Roadblocks to a Decentralized Internet - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@danielroseman/roadblocks-to-a-decentralized-internet-84e47c1bcb15 <comment><AUTHOR> Hi folks! This is the first of a series of articles I'm working on to address blockchain issues from a critical perspective. Constructive feedback welcome!

<comment><USER2> I'm not convinced that identity is a problem. Facebook/Twitter/etc. got along mostly fine for years without either consulting an external oracle or acting as an oracle. And then when they started "verifying" identities they did a terrible job anyway. So dapps using self-sovereign identity can't really do any worse than the status quo.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your feedback! I submit that Facebook/Twitter/etc. are in fact consulting/relying on several external oracles for identity verification (i.e. - email service provider for email verification, telecom provider for cell phone verification, government sources for photo ID/SSn verification.) Of course, some identity data points (location, relationship status, career, etc.) are unverified and thus do not require any oracles.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "self-sovereign identity"?

<comment><USER2> It's just a fancy way of saying that you are whoever you say you are and the system doesn't attempt to claim anything stronger than that.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


GoFundMe Gone Wild - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/08/fashion/gofundme-gone-wild.html?smid=re-share <comment><USER2> What does this really mean (and the list of random requests is just pointless):

Is it a sign of a breakdown of the traditional ways of making money (as a summary, the replacement of "working the farm" to earn money with "driving for Uber" to earn money)?

Is it the de-centralization of existing support networks? Asking your friends for money isn't new, maybe it's just that you talk to your friends over the internet that's new.

Is it the corporatization of personal budgets, where everything has to have some nice-sounding reason attached to it, even if it's obviously a waste of money? (unless you really believe that all the leadership summits in Hawaii are really cost-effective)

<comment><USER3> I think it's an internalization of the "It's always okay to ask" mentality, which itself is a symptom of a transition from a society built around a few common cultural institutions to one based on a pluralistic conception that different people may have different values. It used to be that there were common norms of behavior, and you didn't step outside those norms unless you wanted to risk strong social censure. Now, the norm is that anything mutually agreed upon by two parties is fine.

On the whole, I think this is a good trend - it makes the economy more efficient, it encourages people to celebrate diversity instead of shunning it, and it's how the upper classes have operated for a long time, which is the source of a major power imbalance where corporations & rich people feel entitled to ask for anything and then working-class people feel ashamed to refuse. This is just the same attitude filtering down to formerly middle-class people, likely fueled by desperation as the traditional social compact breaks down and their previous income stream dries up. It'll take a period of adjustment as people realize that "No" is a perfectly fine answer that you'll have to give the majority of the time, though, and many people are very uncomfortable at the breakdown of unspoken norms (hence the article).

<comment><USER4> I want to know if these people are getting gofundme requests from people they know. If so, what are they doing differently from me?

Because if you're getting gofundme requests from people you don't know, we've all been getting hit up for money from shady "charities" forever; it's just that the internet has democratized the technologies used to ask randoms for money. This isn't really a change, in my mind.

I'll accept that it's a cultural change when I get these sorts of requests from people I know, rather than from random strangers.

<comment><USER5> > I'll accept that it's a cultural change when I get these sorts of requests > from people I know, rather than from random strangers.

I get these ridiculous GoFundMe requests from people I know (including relatively close friends) on a pretty regular basis.

It's different from the classic "charities" in that the pressure is much higher when it's a personal appeal from a friend.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > What about the girl seeking $600 for her "personal development journey"? > (Not much to ask, but she was so beautiful, I didn't understand why she > didn't develop herself into a model and make a whole lot more than that.)

What a bizarre comment.

<comment><USER7> I think it sets off the misogyny alarms, but I think the point remains: someone with a quality that could conceivably be used to meet a financial need opens up a valid criticism. We'd say the same if it were a developer asking for money, or a homeless person panhandling when they appear physically fit. I think there's a resistance when it's based on appearance, not skill, but I think there's plenty of models who would take exception to the idea that there isn't work and skill involved.

<comment><USER8> Misogyny? I do not think it means what you think it means.

<comment><USER9> Really? The article's suggestion that a good-looking woman should consider her looks her most employable asset sure set off alarm bells for me.

<comment><USER10> The article doesn't make the claim that it's her most employable asset, it's highlighting a trait that's visible from her page requesting donations, and would potentially remove the need to seek donations.

<comment> r-w Not everyone is comfortable with selling their looks, so it's not ironic for a good-looking person to ask for money.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> If a close friend's experiencing some incredibly tough times, and he sets his goal to $125 or something reasonable like that, I'd have no issue with pitching in. I'm a totally broke college student, but that's the truth.

However, this article really hits the mark. Begging your friends and family or the internet community at large is actually the last thing you should think of doing. And if you're asking for thousands of dollars, you'd better be buying food for a homeless shelter or something. Something that benefits, I don't know, more than a single person?

<comment><USER12> It's the digital version of panhandling, and it's unfortunate that the few on there who have (in my opinion) a legitimate need are so overshadowed by those begging for a new camera or to go on a trip.

<comment><USER13> This is what bothers me most about people who can't tell the difference between wants and genuine needs: the negative effect it has on the people who do need something that could save their life but can't pay for it, or are going to perform some virtuous service for others that they won't be paid for.

One of my friends, who has done a lot of writing and I can assure you has not made much money at all from being a writer while producing a lot of content for free (and has written a couple of legit books) recently had a stroke that paralyzed one side of his body. He's now in physical therapy and geting other serious treatment. He's 48 years old and has four kids; only the eldest one is out of the house. He's not wealthy by any means, and needs help paying his medical bills. A friend put up a GoFundMe page for his family, probably unbeknownst to him, all because of compassion and people are starting to donate (he's almost up to $1000, which is like a drop in the bucket when it comes to covering medical expenses in the US).

That's the kind of situation that GoFundMe and similar sites are for. Not for vanity projects, paying for your dream wedding, funding plastic surgery, throwing parties, interior design, and springing for fripperies that are not emergencies and are not virtuous.

These people are ruining the reputation of internet-based, crowdsourced funding. They have no shame.

<comment><USER14> > _That 's the kind of situation that GoFundMe and similar sites are for._

GoFundMe's website would disagree with you on that. And I don't think asking for money even if it is not an emergency is necessarily bad. And if people want to make an ass of themselves, well, now they have a new avenue to do so.

The juxtaposition of all these things on one site is weird though, I agree, and it would be bad if it stained the reputation of the "better" causes. A site specialized in "emergency" funds certainly could look more respectable and potentially add more value as a community. But would process less funds and make less money...

And that's not getting in the whole "privatizing risks that should be caught by society" (or not) discussion...

<comment><USER13> Well, yes. That's _one_ kind of situation it's for. I wouldn't want to limit it to life-or-death issues. But I'm just saying that people shouldn't be using it to get skating lessons for their kids, or to fund their "personal development journey." Those things are extras.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Not sure the point of this article. Of course there are more or less deserving, more or less craven. It's a platform for anyone to use, that's the whole point. Don't want to give? Then don't.

<comment><USER16> As far as I can tell, the key takeaway is that the NYT has no trouble shaming the poor and middle classes for not having the support network the well-off can mobilize. I know executives who I wouldn't trust to run a bake sale without FTC oversight, but every time they fail there's another c-suite job waiting for them somewhere. Their panhandling is just done out of sight, over a good Malbec at the Capital Club.

<comment><USER17> I think the takeaway had more to do with the shift from "man life really threw me a curveball and I could use some help" to "my spewcial schnequflake needs a new violin and we renovated the kitchen last year, someone else please pay for it"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'm sometimes a bit sceptical giving money to friends to do fund raising 'challenges' [0] that are in some beautiful part of Australia and require them to walk a reasonable 20km in a day. I would hope that they cover their own costs (flying, registration fee, accommodation, etc.) and any donations they receive go to the charity/cause.

[0] [http://www.humacharitychallenge.com/Charity- Challenge/Austra...](http://www.humacharitychallenge.com/Charity- Challenge/Australia/The-Reach-Foundation/Reach-Larapinta-Trail- Challenge?overrideCountry=AUS)

<comment><USER19> Yeah, I personally don't like this bundling of fun activities and charity. If you want to run a marathon, run a marathon. If you want to give to charities, just give. Don't make a pretence of charity to do what you find fun.

<comment><USER20> > "If you want to run a marathon, run a marathon. If you want to give to > charities, just give."

I agree with the sentiment although lots of people run marathons and raise money for a charity as a motivational aid. I don't see anything wrong with this.

However, if someone wants to do a parachute jump, cycle the Great Wall of China, etc, then yes, they should just shut up and fund it themselves.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> At the moment the barriers to asking a bunch of people on the internet for money is effectively 0 so why the hell wouldn't you do it? the worst case scenario is you don't get any money and you're no worse off.

At some point (possibly right now with this article) a backlash will develop and there may be some social costs to doing this because of the numbers of people doing it have created a tragedy of the commons.

<comment><USER22> > _[Y]ou 're no worse off._

Except your dignity, maybe?

<comment><USER21> well that's the key at the moment there isn't too much shame in doing so, I expect there will start being some soon.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> NM-Super Is anybody really surprised by this development? If you create a platform where people can ask for money, a bunch of people are going to ask for money they don't really need.

<comment><USER7> In my experience, GoFundMe enables it more than other platforms, since they really don't give you a good way to complain. (I've received spam from someone with a campaign there)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> The ones I see are not for vacations. They are for school supplies for kids that need them, medical expenses, that sort of thing. Guess we have different friends!

</comment><comment><USER24> This reminded me of something similar: televangelists asking people for "seed faiths".

If you haven't heard about this yet, check out this video from Last Week Tonight: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y1xJAVZxXg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y1xJAVZxXg)

</comment><comment><USER5> I used to get upset about these endless ill-deserving requests.

Then I realized I have a simple option of just not giving. Much like reality television, I find it pathetic and am unlikely to be friends with someone who uses it for long, but it doesn't pose an existential threat to society.

</comment><comment><USER25> That link has gone wild:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/08/fashion/gofundme-gone- wild...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/08/fashion/gofundme-gone-wild.html)

</comment><comment><USER26> Lol. Just saw this trend on HN after my friend messaged me to help fund his Kickstarter. I really wonder how many Ks projects wouldn't be funded minus family and friends.

</comment><comment><USER27> The article is spot on. Bunch of scams on there with few good people in between needing real help. I wonder if the admins/Mod on the site vet people out.

<comment><USER27> EDIT:Instead of down voting my comment, perhaps you should reply to my post so that we can have a conversation about the topic.

<comment><USER28> Don't complain about downvotes.

You likely were downvoted since your comment doesn't add much ("The article is spot on" doesn't count as having a conversation)

<comment><USER27> >("I agree with this article!" doesn't count as having a conversation)

Did you read my first response? Or are you confusing me with someone? I asked a question if you saw my first response about the mods/admin.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Who should be more shameful? The ones asking for money for vacation / nose job / new car, or the ones actually giving the money?

<comment><USER27> There is nothing wrong donating money for good cause. But when you are giving money when the intentions aren't good, then you are encouraging whoever set up the fund that sort of behavior is ok.

<comment><USER29> Aren't you saying exactly what my comment was saying?

<comment><USER14> Was your comment saying anything? I thought it asked a question, to which pavornyoh gave an answer.

<comment><USER29> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question)

<comment><USER3> Sarcasm, rhetoric, and other meta-linguistical information doesn't come across well over the Internet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> The NY Times might want a GoFundMe for copy editors:

"Many on her mailing list _where_ taken aback"

</comment><comment><USER31> This story was originally posted here

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10525159](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10525159)

<comment><USER28> Reposts are allowed if there hasn't be significant discussion.

If you're upset about missing karma, it's just luck of the draw.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> This article was probably written by a well off NYT journalist who doesn't need and therefor doesn't understand the need for these kind of campaigns, sounds like a "let them have cake" kind of statement.</comment>


Show HN: WTFDYUM: Why the f*** did you unfollow me? - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/jchampemont/WTFDYUM

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi, this is a small toy project I came up with. Feel free to comment and leave me any suggestion. Thanks :)

<comment><USER2> You should explain a little bit more how it works.</comment></comment>


TechCrunch: Socialcam launches new Web interface - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2011/05/04/socialcams-instagram-for-video-is-now-on-the-web-too/

<comment><USER2> It appears as though they copied Path's design on the iPhone, and Dailybooth's on the web.

<comment><USER3> I think more similar to Qik</comment></comment>


Hipsip: Skype and SIP calls from your mobile phone - <AUTHOR> http://hipsip.com

<comment><USER2> So cool! My cell phone bill was killing me, but this is great, saving me tons of money. Goodbye T-Mobile!</comment>


Someone Hacked My T-Mobile Account and T-Mobile Won't Talk About It - <AUTHOR> https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/neax4q/someone-hacked-my-t-mobile-account-and-t-mobile-wont-talk-about-it <comment><USER2> I wonder what TMobile support organization the writer contacted.

In my substantial experience, their support organization in the far East is worse than useless. I've been flat lied to numerous times.

However, their Oregon support operation is first rate. I've spoken with at least five different account managers there and have been utterly impressed every time. Each knew the weaknesses of their internal systems and found a process to work around them. Some of my issues required post-billing-cycle manual followup, and each was scheduled and completed without my needing to intervene.</comment>


E-Stonia and the Future of the Cyberstate - <AUTHOR> http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/142825/eric-b-schnurer/e-stonia-and-the-future-of-the-cyberstate

<comment><USER2> Estonian here. A cyberstate does little for an economy when the people can't afford it.

</comment><comment><USER3> From the title I thought this would be about marijuana.</comment>


Google is using AI to design chips that will accelerate AI - <AUTHOR> https://www.technologyreview.com/f/615419/google-ai-chip-design-reinforcement-learning/ <comment><AUTHOR> The IEEE article:

[https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech- talk/semiconductors/design/go...](https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech- talk/semiconductors/design/google-invents-ai-that-learns-a-key-part-of-chip- design)

The Arxiv paper itself:

[https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.08445](https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.08445)</comment>


Ask HN: Down-voted comments - <AUTHOR> Has anyone noticed that lately if you comment with an idea/thought that is not in-line with the majority crowd, it will get down-voted immediately ?
Maybe it's just me, but I use to remember a time when opinions from both sides of the table were respected and appreciated.
This might just be conjecture, but could this be the warning signs of YC news starting to become reddit ? <comment><USER2> Do you have any specific threads to point to where you're experiencing this? I actually find that a lot of my comments get upvoted when they're out-of-line with the majority, but provide good counter-arguments. (I find that in-line- with-majority comments get overlooked.) So, if you'd share some examples, that'd really help for backing/refuting your conjecture.

Looking at the threads you've been downvoted for (<http://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=Maven911>), I'd say you feel this way out of spite but the downvotes are reasonable given your comments are neither insightful nor are they informative - merely speculative with a side of passive-aggressive and needless sarcasm.

<comment><USER3> I don't find his comments out of line and deserving a downvote. My question is what purpose do downvotes serve other than allowing frustrated readers to retaliate against a "bad" post? > a lot of my comments get upvoted when they're out-of-line with the majority Your arguments have to be better. Simply stating differing opinion and anecdotal evidence (not always invalid) will often result in a downvote. I would find it more useful if the topic were explored, rather than censored.

\----

Bummer, this story got censored. I think this is a good discussion. Obviously there are some unhappy people.

I wonder if there are any sites that do not have downvotes. Honestly, the lack of a downvote button really attracted me to Hacker News. It's a shame it's being liberally used.

* Sorry about the double post. I was not able to create a new post.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> While I'd say it's a rare occurrence, I've definitely noticed an increasing trend of comments being downvoted by people who simply disagree. It happens in some threads more than others... Just try voicing a contrarian opinion in a thread about privacy, for example. It also happens more often in non-startup- related and non-programming-related threads.

I think a solution, if one were to be implemented, would be requiring people to specify why they are downvoting a comment. Or better yet, to choose from a list, as long as it doesn't include "I disagree" as an option. At best, it would prevent irrational downvotes. At worst, it would at least allow people to see _why_ they're being downvoted and learn from it.

<comment><USER5> I don't know if pg still feels this way since this post is from 881 days ago, but at one point he said the following:

"I think it's ok to use the up and down arrows to express agreement. Obviously the uparrows aren't only for applauding politeness, so it seems reasonable that the downarrows aren't only for booing rudeness." [1]

Of course, the community could decide that, at this point, downvoting for disagreement no longer makes sense. I'm pretty agnostic on the issue.

[1] <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171>

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> _...could this be the warning signs of YC news starting to become reddit ?_

I hate to pick at straws here, but this single phrase has been repeated across HN threads for years. No, we are not becoming reddit. Some past references:

[http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1420440](http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1420440)

[http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=258551](http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=258551)

[http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=560517](http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=560517)

[http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1110251](http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1110251)

[http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=572808](http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=572808)

[http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=144390](http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=144390)

[http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=235490](http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=235490)

[http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=508028](http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=508028)

[http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=926604](http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=926604)

Some of these go back as far as 2 years ago (I'm sure theres earlier examples out there as well). I think edw519 explained it best with his graph here: [http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=926644](http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=926644)

</comment><comment><USER7> In my experience, if a good comment that is "not in-line with the majority crowd" gets downvoted, it will bounce back up quickly. On the other hand, poor-quality comments stay voted down over time.

</comment><comment><USER8> Majority can do that; there are also comments which are full of misinformation and wild assumptions, yet get upvoted like crazy because of their "tone". I hate it, but it's not my pathology.

</comment><comment><USER9> Sometimes things go well and sometimes poorly on the voting. A common pattern on Hacker News is: first you think Hacker News is great, then you thing it is turning into Reddit and then you think it is great again. The different impressions may depend on if you visit the main feed page or visit the newest links page (and how often you do that).

</comment><comment><USER10> I wouldn't worry about single downvotes. You will bounce back soon enough.

This place is big enough for there to be some crazies who downvote irrationally. No big deal.

</comment><comment><USER11> Eternal September, I don't see any other explanation. Maybe a link to <http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html> should be displayed more prominently.

Also, there are a lot of off-topic submissions that serve no purpose at all. Flagging them helps, but not always. I understand majority of folks here are web oriented crowd. Fine. But do we need a submission every time Apple lets a fart out, or antenna issue PR war - what does that have to do with 'Hacker News'.

</comment><comment><USER12> I don't worry about my comments getting down-voted. It has happened and I figure, Eh, screw you for not getting it. Just ignore it and move on.

<comment><USER13> The problem with ignoring it is that HN turns into Reddit. It's good to stay mindful of why we're here.

<comment><USER14> People say that as if Reddit is bad or undesireable. IME, Reddit's discussions are usually pretty good, as long as you're in a sub-Reddit that lends itself to good discussions (e.g. "programming") and not "wtf" or "pics" or something where stupidity is guaranteed and desired.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I down vote comments that are rude/disrespectful or attempt to derail good conversation by stating opinions as absolute facts. It's very easy to structure your comments in a way that gives people room to respectfully disagree. That's the art of having a good discussion.

</comment><comment><USER16> There's a little bit of that on HN. Not more than other places. HN is certainly not "Digg."

On the other hand, if you attack the big SWPL shibboleths (human neurological uniformity, homosexuality as mirror-heterosexuality), you tend to get stomped on. I've known hard-core Marxists who are less fanatic about believing what they're supposed to believe about this sort of thing.

I generally assume it's because the worldview of the average HNer is not even a little bit informed by biology. Just look at the uncomprehending awe that your average hacker holds the for the term "neural network" or "genetic algorithm."

</comment><comment><USER17> I think perhaps the place has become too big and certain common assumptions or implied conventions, etc, are not as widely understood or known any longer. Thus, people down-vote for whatever reason they wish.

Perhaps PG should write down some guidelines in regards to comments.

Also, why can we not down-vote stories?

<comment><USER18> <http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html> -< your guide, from PG himself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I suppose the downvotes in this thread is for irony's sake.</comment>


A Compelling and Compassionate Book about Epilepsy - <AUTHOR> https://www.lawliberty.org/book-review/a-compelling-and-compassionate-book-about-epilepsy/ <comment><USER2> My wife was recently diagnosed with epilepsy. What I've learned in the last 2 years is that media treats epilepsy in an astonishingly simplistic manner. I should not be surprised by this given that we can't all spend our time knowing every subject deeply.

Two quick examples come to mind: photosensitive epilepsy is very rare compared to the incidence of epilepsy. Something like less than 5% of sufferers are triggered by lights / flashing. Also, I've read that those who are photosensitive can have their seizures triggered by rapid head movements. Remember that when someone tells you they have epilepsy - it's not always about flashing lights!

Second, epilepsy can happen to you at any age, and for reasons that doctors won't be able to figure out. This should be obvious because there are many conditions that we don't know the cause of. Yet it was still a bit distressing to me to learn that adult-onset epilepsy happens sometimes for reasons we don't know.

Bonus FYI: don't put anything in the mouth of someone having a seizure, especially not your finger. This is a very common myth!</comment>


Black Man Driving Wife to Work Accused of Being Illegal Cab Driver: Lawsuit - <AUTHOR> http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20140611/flushing/black-man-driving-wife-work-accused-of-being-illegal-cab-driver-lawsuit

<comment><USER3> Shameful that the word "black" was elided from the beginning of the title. It's a whitewashing that completely obscures the point of the article.

Edit: Happy to see it's been restored.

<comment><USER4> The story is about a couple suing the taxi commission over racial profiling. Sure it doesn't matter what color skin they have but id hardly call explaining the situation, how and why the couple arein the right to be whitewashing the story. How would you propose the author should have tippy toed around the color of their skin while still explaining exactly what they are suuing over, - which by the way, is the fact that the commission mistakingly labeled her as white being part of the problem.

<comment><USER5> You're not responding to the comment you think you're responding to.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> My favorite sentence is "biracial woman mistakenly identified as white". Racial profiling right there. There is no valid reason to even consider if someone's skin is tanned or genetically darker for purposes of taxi regulation. I would led it slide for maybe a dermatologist.

<comment><USER7> _I would led it slide for maybe a dermatologist._

It's medically relevant far beyond dermatology; having darker skin than normal for one's racial background can be a symptom (e.g., of primary adrenal insufficiency), while knowing a patient's racial background can be important for diagnosing and treating diseases which are far more common in some racial groups than others (e.g., drepanocytosis).

But absolutely agree that it is not relevant to taxi regulation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> How does the "Taxi and Limousine Commission" have the jurisdiction to seize someone's car?

<comment><USER9> Asset forfeiture: _" Asset forfeiture is a form of confiscation of assets by the state, pursuant to law. It typically applies to the alleged proceeds or instrumentalities of crime."_

See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture)

What bothers me about this practice is that a person's assets - <USER2> assets like a car, that the person depends on for their livelihood - can be seized without the person having been convicted of any crime. This seems to be a blatant violation of due process.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Mr. and Mrs. Daisy were not amused and plan to sue</comment>


Hacker News Seattle Meetup #3: Video recap, interview with Dan Shapiro - <AUTHOR> http://vimeo.com/30183161

<comment><USER2> Thanks for doing this in Seattle, Zachary. You're doing the Seattle startup community a great service by providing a meetup that we _actually want_ to go to.

<comment><USER3> Yes, thank you! I've been to #2 and #3, and both were great. Keep up the good work!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Such an awesome event!</comment>


The state of in-flight Internet - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2009/03/in-flight-internet-really-uh-takes-off.ars

<comment><USER2> Should mention Kevin Rose's UStream broadcast from Virgin yesterday. Doesn't seem to.</comment>


Is America Facing Another Sputnik Moment? - <AUTHOR> https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/is-america-facing-another-sputnik-moment <comment><USER2> I'm pretty irritated at the title. It seems to pose a question of whether we are having a watershed moment where an achievement by a competing nation will spur us to greater activity.

But all the article does is rehash history. A more accurate title would be, "It's the Sputnik anniversary, here are some thoughts".

<comment><USER3> The message in the article is that NASA is getting into the 60 years old Sputnik era mindset of national gestures and symbolism instead of doing space science or helping actual space economy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > Indeed, recently opened archives suggest that Eisenhower preferred to let > the Soviets reach space first, so as to establish a precedent. The United > States would then be free to launch reconnaissance satellites without > incurring the wrath of its Cold War nemesis.

You hear things like this alot,

\- The US knew about Pearl Harbor attacks and let them happen

\- The US knew about 9/11 and let it happen.

\- The US knew about soviet misses moving to Cuba and let them get there intentionally.

Most people dismiss this as tinfoil hat territory. I wonder how many of these "conspiracies" have any truth to them?

As to the US facing a "Sputnik Moment" now, I don't think the article lays out any valid reasons why now is their Sputnik moment. You could have written this article any year from 1969 to now and it would be equally true.

<comment><USER5> I catch myself internally debating this from time to time.

On the one hand, we are encouraged to make decisions based on facts/data/evidence. Speculation is speculation. Anything goes.

On the other hand, if we only do this we are bound by the "reality" that has been provided to us. No evolution/revolution can occur.

History is filled with documented cases of these "conspiracies".

I'd be really interested in hearing other peoples' views on this.

<comment><USER6> I think the error that a lot of conspiracy theorists make isn't so much the idea that conspiracies exist, but that they have some sort of additional metaphysical super-reality that makes them supremely powerful and omniscient. I can process the possibility that 9/11 was at least permitted to happen by somebody who happened to work for the government. But I bet it didn't go as they expected (doubt anyone planned on one of the planes crashing before arriving at the Pentagon), and I would also lay money down the after effects were not precisely what they wanted or expected either. Just as it the effects were not precisely what the terrorists themselves probably expected or desired, either. (And in only the craziest levels of the conspiracy theory would the motives of the actual people and the conspirators actually line up.)

A lot of conspiracies probably exist. Mostly they fight with each other (knowingly or otherwise), work at cross purposes, and don't have exactly the predicted effects any more than any of the rest of us can predict the future precisely either. And people underestimate what people can do. At the risk of being excessively topical, as an example, at the moment I see nothing in particular about the Las Vegas shooting incident that requires a conspiracy to have occurred. That doesn't prove there wasn't one, and I reserve the right to change my mind as evidence comes in, but at the moment, I don't see anything that requires that as an explanation. In a world of 7 billion people, a non- trivial number of which are crazy, a non-trivial number of _those_ of which recently went crazy due to environmental factors such as drugs (prescription and otherwise) or brain tumors, I don't think the baseline of such incidents will ever be zero.

(And I'm not necessarily all that hard pressed to more-or-less believe the official account of 9-11 either, honestly.)

In summation, I think that certainly some conspiracies exist, but they are less powerful and omniscient that people ascribe to them, that there are things that "just happen" without a conspiracy, and that sometimes they do succeed and remain secret.

I'd also observe that just like there's a rush every time a new product comes out to be the first to denounce it and declare it's utter failure, there's a rush to be the first person to declare that you can see the workings of a conspiracy or how something is a false flag operation. In our social media age, this is what I would call "the expected result", not some sort of surprise or meaningful signal.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> A nice intro into Sputnik, but otherwise almost no substance.

How are crewed missions not in line with the Apollo missions praised earlier in the article? I am a huge supporter of basic research but NASA had plenty of success with research which was performed to support/enable a more applied purpose.

</comment><comment><USER8> I'm surprised that despite talking about the push for scientific education that came out of the Sputnik event, the article doesn't quote the seminal manifesto that really galvanized the conversation: _A Nation at Risk_ [0]

Is it as relevant today as it was back then? The rest of the BRIC nations hadn't yet reached their ascendancy, and outsourcing was in its infancy. AI automation was a fantasy.

[0] [https://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html](https://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html)

</comment><comment><USER9> Our systematic, aggressive cost accounting has forced reduction, offshoring, or outsourcing of basic R&D and core competencies in a number of tech fields. Shareholders hate investing beyond the next quarter. Where is the flow of innovations that used to come from Bell labs, DEC SRC, or Xerox PARC? Who among the Buffets and bankers will have the appetite to pay for it?

</comment><comment><USER10> Is there a newspaper out there that doesn't use bait-filled titles and articles filled with "analysis" and just reports the news?

</comment><comment><USER11> > It also elides the fact that, at a time of increasing automation here on > Earth, the rush to send human colonists to space seems quaint, if not > misguided.

Personally I find that with all the recent Space X announcements, space exploration really feels like the future is arriving. It turns out we don't need flying cars, but having space rockets that land themselves, having moon bases and people on Mars genuinely is the future.

This kind of stuff excites me and makes me long for the future. Automation doesn't.

Obligatory XKCD: [https://www.xkcd.com/1232/](https://www.xkcd.com/1232/)

</comment><comment><USER12> Stupid title for a TRUMPish article.</comment>


JQuery Super Labels Plugin - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/remybach/jQuery.superLabels This plugin positions your labels on top of your form fields (similiar visually to placeholder) and makes the label slide across the field when gaining focus and fade out when a value is entered. <comment><USER2> It's cute but too much distracting IMO. I prefer to have it fade a little bit on focus and disappear on writing.

<comment><AUTHOR> There's an option to do that:

$('form').superLabels({ slide:false });

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Seems OTT to me,

I generally use normal boring labels, then modernizer to detect if the browser supports placeholders, if so hide the labels and add placeholders to the attributes

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh, also... once you're in the field, the placeholder disappears and you have no idea what you were meant to type (which is why the plugin slides to the side by default).

<comment><USER4> No. Placeholders stay visible until user starts typing. That is, empty focused field still has visible placeholder.

<comment><USER5> Only in Chrome. Not in Firefox, at least.

<comment><AUTHOR> True! It wasn't like this when I wrote the plugin though, plus I needed the effect to work cross-browser.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> FWIW, Safari and Chrome both keep placeholder text there like this plug-in does (without the animation). It'd be nice to get FireFox on board.

<comment><USER7> Yes, in -webkit- browsers you can achieve the same effect with this CSS:

            &::-webkit-input-placeholder {
                -webkit-transition: text-indent 200ms ease-in-out;
                visibility: visible !important;
            }

            &:focus::-webkit-input-placeholder {
                text-indent: 115px; /* Change to width of input */
            }

If only you could do the same for Firefox...

<comment><USER8> <https://developer.mozilla.org/en/CSS/:-moz-placeholder>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Should probably use stop() before animating or else there's a funny effect if I click the fields back and forth really fast.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hmmm... not quite a real-world scenario though. I like to consider it a quirky easter-egg :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> how do you get the labels back again? sometimes my browser or password manager fills in the wrong fields, and, once there's something in the fields, there's no labels.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, I've got an issue open on github for this. I'll fix it when I get the chance. Thanks :)</comment></comment>


The Ferocious Complexity of the Cell - <AUTHOR> https://rbharath.github.io/the-ferocious-complexity-of-the-cell/ <comment><USER2> One of the major misunderstandings even many biologists have about how a cell works is a complete misconception of how jam-packed and dynamic a living cell actually is. See the following images for a pretty simulation of what a cell actually "looks" like on the inside:

[http://mgl.scripps.edu/people/goodsell/books/MoL2figures/Fig...](http://mgl.scripps.edu/people/goodsell/books/MoL2figures/Figure8.2-reduced.jpg)

Webpage with more info:

[http://occamstypewriter.org/scurry/2010/08/30/the_crowded_ce...](http://occamstypewriter.org/scurry/2010/08/30/the_crowded_cell/)

Physicists/chemists often make fun of biology as "blob-logy" because we tend to draw biological systems as Blob-1 interacting with Blob-2 which leads to a change in Blob-3. It's a very useful abstraction, but it's also limited. In reality all these blobs are jammed together and moving around, creating a lot of random noise in the system. This is because every component in a cell is working at nano-scale (proteins are to a 1st approximation about 5nm in diameter). The rules are different at that scale, we don't experience anything like them in our daily lives.

In other words, the components of the cell aren't doing chemistry at a bench, passing the results of one reaction to the next reaction, it's more like doing chemistry in a mosh pit.

Biology has developed coping mechanisms for this insanity, but analogies drawn with things like computer processors and macro-world items are going to be somewhat wrong because of the inherent differences in scale.

<comment><USER3> Here's a list of "Molecule of the Month" images from David S. Goodsell. Some great looking images.

[http://pdb101.rcsb.org/motm/motm-image- download](http://pdb101.rcsb.org/motm/motm-image-download)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This article seems to equate "exhaustively understand" with "can be simulated down to an atomic level". I think that's not a good way to go about it. A cube of silicon with 1cm side length has about 10^20 atoms. Storing one bit for each atom would use exabytes of memory. Luckily, we don't have to simulate the cube at that level of precision to get a pretty good idea about how it behaves.

The "we could just simulate the whole brain down to the quarks" argument is an argument for the existence of AI. Nobody seriously suggests that it's the practical path forward to achieving it.

<comment><USER5> I agree with your general premise, that abstraction is essential and sufficient for us to understand a lot of the functions and mechanisms of the cell.

I do, however, think that the author is right in calling the cell ferociously complex, and that a lot of the abstractions we use hide and gloss over a chaotic system whose particulars can explain a lot of unexplained or misunderstood processes. That's fine to help us get an initial understanding, but you always want to drill down to a lower level abstraction until you (don't) reach the bottom of the stack of turtles.

Biology undergoes a major paradigm shift couple of decades, and minor paradigm shifts on an even more regular basis, and I attribute that largely to the increasing resolution with which we're able to observe things.

Ten years ago, microscopes were shittier, we were using microarrays instead of RNA/DNA-seq, we weren't using biotinylated-fusion proteins... but that stuff was necessary for us to really prove in a persuasive way ground-breaking shifts like that the DNA->Protein->Function paradigm isn't sufficient to describe a lot of what goes on in a cell.

PREEMPTIVE EDIT: I know that DNA->Protein->Function paradigm was questioned way earlier than 2007, but it's taken a lot of persuasive evidence since then using modern techniques to get things like lncRNAs implicated in cancer

<comment><USER6> "a lot of the abstractions we use hide and gloss over a chaotic system whose particulars can explain a lot of unexplained or misunderstood processes."

Is not that always the case with abstractions? In fact, is not their point?

The article says:

"How far is human science from understanding a human brain? [..] Assuming that each neuron contains 175 trillion atoms, the total brain contains roughly 2 * 10^25 atoms."

Well, by the same logic, we could argue that we don't understand cars.

<comment><USER7> >Well, by the same logic, we could argue that we don't understand cars

Or, by similar logic, that we don't understand how the planets of the solar system interact. It seems that in the history of science, initial views of complex things as chaotic got gradually replaced with better abstractions. As in, the word 'planet' means 'wanderer', then there were epicycles, perfect circles, elipses... I'm not a biologist, but maybe the current abstractions and models of cells are waiting for their Newtons and Mendeleevs to figure out the right models.

<comment><USER4> The epicycle theory was actually pretty good and explained planet motion to the precision that measurements of that time provided.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Even higher level formal approaches are ferociously complex:

Within each cell is very complex gene regulatory network (GRN). GRN behavior can be modeled as complex stochastic recurrent neural network. Genes are on/off and they can put other genes on and off with gradients and interaction of the proteins they produce.

Then there is the functioning of neurons on top of that.

There are even higher level abstractions, like cortical columns and other structures. It's conceivable that there are 4-7 levels of complex functional interaction that produces human behaviour and understanding all of those levels is important.

The brain of C. elegans (roundworm) has been mapped exactly (connectome is known) and we know it's 302 neurons and 8000 synapses well (it has little over 1000 cells total) but we still can't understand how its primitive brain works. It don't even have spiking neurons and it's still a mystery.

</comment><comment><USER9> It's probably hopeless to try to simulate a cell at the atomic level. Instead, it seems to me that computational biologists try to build models of cells[1] where if I understand correctly all occuring molecules are tracked as concentrations, not as particles. Presumably, possible reactions are established not by solving the Schrödinger equation but with empiric models and whatnot.

I don't know how closely such a model can match an actual cell behavior, but I don't see any reason it can not do so pretty well, while also being computationally efficient thus doable.

1\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_model](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_model)

<comment><USER10> The challenges involved are still insanely tremendous. For ex, correctly simulating folding a lot of the larger human proteins de novo is still beyond our capabilities.

<comment><USER9> It's not exactly the same problem. A cell model will hopefully not have to know the exact geometric configuration of a protein, as long as it contains a rich enough collection of possible reactions with other proteins. Determining those reactions is difficult indeed, but it only has to be done once, and one can hope it will be done soon with quantum computers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The complexity of cellular biochemistry is why the most effective near-term approaches to medical biotechnology involve sidestepping the need to learn very much more about how it all works in detail. They are engineering rather than scientific efforts.

This is most apparent in aging research, though the principle applies to most medicine. The idea is to identify the root cause differences between normal and diseased metabolism, a task that is a lot easier than figuring our how exactly those root causes propagate and expand into the disease state over time. Root causes are those that have no other cause beyond the normal operation of cells. You then intervene to revert the root cause differences and see what that does to metrics of disease state and progression. The goal is to return metabolism to its normal state, a state that we don't fully understand, but that we know works.

A practical example is the presence of senescent cells. They cause problems, they are not present in large numbers in young, healthy people, so remove them. Removing them sidesteps the whole involved process of trying to understand exactly how they cause problems, in detail, at the level of cellular mechanisms. Researchers are working on that goal of full knowledge, but it will be years until that slowly starts to produce useful therapeutic options, and there are probably decades yet in any research program or combination of research programs that seeks to alter the behavior of senescent cells to make them less harmful. Meanwhile, removing senescent cells works reliably to improve health and turn back disease, and you don't need to know why that happens in order to obtain the benefits, beyond the high-level sketch of "less harmful signaling".

Unfortunately most medical research takes an entirely different approach, which is to start with analysis of the disease state (complex, expensive, slow) and then work back through proximate causes of disarray. At each point at which a therapy might be attempted, try to adjust the proximate cause. Since this doesn't touch on root causes, it is usually marginal, and even the successes just postpone the inevitable.

</comment><comment><USER12> For comparison, here are the opinions from some of the leaders in pathology informatics, coincidentally out today:

Andy Beck (winner of the Camelyon16): [http://www.archivesofpathology.org/doi/full/10.5858/arpa.201...](http://www.archivesofpathology.org/doi/full/10.5858/arpa.2016-0471-ED)

Alexis Carter (Emory, works mainly on wrangling clinical databases and generally keeping tech from killing patients): [http://www.archivesofpathology.org/doi/full/10.5858/arpa.201...](http://www.archivesofpathology.org/doi/full/10.5858/arpa.2016-0593-ED)

</comment><comment><USER13> Here's a thought experiment for all Singularitarians.

If a modern-day Music Man appeared in your town with virtual everlasting life in a box, and all the miraculous brain-uploading equipment attached, then started selling tickets and "uploading" your neighbors... how would you be able to tell whether he's actually migrating their consciousnesses, or just using a deep network to train _simulations_ of their minds inside the virtual world while concurrently euthanizing them?

<comment><USER14> Not a singularitarian myself but personally, I don't care as long as the simulation is sufficiently good (waves hands vigorously). Though I would prefer in the case of a duplicate that I wasn't euthanized.

<comment><USER15> What does it matter to you that a copy of you is uploaded, but _you_ are left to wither away in meatspace?

That's nice for the copy, I guess, but how will it benefit you?

<comment><USER14> Similar to how I want people to remember me, and how I would like children of mine to live on and prosper. We are all, on some level, replicating machines who want to organize the world for more of ourselves.

Edit: Even our bodies are completely renewed over time, and any sense of self similarity that relies on the particular arrangement of matter seems fraught with problems to me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Forgive me, quoting the first few sentences of the article:

> _Fifty years ago, the first molecular dynamics papers allowed scientists to > exhaustively simulate systems with a few dozen atoms for picoseconds. Today, > due to tremendous gains in computational capability from Moore's law, and > due to significant gains in algorithmic sophisticiation from fifty years of > research, modern scientists can simulate systems with hundreds of thousands > of atoms for milliseconds at a time. Put another way, scientists today can > study systems tens of thousands of times larger, for billion of times longer > than they could fifty years go. The effective reach of physical simulation > techniques has expanded handleable computational complexity ten-trillion > fold._

Doesn't setting the initial bar to the _first_ academic paper set it so low that you'd have massive gains regardless after a few decades?

<comment><USER17> I'm not sure what your point is.

They don't try to tease out whether it was raw computing power or better algorithms, just that it was tens of trillions of times more computed.

Also, minor nitpicking -- they said _papers_ not _paper_ , likely meaning the first several years to decade of it.

<comment><USER18> To be fair, they don't try to tease out if it is algorithmic or computational because they state it was both.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Lets imagine you can simulate a sperm a cell over it's cell cycle. What do you want to learn about the sperm after you've got your simulation? After you've simulated the sperm you have not yet gained any insight towards how the sperm.

Analogously, you don't need to do molecular dynamics simulations of rocket ships in order to understand how it works. In fact that would be the wrong abstraction. Similarly an atom by atom simulation of the human body would be the wrong abstraction to understand physiology.

Computational models need to be useful. I am not convinced this approach to simulate the cell would be useful.

</comment><comment><USER20> I think computational efforts could be greatly reduced if we focus only on protein-protein interactions for any pair of proteins (or a small group of them). From this, we obtain a functional description of every protein, and this allows us to perform simulations at a much higher level.

Of course, the number of proteins that can be produced from a given genome is still very large, and the number of binary/ternary/... interactions is even larger.

<comment><USER21> The trouble is a protein's function is tied to to its solvent, and the small molecules it interacts with on timescales orders of magnitude smaller than a protein itself, AND protein complexes up to microns in size can contain strucutres critical for functionality at time scales orders of magnitude larger.

There just is no way to accurately simulate across so many orders of magnitude when the effects both above and below it efficiently impinge on that function.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> > Following the historical example from the previous paragraph, and assuming > that Moore's law continues in some form, we are at least 50 years of hard > research from achieving thorough understanding of the simplest of human > cells.

Things fall apart here. Moore's law has been dead for a while.

</comment><comment><USER23> I'm pretty sure none of the futurists who believe in uploading themselves into a computer expect to do it by completely simulating a brain on the quantum level. Indeed, that would in some sense miss the point since that would accurately simulate all the degeneration a human biological brain would experience, in which case why bother?

Secondly, I think there's an implicit definition that a "full simulation" is equal to "fully understanding something", but that's not the case. For any non-trivial process, we say we "understand" it if we have a cognitively- tractable _simplified_ model that works well enough for our use case. "Understanding" almost never implies that we have the ability to fully simulate it. I "understand" quite a lot of computer technologies without the ability to simply sit down and spew out an implementation of them with no further thought but my already-existing understanding; nevertheless, I "understand" them well as evidenced by my ability to harness them thoroughly and effectively.

And for the other direction, the mere ability to produce vast quantities of data does not mean that we have "understanding", either. You can give me the source code for a large simulation [1], say a weather prediction program, and you can give me the incoming data, and in principle I could manually compute that entire program one step at a time, but at the end I still might not "understand" anything I just produced. On its own, even if we were handed a computer system that did have a full simulation of a neuron in it that still would not grant us "understanding" of a neuron; it would grant us a _tool_ that we might be able to use to obtain understanding, but it would not itself be "understanding".

So the literal facts in the essay are interesting, the historical perspective is interesting, the observation that full simulation of the physical world at certain significant scales is still dozens of orders of magnitude away is interesting and relevant, but the conclusion that therefore brain simulation is impossible and the reasonably-inferred conclusion that we can never understand these other large structures is logically invalid, due to a strawman view of what "brain simulation is" and due to a very peculiar and not-widely-shared implicit definition of "understanding".

[1]: Note I'm not saying _anything_ about the simulation corresponding to reality today, I'm strictly referring to the terabytes of data the simulation itself can produce on its own terms.</comment>