of one quotation and six unfounded, insult-laden statements a worthwhile submission, then I won't try to reason with you.

<comment><USER18> Only unfounded if you don't read what's inside

<comment><USER17> I evaluate what's been submitted, not something else linked from there. OP could have submitted the GitHub writeup and I wouldn't have flagged it.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Shutttr - A community for photographers - <AUTHOR> http://www.shutttr.com

<comment><USER2> Beyond the closed model, what sets this apart from Flickr or /r/photocritique?

Making the community invite-only excludes spammers and trolls, but also excludes potentially valuable contributors. What is rules are processes are in place to ensure that the community doesn't simply turn into a circle jerk where only a certain style of photograph is properly reviewed/critiqued?</comment>


Battening Down The Hatches - <AUTHOR> http://avc.blogs.com/a_vc/2008/04/battening-down.html

<comment><USER2> _"Companies that are built on having lots of users but no real revenues won't last. That all changes with the downturn"_

I like this quote. Notice the sudden change in the vc funding market. The barriers to entry have gone up a bit due to the credit squeeze. Now risk has a different price. It's interesting to see how this cycle repeating. Now all those funded companies that don't convert users into dollar making users are going to get squeezed.</comment>


Hacker news or Y Combinator news? Why does it matter? - <AUTHOR>

Ok, I haven't been reading this for very long, but why does it matter that someone over there in YC Land decided to change the name? I'm not suggesting that it's a good or bad thing, I'm just curious. <comment><USER2> A policy change about what stories are considered on/off topic was made in addition to a name change. The policy change is what matters.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> @7media: yes that shows that it has changed, but doesn't really say anything other than that.

</comment><comment><USER3> <http://www.irintech.com/x1/blogarchive.php?id=1432></comment>


Play a Sequence - <AUTHOR> https://oeis.org/play <comment><USER2> OEIS is a great project and always was of great help for me. Still, they did not yet receive the attention they deserve.

Anything that helps them to get more attention is a good thing.

However, I would have preferred if they put their energy into making their website, and especially the search results, more pleasant to look at. Nevertheless, "Play a Sequence" is a nice gadget.

<comment><USER3> > _they did not yet receive the attention they deserve_

They've gotten some on HN at least:

[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=integer%20sequences%20points%3...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=integer%20sequences%20points%3E10&sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=story)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> A023416</comment>


Ask HN: When did you last put yourself out of your comfort zone? - <AUTHOR> When did you last push yourself past your comfort zone or do something spontaneous?
What it is that you did, and what was the outcome?
I'm trying to determine whether pushing oneself past the comfort zone always results in a positive outcome.
I thought asking the question on here might get me a good sample. ;-) <comment><USER4> Well this happened out of my consent but I guess it may be called an experience out of my comfort zone:

I'm a computer engineer and every man has to serve in the army for a limited period in my country. Normally computer guys like me are selected to work in army's computer and communication centers, but I submitted my papers late and instead of working in such center I was selected to be a mountain commando squad leader (no joke). Even the officers who were giving us basic training told me people in my profession generally aren't selected (and suited) for that kind of training.

After 3 months of basic training (think of heavy marine training, but you climb up mountains as well) we were assigned to our squads and my squad was in the eastern warzone in Turkey, just near northern Iraq. During 8 months of my battalion service I was responsible for the lives of 18 men and went on to the missions which included searching for IEDs, securing roads for military convoys, patrolling base perimeter at night and ambushing terrorist routes during midnight. I repeat again, I'm just a decent computer engineer, and has no battle experience besides Call of Duty series.

My squad didn't have any casualities but other squads were attacked by both IEDs and automatic rifles, and some soldiers were injured. I guess I should consider myself lucky for that. It was a traumatic experience both for me and my family. My service ended in this February but still I have nightmares somedays.

So yeah that was out of my comfort zone, I really don't know if it did me any good or not.

<comment><USER5> My Army service was voluntary, and somewhat less traumatic, but it similarly expanded my horizons and gave me a very different perspective on things. I consider it one of the better things I have done in my life both in terms of personal development and in terms of contributing.

I served as an officer in both Iraq and Afghanistan and while I have been to England before, seeing those places gave me a very different perspective on the world. Similarly, being in charge of men in combat zones is very different than managing a technical group.

<comment><USER6> What was your role in the Army? Would you do it again?

<comment><USER5> I was an Intel Officer. I served at different times as a analyst team lead, an Intelligence Platoon Leader, and a Battallion Intelligence Officer. Although I did go on some patrols and some raids and generally left the confines of the base numerous times, I certainly did not have the same kind of exposure to direct violence that many of our fine Infantryman and others did. I was fortunate in never coming under direct small arms fire, but I was near mortar and other indirect attacks.

I would certainly do it again. I learned a great deal about myself, leadership/management, and the world that I think I either would not have learned in the civilan world or at least not as fast. I also think I contributed to my country and (arguably) the world in ways that I could not have otherwise. I consider it a very bright point in my life.

Again, I was very fortunate in coming out with no real physical injuries and no mental trauma. I have friends that cannot say the same. Even for me, it was a great strain on my family and it was the birth of my son that persuaded me to return to civilian life.

I would certainly do it again, and I have recommended it to many of my younger friends. But I always recommend it after making sure they know that it is risky business, especially in combat arms in times of conflict. I knew two people, one of them a friend, who had what would be colloquially described as mental breakdowns. I knew several others that bear major scars from physical scars. Mercifully, I never personally knew anyone killed in the line of duty, but you only need to watch the news to be reminded that it happens. I have known several people get divorced because of it, and it came close to ruining mine before I returned to civilian life.

So, for me it was definitely positive personally, and I think that that holds true for most people who serve. I do not regret it, and I recommend it as an excellent career and way to serve for people with the right temprament. But it should never be forgotten that it carries risks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Four years ago, I moved to Montreal, Quebec, without a job to land in.

I gravely underestimated how important true bilingualism was in finding employment as a software developer. After a number of interviews where I was told, in as many words (or sometimes in not so many), that they would always give the job to a bilingual candidate over an English-only speaker, I took some time off from the traditional job search. During this time I played poker to sustain myself and support my girlfriend as she started her own business.

I moved in with my Quebecois girlfriend and her six year old son. I worked in carpentry for 6 months, completely immersed in a French/Italian speaking environment. It was exhausting (I had a 90 minute commute each way and a 12 hour workday), I was working for a pittance (< $10/hour), I was broke and discouraged.

I eventually landed some independent development work and quit construction. 12 months later I landed in a very stable situation.

Without a savings safety net, I couldn't see myself doing that again. But I came out of it alright, learned a lot, and oddly enough, loved the perspective that working manual labour brought me.

<comment><USER8> are you doing a tech project in mtl now?

<comment><USER7> I am not, currently. I relocated back to Saskatoon. I miss the heck out of Montreal though and always keep my eyes open for opportunities there.

<comment><USER8> there is a very active tech community in mtl now; as a matter of fact, i notice many english-speaking devs working on tech startups.

if you get back, let me know, I'll show you around

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> To directly address whether leaving the comfort zone always results in a positive outcome, the answer is clearly no. Putting aside the obvious possibility of something going catastrophically wrong (to use an old quote: If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you!), there are some types of knowledge you may not want.

I personally benefitted greatly from my military service, but I have friends that bear both physical and mental scars from it. For them, it did not have a personally positive outcome (I emphasize the personally because they served honorably and contributing greatly to their country.). Similarly, I have two close friends in law enforcement. They both are stronger for their work and have had many interesting experiences, but many people would not want to have seen some of the things they have or had to make some of the choices they did.

With that said, it generally has a positive outcome, especially if you are talking about things like just studying a new programming language or academic subject.

</comment><comment><USER9> Quitting my job and working full-time on my startup was spontaneous and definitely out of my comfort zone. Basically, I had been working at night on my project for a while and an opportunity to get funding landed out of nowhere. Within a few months I found myself discussing the opportunity with my wife (who at the time was pregnant with our 2nd child) and then I quit my day job.

That's where I'm at today. But every day I feel more comfortable being out of my comfort zone... if that makes any sense. There are so many opportunities, experiences and connections that I have developed while working on my startup. My only fear now is going back to that old comfort zone. I'm working hard so I don't have to :)

<comment><USER10> Could you elaborate on the "funding out of nowhere" story? Sounds like an interesting anecdote at first sight :-)

<comment><USER9> Well, my co-founder and I have always wanted to apply to YC but we couldn't figure out how to make it work. We're both married with young children. So, we just worked on it at night for a while and figured we would just try to bootstrap it. We frequently participated in a monthly startup conference in Utah called <http://www.LaunchUp.org> (site seems down right now) and eventually we were asked to present. The night we presented, someone announced that they were starting a program similar to YC for Utah called <http://www.BoomStartup.com>. We applied and were accepted and we're still in the program right now!

You can check out our About Us for a bit more information - <http://www.IActionable.com/about>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Since high school, I've made it a habit to put myself outside my comfort zone every chance I get. Adopting this frame of mind has had an interesting effect. Every time I get nervous or anxious about doing something, I subsequently calm down and feel reassured in knowing that I'm doing what I set out to do.

To answer your question directly: yesterday. I did a live on-air interview on ABC Radio Newcastle (Australia) on a topic for which I'm no expert. I just happened to write an article on the science behind having a bad day. Lifehacker picked it up. Then ABC Radio is called me for an interview. What was I going to do, turn down an opportunity to be interviewed on the radio? So, I played the role of expert.

<comment><AUTHOR> Amazing. So what's the end result? How do you feel after having done it?

<comment><USER11> The interview you mean? It was awesome, lots of fun!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> >I'm trying to determine whether pushing oneself past the comfort zone always results in a positive outcome.

It won't, but that's not the point. It is about the journey and growing as a person and crying and having the time of your life.

<comment><USER13> I think it will for the exact same reason. It is about the journey not the destination, but even if the journey is shit you have learned and grown which I believe are positive outcomes.

<comment><USER14> Even if the journey is shit, the painful details tend to melt away as time passes, leaving only "yeah, that taught me a lot" in forefront. That's just how the brain works, how we naturally preserve our sanity/positive outlook. After long enough time, the only regrets about uncomfortable situations tend to be about not taking the plunge.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, this is exactly what i have been thinking about, and wanted to confirm if this was perhaps just my own conclusion, or general law of the universe as it were

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I did it with my eating and workout habits and lost over 40Kg :) It really feels good not to be an obese :)

<comment><USER15> And now I'm thinking of working abroad. Are there any European company or startup looking for a senior Linux system administrator here?

<comment><USER16> Could you elaborate more on that ? What particular changes did you make? timeframe, etc ? I am asking out of personal curiosity, as I have just started to try and modify my diet.

<comment><USER15> Of course, It all started with some emotional depression. I stopped eating. It was for a month or two. Once I was out of it I realized my stomach was smaller. I did not lose any recognizable weight in this period. After this period I could go into my old eating habit and enlarge my stomach in no time. Or I could go out of my comfort zone and go on eating less. I chose the latter one. But It was not enough. I started to exercise daily. My exercising routine started small. I added more exercises when I felt it was not enough. I always targeted small changes. "Hey Let's see if I can go under 110" or "Oh I'm under 110 lets target 100!" or "Hey two digits! why not 80 now?". I went from 115kg@2009/11 to 70kg@2010/07. Now I'm trying to stabilize at this weight.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I just moved from Glasgow to Geneva to work at CERN (a particle physics lab) for 2 months.

It's been much more difficult than I expected, and I was apprehensive to begin with!

However, when things are uncomfortable I tend to fret for a while and then, eventually, take control of my situation. Sometimes you need to go through that period of discomfort to regain control of your life which has seemingly slipped from your grasp without your noticing it.

I regularly leave my home city to work abroad for months at a time. Sometimes it's fantastic. And sometimes (rarely) it becomes a mess.

When it goes well, it's great. New experiences and new people give you a whole new perspective on life. And if it doesn't go great, then it's probably simple enough to go back to your comfort zone and truly appreciate what you have. If it's not easy to go back - was it really your comfort zone?

<comment><USER18> Geneva is not always an easy place for expats. I was living there for 3 years before moving to the US. If you need anything to make your stay more enjoyable (tips, etc), let me know. My email is my HN user name at gmail. Good luck!

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Speaking at a developer conference.

I've always been a natural on stage - as a dancer (as a child, through highschool, and in college (although that was a different kind of dancing)), as an actor (drag king, burlesque), and as a musician (in a band). I've always been terrified to go on stage, but I know once I get there, I'm fine and the fear melts away. But when the organizers of 360iDev asked me to speak at their iPhone developer conference in Denver last year, everything in my body wanted me to say "no way, no, I don't really feel like I know anything about programming". So I said "yes, I'll do it." I knew this would be great for my career - to get more recognition in my field, if I could pull it off.

I spent months researching and preparing my talk. I did okay - not great, but okay. There were several people in the audience who thanked me afterwards and told me they learned a lot. Other people, in reviews they submitted to the organizers, said I could definitely use more practice developing more comprehensible and cohesive slides, and that a lot of my content was obvious and unhelpful. Oh well. I'm glad I did it because it really was a valuable learning experience. A few months later, I was asked to speak at another conference. I declined - the first experience was enough for me.

<comment><USER20> I got my first taste of conference speaking this year. Last fall, when my UI concept video got all its coverage, I received a couple of invitations to speak at tech conferences for the spring. It was very intimidating at first, especially as these were overseas. My primary fear was that they assumed I had already founded a startup based around the concept and would have all sorts of practical experience to share, so I talked down my experience with them a bit—but they were still interested, so I agreed to go right ahead!

I'd never been abroad before, so I had to do my homework on passports, visas, the Schengen agreement, and so on, while trying to put together something I thought would be of value to the attendees. As the dates drew nearer, I had a number of "I can't believe I'm actually doing this" moments, but I tried to stay confident.

In the end, it was more than worth it. The conferences and hosts were great, I got to experience some other cultures, and even though I still have some work to do on presentation rhythm, the audiences were very receptive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I try to play basketball as often as I can, even though it's not my best sport. I grew up playing contact sports like football and rugby, which require far less precision and eye-hand coordination than basketball does.

I also have nerves of glass, and nothing is worse for a basketball shot than being nervous and unconfident. When I play bball with friends and people I'm comfortable with I do quite well, but when I play with strangers who are better than I am, I completely fall apart - dribbling the ball off my foot, throwing up air-balls and missing easy layups, etc.

There's something extremely unnerving about having control of the ball because everyone on the court is acutely focusing on you. Not to mention every time I miss a shot it means I'll be less likely to get passed to the next time which makes it more nerv-wracking to shoot, so it's a vicious cycle.

But despite making a fool of myself more often than not, I keep coming back for more. I'm determined to learn how to control my nerves and adrenaline rushes and try to become more confident in something I don't naturally excel at.

So to answer your final question, it hasn't quite resulted in a positive outcome yet (other than the exercise and a break from hacking, I suppose), but I hope to become a competent, confident BBall player in any environment someday.

<comment><USER22> I know what you mean. Often-times than not, playing basketball is not so much about shooting and driving-in perfect every-time but what you do but what you do after you make an airball or lose the ball during a drive. A good player would think about why his form was off, make a mental note how to correct it and then shrug it off and shoot/drive again.

Also basketball is an awesome sport to interacting with everyone from society. Ultimate Frisbee you get vegan hippies, Golf/Tennis/Squash you get yuppies, soccer you get a lot of European/Hispanics but basketball you get to interact with everybody.

Also, you don't realize how good you are and how bad everyone else is, because you tend to under-estimate yourself and over-estimate other people's ability. Just count the number of shots good BBall players make on the court versus your field goal percentage, and you'll see that most people on the playground probably consider you already a pro even if you yourself don't think so.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thank you all for the truly great responses. You have all inspired me.

I've always pushed myself past my comfort zone ever since i was a little boy. Thankfully i had a very supportive mother who always encouraged me to explore my limits.

Doing so has always resulted in positive outcomes for me, but in the last few years pushing limits hasnt been quite so positive, or at least i thought it wasnt.

I realise now that its the attitude i take towards the events and circumstances, and what i choose to take away from my experiences.

I will say all in all, that if i happen to push out of my comfort zone as a matter of conscious choice, then the result is always positive, even if seemingly i have failed, for what better than to have learned something.

When its against my consent, i think thats when i tend not to look at things in a positive light, but i should learn to.

Anyway, once again, you have all truly inspired me, with some great experiences.

Thank you.

</comment><comment><USER23> Walked out of a job (start up) - Jun 2005. Was King Rat in a sinking ship. My blood pressure came down from 144/120 to 112/78. Has been stable ever since. They were going to put me on medication. Work with many intelligent people right now. Life is good, but the call of the startup is getting stronger

</comment><comment><USER24> The idea of an action always "resulting in a positive outcome" depends entirely upon the perspective of the person experiencing the outcome. When you step outside of your comfort zone, something will happen. You may find you love your new experience; you may find you hate it. Either way, you are likely to learn from it, and depending on your time horizon, the newly acquired knowledge may result in "positive" outcomes for years to come.

Consider the situation described by @vyrotek: quitting your job and devoting yourself fully to a startup. There's no guarantee that the startup will grow into a $100 million company or even a $1 million company. You may go into debt, you may lose friends, your girlfriend may leave you because you can no longer offer the stability of a "normal" job. Would that be a negative outcome? Again, it depends. Maybe your business ownership experience makes you a prime candidate for chief executive at a scrappy new startup. Maybe your friends were more concerned with partying than with personal growth, and maybe your girlfriend was in love with your car instead of you.

Obviously, this example isn't all-encompassing and nobody can predict the future. Sometimes, you just need to act without knowing for sure if you're making the "right" choice, and then continually evaluate that choice as you accumulate new experiences. Nothing is permanent; if you take the leap of faith into the startup world you can always return to the job market later. Of course, in this economy it may take you 8-12 months to find a new job so it's wise to have some savings to fall back on.

I stepped out of my comfort zone by moving to a completely new city and then deciding to purchase a franchise business with a friend. I was extremely unsure about both decisions, but I'm glad I moved forward with both. The franchise has been a trying experience, straining my friendship as well as my wallet. However, we're starting to make money and get into a rhythm - <USER2> opportunity I wouldn't have had if I hadn't decided to jump in headfirst. There are days I hate where I am, but the experience I gain every day is invaluable, and I'll cherish it for the rest of my life.

</comment><comment><USER25> I think leaving your comfort zone forces you to grow, so even if you sustain some short-term bruising, the overall growth makes it worth it.

I knew I wanted a career in software, but I figured that out just as I finished a completely unrelated degree (business, as it happened). Eventually I decided I was just going to make it happen somehow, bought some books, and started jamming the knowledge into my head.

It was hard at first, but I really loved it once I got going. Way outside my comfort zone, and I felt a bit insecure posting to forums with my complete newb questions.

After really getting serious, with maybe eight months of coding every day after work building stuff I thought was really cool, I said all right, screw everything, this is for me. I did something terrifying: Gave my boss six months notice and started saving for my move to the west coast.

After I moved, I wanted a break from working for the man. I worked for myself another half a year building iPhone apps, sharpening my skills, and generally having a good time. About the time my savings ran out, a Bay Area startup hired me to do product stuff and now, voila, I'm in the industry.

Funny thing is, I miss writing code so I still do it at night after work.

A lot of time out of my comfort zone but a lot of growth, too. And if I hadn't forced myself to do it, I'd still be stuck in Florida, doing work that didn't really connect with what I care about.

So I dunno, I think if you get the sense you're out of your comfort zone, that's the feeling of your mind straining to grow to meet your new challenges. So far, it has worked well for me.

</comment><comment><USER26> IMO, yes, pushing yourself out of your comfort zone always leads to a positive outcome. Here me out. I say this because when you are pushed passed that zone it is largely because of unknown(s). The more that unknown(s) begins to be uncovered the more you begin to accept that path. The more you accept it, the more you learn from it which will directly influence everything you do from there on out.

Even if you accept a path for a short duration, you learned something. As long as you're learning, good and bad, I can only imagine it is a positive outcome.

I haven't pushed myself past my comfort zone for a good while. That might change soon. The studio I'm working for is closing it's doors and my wife really wants to move back to KS from the Bay Area. There isn't a lot of technology there so I'm going to have to figure out a way to shake up the world in a place that dedicates life to aircraft manufacturing.

The time before that was when I took myself and joined the Marines which led to being part of the initial strike of OIF. Nothing quite tests your comfort zone like a combat zone. There are a ton of positives gained from pushing past that comfort zone (Marines, in general). Culture, leadership, work ethic, overcoming & adapting, diversity, and more.

</comment><comment><USER27> A couple of days ago, when I went for my first driving lesson in about seventeen years. Driving scares the hell out of me.

The outcome: well, I drove around white-knuckled for a bit, and didn't hurt anybody or damage any property. Not positive or negative yet - it'll be positive if I stick to it and get a driver's license.

That reminds me, I've got to schedule some appointments for next week.

</comment><comment><USER28> 4 months ago I began dancing classes(merengue,salsa,bolero,cumbia), never ever before in my life did any dance, before that I always kept enough physical distance to people, kind of shy with women, etc...and I am having the time of my life! I am enjoying it sooo much that sometimes I doubt it is me :)

<comment><USER29> I started taking dance lessons three weeks ago for my upcoming wedding. I've never danced before and was quite nervous the first lesson. Last night was my last lesson before the wedding and me and my fiancées enjoyed it so much we are trying to find ways to make long term lessons work with our finances. To top it off, I can rumba, foxy, hustle and swing for my wedding. Our first dance is also choreographed. I can't wait to surprise our family and friends who have very low expectations of me when it comes to the reception :)

I think dancing is a great way to meet women too. The number of women at the studio was 2:1 females to males, and the number of women stopping in front of the dance studio to watch me and my fiancée dancing was huge.

<comment><USER28> Great! You will surprised them, no doubt!

And...congratulations! Best wishes for you and your fiancée!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> When I gave notice to my steadiest client that I would be leaving them (too long doing legacy support in A Language That Will Not Be Named). I've worked for them for years, they are the main source of income for our house, and I don't have anything else solid lined up or any good network of other clients.

> I'm trying to determine whether pushing oneself past the comfort zone always > results in a positive outcome.

Of course not.

As far as the outcome, ask me again in six months. :)

But in my case, it is time to make a change, whatever the price I may pay in the short term. I don't think I'll regret the _choice_ even if I regret some of the _consequences_.

</comment><comment><USER31> When I moved into another country (Germany) (from home France). Outcome: I now speak another language (german) (still not fluent but evbdy understands me at least that's what they tell me).

</comment><comment><USER32> When I posted this: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1528715>

Positive so far, need more time to be sure.

<comment><USER33> Did you find some interesting work?

<comment><USER32> Yes, too much really all at once.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I took a trapeze class a couple months back that was pretty damn terrifying, but I got through it and had a pretty good time.

In January, when I got all excited about Webfinger, I proposed an Ignite talk on it to RailsConf in Baltimore, before I knew anywhere near enough to talk on it. They accepted, so I was forced to learn enough to talk about it well and get others excited about it. Also damn terrifying, but way way worth it.

</comment><comment><USER35> I'm now out of my comfort zone, as I'm unemployed. I see it as a beneficial period because it has taught me again how to sell myself and hunt for a job.

regarding your original question, I have written a blog entry:

[http://design-to-last.com/Technical/the-dangerous-comfort- zo...](http://design-to-last.com/Technical/the-dangerous-comfort-zone.html)

Daniel

</comment><comment><USER36> I push myself through my comfort zone about one to two times a year. I travel by plane. It is one of the most horrifying things I can imagine and I still do it, the outcome is not really positive but I get to challenge a fear, understand how I cope with it and think about how to deal with extreme situations.

</comment><comment><USER37> This reminded me of the post from Ben Casnocha on living out the "do one thing that scares you" advice:

[http://ben.casnocha.com/2010/07/living-out-the-do-one- thing-...](http://ben.casnocha.com/2010/07/living-out-the-do-one-thing-that- scares-you-advice.html)

</comment><comment><USER38> Long ago, I dropped out of college (to join a startup.) I went back three years ago because I wanted to get a PhD in math. I'm about to start my second year in grad school. Honestly, I push myself past my confort zone every time I sit down to do research.

</comment><comment><USER39> Last month I quit my banking job of 5 years to focus full-time on learning computer science. I went from skilled professional to absolute beginner. Way out of my element, but I am growing and building and having a ton of fun.

</comment><comment><USER40> If it was sure to result in a positive outcome, then there's no reason it would be outside of your comfort zone, right? Sort of by definition, things are outside your comfort zone because they're risky in one way or another.

</comment><comment><USER41> Picked up running in March. I had never been a runner growing up, and I actually had asthma. 3 months later, I ran a half-marathon (13.1 miles). Felt great and I'm still running!

</comment><comment><USER8> what do you want to do exactly? launch a startup and resign from your job?

</comment><comment><USER42> I don't push past my comfort zone near enough. It's been such an issue with me, I devised a game for myself to take chances and seek out rejection. The game (I call it Rejection Therapy) worked so well that I documented my idea online (although it's never been released to the public until today - <USER3> to your question). It's at <http://www.rejectiontherapy.com> for anyone who may be interested.

Who knows. It may help someone else, or it may help no one but me. But it's out there for anyone who wants to break out of their comfort zone but need a "push".

</comment><comment><USER43> Today when I took the courage to visit the dentist. The result is good, no more little annoyances :).

</comment><comment><USER44> Just this morning in fact, when I got out of bed.</comment>


Bill Gates says life would be better with a world government - <AUTHOR> http://collectivelyconscious.net/articles/bill-gates-says-life-would-be-better-with-a-world-government/#.VT3Qz6t0LaM.facebook

<comment><AUTHOR> >But what is with epidemics? How many doctors do we have as much planes, tents, what scientists? If there were such a thing as a world government, we would be better prepared.

It sounds like Gates is advocating this for resource distribution reasons. How about making disease treatment cheap and accessible to everyone around the world WITHOUT relying on a "world government"?

As governments grow older and more powerful they become corrupt, at first it is with good intentions but slowly the positions human beings hold in those governments attract people who are corrupt. Then, those people leverage their position in that government for self-gain. This is the case all over the world with every single government ever. It is a natural human condition. A world government would multiply that opportunity for corrupt people to reign exponentially, especially as time goes on.

yikes.

</comment><comment><USER2> Actually, if you were really worried about epidemics, it would be better to fragment the world further. Make travel much harder and rarer. From an existential point of view, mass air travel is a really bad idea. If a pandemic ever breaks out, it could be far too difficult to contain it in one continent, thus posing a threat to all technological civilization, and humanity itself. If continents were separated, America might have time to develop a vaccine before a disease incubated in Europe could reach it.

Back when I was in middle school I was a fan of world government. The big problem is that exit is a much better way to enforce accountability and make governments serve the people than any form of voice is. "Voice" is an illusion since bureaucracies always maintain the real power and are resistant to change. Furthermore, world government is a massive single point of failure.

</comment><comment><USER3> Where is Steve Jobs when you need him?

</comment><comment><USER4> Bill Gates could quite possibly be a moron. World government would only concentrate corruption in one place, out of the reach of common people like us. Such a government would be by the corporations for the corporations-- even more than Washington DC is today.</comment>


Injecting the flu vaccine into tumor gets the immune system to attack it (2019) - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/12/injecting-the-flu-vaccine-into-a-tumor-gets-the-immune-system-to-attack-it/ <comment><USER2> I wonder how many desperate people might try this on themselves.

</comment><comment><USER3> Thats pretty deep.</comment>