The Making of Dune II - <AUTHOR> https://readonlymemory.vg/the-making-of-dune-ii/ <comment><USER2> This was as favorite of mine in highschool. My friends and I would all play this after school.

We found a bug that made the 1 player missions way too easy. The range of the sonic tanks wasn't really a range so much as a path that the waves took for the duration of the sound effect. We found that by turning the speed of the game up, the shots would travel way too far and made them really overpowered.

<comment><USER3> We must be around the same age. It was the same for me. I must have played all 3 houses so many times. I loved being able to control the units.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Thanks for the share, this brought back great memories. The explanations in the article partly explain why the game was so enjoyable, and it is nice to hear the behind-the-scenes explanation for choices.

Dune II had such an effect on me, I still remember the moments I played it in high school, the ambient music, the feeling of attach, and the feeling of spice running out. Oh, and level 7!

</comment><comment><USER5> Actually, you can still download and play this on modern platforms. I have it running on my Mac. [http://dunelegacy.sourceforge.net/website/](http://dunelegacy.sourceforge.net/website/) and [https://www.myabandonware.com/game/dune-ii-the-building- of-a...](https://www.myabandonware.com/game/dune-ii-the-building-of-a- dynasty-1e7#download) brings back great memories. Good read :-)

<comment><USER6> Dune Legacy is awesome. They added some RTS features that evolved after Dune II like drag select and control groups.

Makes it a lot more playable today without impacting the fel of the game.

I also like that you can get a much larger viewport than in the original, using todays very big resolution screens. I find having 2x scaling and a large Window works best, as 1x makes units too small.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> on the Internet Archive: [https://archive.org/details/msdos_Dune_2_-_The_Building_of_a...](https://archive.org/details/msdos_Dune_2_-_The_Building_of_a_Dynasty_1992)

love the game, remember playing the Mega Drive (Genesis) port and falling in love with RTS

</comment><comment><USER8> > _'Dune II seems very old and clunky by today's standards,' says Joe. 'The > biggest single thing I should have added to it was the ability to drag- > select units to allow a player to issue one order simultaneously to multiple > units. Even though that seems like a simple feature, it was the key change > that made C &C such a leap ahead of Dune II.'_

That's what I was concerned about before I played through one of the three campaigns a few years ago — that the UI would seem unbearable after having played a lot of Warcraft 3 and Starcraft 2. I found it actually quite OK after learning the keyboard shortcuts (of the Dos version). What actually ruined it for me and made me not want to play the other campaigns is the poor AI. Easy enemies would have been alright; I'm not that good at RTS games anyway and being able to finish each level on the first try was nice. But the opponents are so exceptionally stupid that it just got boring.

There are a few open source clones of the engine that have online multi-player and some other additional features (such as the standard multi-select). But I'm not aware of one that lets you play the single-player campaigns against a decently fun AI. Waiiit a moment … just found out that I had missed something big: Dune Legacy lets you play the campaigns, not just single-player skirmish, against its improved AIs. I just tried selecting 'hard' and (with game speed at maximum) got completely wrecked on the second map. Wonderful!

Dune (the adventureish one), on the other hand, is still a good game in its original form.

</comment><comment><USER9> There's a great three-part discussion of Dune, and Dune II here:

[https://www.filfre.net/2018/11/controlling-the-spice- part-1-...](https://www.filfre.net/2018/11/controlling-the-spice-part-1-dune- on-page-and-screen/)

Click "next" to move forward to the following-parts.

</comment><comment><USER10> I've never been much of a gamer.

Dune II was one of the few games I ever really bit into. I played it more than anything else.

Honestly, it was like _" Okay. I completed the Gaming Experience. Enjoyed that. What else does life have?"_

<comment><USER11> Yep. I genuinely think that teenagers play games because nothing else in their life is so rewarding.

I was hooked until I got my first real job, and I guess the thrill of creating something of your own and seeing it produce results was a delayed gratification no game can match.

That being said, I do love a good story, and gaming has really become a creative outlet for visual storytelling. I can recommend Disco Elysium to anyone.

<comment><USER12> I dunno, I hear what you're saying, and I too experience enjoyment from work, but I still play a lot of games on the side. The difference is effort vs reward, in that in my day job I spend hours hacking away for some reward, whereas in games there's (usually) enjoyment all throughout.

Finished another playthrough of Factorio again the other day, each time I learn of my mistakes and improve on things again. This time I made a proper train network and used premade blueprints for it, it was really neat and things went pretty smoothly. 70 hours or so until first launch.

<comment><USER10> I didn't mean to throw shade on gaming. I meant to say that my Dune II plays were so satisfying, my gaming void was filled.

I never enjoyed later games as much & eventually moved on from gaming.

sidebar: I ran a Minecraft server for 4 years but that wasn't gaming so much as it was responsibility.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I cannot express how excited I was to see Herzog Zwei mentioned in this write- up. I play the heck out of that game as a kid and it's burned an indelible memory in my mind.

</comment><comment><USER14> This guy ported it to the web.

[http://epicport.com/en](http://epicport.com/en) [https://github.com/caiiiycuk/play-dune](https://github.com/caiiiycuk/play- dune)

</comment><comment><USER15> I believe house Ordos was made specifically for the games

<comment><USER16> Not quite; House Ordos originates with the (semi-canon) Dune Encyclopedia, from 1984.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> This website is so hard to read.</comment>


The Neuroscientist Who Discovered He Was a Psychopath - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/science/2013/11/the-neuroscientist-who-discovered-he-was-a-psychopath/ <comment><USER3> "Psycopath" has no clinical meaning. The closest equivalent is Antisocial Personality disorder. In extreme cases, an antisocial can be a Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer, but that's not always the case.

It's worth pointing out that there is also such thing as an Antisocial personality _style_ , meaning that a person has antisocial traits, but can keep them in check well enough to function in society. They tend to do well in roles that require aggression, and can make excellent entrepreneurs, attorneys, and politicians. In fact, people are frequently surprised to find out that some of their most prized traits are Antisocial, they have some antisocial friends, and that they probably have one or two Antisocial heroes. Martin Luther King Jr and Mother Theresa leap to mind.

TL;DR - It's simplistic to say "Trait A bad, Trait B good". There are plenty of narcissists, sociopaths, and paranoids that have done great things for society.

<comment><USER4> "Psychopath" absolutely has a clinical meaning. While not formally defined in the DSM, it can be diagnosed via the "PCL-R" test [1] administered by a psychiatrist or other qualified clinician. The test has a 40 year history of use in penology.

More recently, a lot of interesting research is being done now on the physical basis of psychopathy, using various non-invasive means [2].

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

[2] [http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/11/10/081110fa_fact_...](http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/11/10/081110fa_fact_seabrook?printable=true&currentPage=all)

<comment><USER3> The thing is that the literature isn't clear on there being a single agreed- upon definition of psychopathy. The PCL-R test certainly has been successful in a criminal setting. In fact, that's its chief disadvantage: it's too focused on the criminality aspect of it. There are certainly other points of view.

<comment><USER5> Hare's definition is rather widely agreed-upon. I doubt there are many mental illnesses that _do_ have a single agreed-upon definition.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've always viewed psychopaths as a sort of social predator, Something that would naturally spring up in any kind of environment subject to evolution. If you had a planet of sheep, you're going to eventually get sheep that eat other sheep. Morality is never involved in a strategy to survive. Likewise in a social environment, preying on others is effective.

With no moral aversion to such behaviour, I had basically assumed all psychopaths would establish some kind of predatory behaviour in their lives. Manipulation, plagiarizing, discrediting, blackmailing, ect.

On one level, it's not surprising to me to see an outlier such as Mr. Fallon, but I can't shake it. When you have those tendencies as part of who you are, then the question really becomes "why didn't you act on them?" Oh your mother loved you a whole bunch? I see. The human spirit is just indomitable isn't it? Uh huh.

I suspect the simplest answer is: "he did."

It would raise my spirits to know that pro-social psychopaths exist. Seeing as the incidence of psychopathic symptoms on average is about 1/100 people. I've also learned not to believe something because I wish it to be true.

I fall on the nature side of the debate. It's a scary world.

<comment><USER7> if morality is never involved in a strategy to survive... why do you think it exists?

<comment><USER8> Imposing morality on others is a survival strategy, but obeying morality yourself only becomes one once everyone else is imposing it on you.

<comment><USER7> i disagree. i think there's some morality hard-wired in most people.

<comment><USER8> Many survival strategies are hard-wired.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Intriguing article, but I feel that Fallon might be a bit too hard on himself: once you think X you start interpreting everything so that obviously it corroborates X. "I forgot my wife's birthday" suddenly implies "I don't care about other people's emotions because I'm a psycho" instead of the explanation that is probably more sensible, namely "I can be forgetful sometimes".

Maybe he should revisit his initial hypothesis that brain scans are quackery...

<comment><USER6> When the topic of psychopathy comes up for lunch room discussion, I sometimes go into depth of what I've personally learned on the subject (just something I'm interested in). When I go into it, most people I've talked to immediately ask me if they are psychopaths. It's funny how consistent that is.

Maybe, despite the evidence pointing in that direction, he just didn't manifest a psychopathic brain.

maybe.

<comment><USER10> > When I go into it, most people I've talked to immediately ask me if they are > psychopaths

I think a good answer is "if you care about the answer, then probably not - all a psychopath would care about is whether anyone found out".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> So now he is a candidate for Special Ops :-) More seriously, its another data point in the nature vs nurture debate and one where even he points out, he is very competitive and can be rude even to children. Advice, don't cut this guy off on the freeway :-).

One wonders how many people "discover" they are psychopaths when they do something psychopathic and it gives them a huge endorphin rush and then they want to do it again? If this guy got into a competitive situation and ended up literally beating his opponent into a bloody pulp, would his brain chemistry make it feel to him like the best sex [1] he had ever had? And then would he be able to not do it again? _That_ is the interesting bit for me, while I am a big fan of the nurture hypothesis, can nature override it? And does it?

[1] Pick what ever primal rewarding activity you want here, sex seems to be a fairly common one.

<comment><USER3> This is a very good point. Generally, there's some element of nature and some element of nurture in a person's development. I mean you take two identical twins who are separated from birth and find that they're very similar in some respects and completely different in others.

The point is that there's a difference between _temperament_ _personality_. Some people are just wired to act a certain way and yet are raised to be a totally different way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> While the concept of psychopathy is interesting, people shouldn't be lulled into believing that this category is more well defined than it really is.

E.g. people often associate psychopathy with criminality, and yet only the part of the psychopathy test that directly relates to past criminal behavior, is predictive of future criminal behavior.

I feel like psychopathy as a category is almost made for people who want an easy answer for the relationship between science and morality.

<comment><USER13> Wow, your last comment struck a chord in me. And it also reminded me of this incredible quote of A. N. Whitehead, the prominent mathematician:

"Pitiless indeed are the processes of Time and Creative Thought and Logic; they respect the convenience of none, nor the love of things held sacred. Yet their work is the increasing glory of a world, - the production of psychic light, - the growth of knowledge, - the advancement of understanding, - <USER2> enlargement of human life, - the emancipation of Man."

How about that?

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Interesting, but this story feels very incomplete without some interviews with his family and his grad students. (Not that they would feel free to talk openly.)

</comment><comment><USER15> He broke the blinding on a study? The monster!

<comment><USER16> Surely doing a scan on his family and himself is a huge no-no?

<comment><USER15> Including yourself in a study is fairly routine. The rules for human experimentation - at least for some categories of psych studies - are a lot more lax when it comes to self-experimentation.

The family thing was probably an approved part of the study. When looking for something with a suspected genetic component it makes a lot of sense.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Makes you wonder what's going to show up when (if?) diagnostic scans like this become widely available to consumers.

</comment><comment><USER18> He talks about all his behavior alleles (?) but gives us no idea of a baseline in the general population.

He talks about how his brain has this same scan as a psychopath, but doesn't tell us how many people have this same scan in the general population.

It is all glossed over for a good talk.

This science has now evolved into books. I saw him on NOVA originally. Who would know who he is outside his academia world, if not for this silly discovery ?

This is such poor science. I'd question if having him look over a stack of brain scans to find correlations with certain behaviors to be of value. Seems like you'd be better off finding some layperson, teach them how to read these heat map type things and let them find the correlations. Like A/B testing for the brain. Then you don't have all these biases leading to book deals. chuckle.

</comment><comment><USER19> It scared me when I found out such a high percentage of people are sociopaths. I know many are non-violent and live within social norms, but it still unsettles me. How can you have empathy for someone who has no empathy for you or anyone else? Someone who has no guilt?

<comment><USER20> My pretend empathy and guilt is as good as the real thing.

<comment><USER19> For utilitarian purposes, sure. But I'm not sure how I feel about someone who would have no problem killing me or torturing me if it was ever a benefit to them. And I'm not sure how I feel about having empathy for someone who can't give it in return.

<comment><USER20> > I'm not sure how I feel about having empathy for someone who can't give it > in return

That is always the hard part because at some point pretend empathy always slips up and isn't as deep as real empathy. Some people are able to make up the gap using manipulation (not myself).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I took care to read the fine submitted article and then share it among Facebook friends of mine (who include psychologists who study human behavior genetics and neuroscientists) before commenting here. Two things come to mind after reading the comments posted earlier here.

1) Most people who have read about genetic influences on human behavior have not read the masters, but rather their disciples. The masters of behavior genetics research take care to write about the concept of "reaction range," the variety of possible behavior patterns that MIGHT arise from an individual with a given genotype under differing environmental influences. It is apparent that the reaction range for many human behaviors is very broad even if genotype is fixed.[1]

2) Simply adding some brain-scan data to some hypothesis pulled out of a hat will make even the most wild and crazy hypothesis more plausible to lay readers. Neuroscience is hard, and so far there are not a lot of neuroscience conclusions about human behavior that are well replicated and well backed up by theory.[2]

[1] The review article Johnson, W. (2010). Understanding the Genetics of Intelligence: Can Height Help? Can Corn Oil?. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(3), 177-182

[http://apsychoserver.psych.arizona.edu/JJBAReprints/PSYC621/...](http://apsychoserver.psych.arizona.edu/JJBAReprints/PSYC621/Johnson%20Current%20Directions%20Psych%20Science%202010%20\(G%20and%20E%20in%20IQ\).pdf)

looks at some famous genetic experiments to show how little is explained by gene frequencies even in thoroughly studied populations defined by artificial selection.

"Together, however, the developmental natures of GCA [general cognitive ability] and height, the likely influences of gene-environment correlations and interactions on their developmental processes, and the potential for genetic background and environmental circumstances to release previously unexpressed genetic variation suggest that very different combinations of genes may produce identical IQs or heights or levels of any other psychological trait. And the same genes may produce very different IQs and heights against different genetic backgrounds and in different environmental circumstances. This would be especially the case if height and GCA and other psychological traits are only single facets of multifaceted traits actually under more systematic genetic regulation, such as overall body size and balance between processing capacity and stimulus reactivity. Genetic influences on individual differences in psychological characteristics are real and important but are unlikely to be straightforward and deterministic. We will understand them best through investigation of their manifestation in biological and social developmental processes."

[2] The book Brainwashed: The Seductive Appeal of Mindless Neuroscience by Sally Satel and Scott O. Lilienfeld

[http://www.amazon.com/Brainwashed-Seductive-Appeal- Mindless-...](http://www.amazon.com/Brainwashed-Seductive-Appeal-Mindless- Neuroscience/dp/0465018777)

explains the gaps in current knowledge about neuroscience of human behavior and why a few brain scans in a few subjects don't tell us much about brain function before other study methods are applied to the problem.

</comment><comment><USER22> Sigh. This is one of those scientific subjects that has become a popular topic in the mainstream, and with it come a lot of misconceptions. So it's not surprising to me how many comments are skeptical of what this guy writes. It's unfortunate because the article sums what we almost certainly know about the phenomenon, albeit in a way that is clearly geared to promote his book. It's marketing, but things he says are based on a fair amount of decent science. It's just that long tables of statistical data and lectures on neurophysiology don't sell as many books as amusing personal anecdotes.

</comment><comment><USER23> This is exactly why I find the field of epigenetics[1] absolutely fascinating -- we are so much more than just the sum of our genes. _Everything_ in our lives matters: our childhood, the stuff we eat, how much we sleep (or don't), how much physical exercise we have (or don't)... all these things have an influence on the levels of gene expression and that's what decides everything.

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

<comment><USER24> Yes, I am completely fascinated by this too. Kinda makes one paranoid, though!

One article I read was cleverly headlined something like, "You are what your grandpa eats."

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Sorry mate, off to the gas chamber with you. Genetics is destiny, and we have to think about national security, the children, and what the insurance companies think.

<comment><USER26> As a continuation of this, it's worth watching Gattaca if you never have. Great film in it's own right too, pity Andrew Niccol's been off his game the last couple.

[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/)

<comment><USER27> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> He just went ahead and broke the blinding to look up who the scan belonged to? Is he allowed to do that even if he knows it belonged to a member of his family?

<comment><USER29> There's a difference between blinding for purposes of protecting subject privacy and blinding for purposes of preventing experimenter bias.

In blind trials of new medications doctors can break the blinding at will (patent seems to be having an adverse reaction, was their treatment real or placebo?) as long as they record having done it and exclude the subject from the final results.

If the scans were required to be anonymous for subject privacy, they wouldn't have kept the records needed to break the blinding.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Antisocial personality disorder and (Hare's) psychopathy are defined largely by behavior, so this title is extremely misleading. However, I supposed "neuroscientist discovers that his brain shares some anatomical similarities to known psychopaths" isn't as catchy a title.

</comment><comment><USER30> I tought psychopathy was defined defined by unacceptable social behavior, i.e. "pro-social psychopath" does not make a lot of sense.

</comment><comment><USER31> What I see in this article is a huge lack of knowledge on the subject, not by the author but by the human kind as a whole.

</comment><comment><USER32> Had to watch ad from Goldman Sachs, prior to the reading.The manipulations of 'Pro-social' psychopaths.

</comment><comment><USER33> I guess this is what talking to hundreds of psychopaths does to you...

</comment><comment><USER34> This scientist seems to be using this Just So Story for self-promotion, and he has done so for years.[1][2]

He has also attempted to profit personally.[3]

He seems to have the expertise to know that this story is flimsy, and not well-founded in science. Using an unvalidated method in this way could be considered unethical itself. [4]

Dr. Fallon's record of behavior might suggest a pattern of anti-social behavior. His job as a tenured UC professor is, in part, to educate the public. Instead he seems to give us sci-fi.

Of course, I'm just being totally silly, and so is he (not sure about all the writers he has duped over the years.)

[1] [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1278889...](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127888976)

[2] [http://www.ted.com/talks/jim_fallon_exploring_the_mind_of_a_...](http://www.ted.com/talks/jim_fallon_exploring_the_mind_of_a_killer.html)

[3] [http://www.amazon.com/The-Psychopath-Inside- Neuroscientists-...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Psychopath-Inside- Neuroscientists-Personal/dp/1591846005)

[4] [http://neurocritic.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-ethics-of- public...](http://neurocritic.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-ethics-of-public- diagnosis-using.html)

<comment><USER35> Doesn't this "pattern of anti-social behavior" just prove his claims?

<comment><USER36> no, it provides anecdotal evidence

<comment><USER37> Proving a claim about one particular person is necessarily going to cite anecdotes about them.

<comment><USER36> Disproving the claim that this particular person is behaving in this way because of these brain structures is nearly impossible with the state of neuroscience as it currently is, so it isn't a something that can be viewed as anything other than an interesting hypothesis at this stage. You just wouldn't be able to achieve anything approaching a decent level of statistical confidence from studying a single subject, no matter how many anecdotes you cite about them.

<comment><USER37> The standard of proof, and things you're expected to cite as evidence, is very different for "this particular person is a psychopath" vs "psychopaths in general have this characteristic".

>You just wouldn't be able to achive anything approaching a decent level of statistical confidence from studying a single subject, no matter how many anecdotes you cite about them.

Therefore, no one can be found guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt given that it's "just one person"?

<comment><USER36> you are confusing the legal with the scientific process, they are not the same thing

<comment><USER37> No, you are. You're bringing up scientific standards of proof that are totally inapplicable to the question of whether one person meets the diagnostic criteria. Your argument would likewise "prove" that therapists can't diagnose patients with anything because they "only have anecdotal evidence" about "one person".

Yes, someone is very confused here and wasting people's time, but it's not me.

<comment><USER38> > You're bringing up scientific standards of proof that are totally > inapplicable to the question of whether one person meets the diagnostic > criteria.

It's not every day that I hear someone argue that scientific standards aren't applicable to an issue potentially resolvable with science.

> Your argument would likewise "prove" that therapists can't diagnose patients > with anything because they "only have anecdotal evidence" about "one > person".

But that is true, and it's been proven over and over again. Psychologists cannot reliably diagnose mental illnesses -- this is a matter of public record and scientific evidence. Tom Widiger, who served as head of research for DSM- IV, says, "There are lots of studies which show that clinicians diagnose most of their patients with one particular disorder and really don't systematically assess for other disorders. They have a bias in reference to the disorder that they are especially interested in treating and believe that most of their patients have."

This is why psychology and psychiatry are being abandoned. Read this from the sitting director of the NIMH:

[http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming- dia...](http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming- diagnosis.shtml)

Quote: "While DSM has been described as a "Bible" for the field, it is, at best, a dictionary, creating a set of labels and defining each. The strength of each of the editions of DSM has been "reliability" – each edition has ensured that clinicians use the same terms in the same ways. _The weakness is its lack of validity._ "

Well put, Doctor Insel.

<comment><USER22> > This is why psychology and psychiatry are being abandoned.

This is like saying: "This is why biology and [insert-some-unreliable-medical- procedure] are being abandoned." (because said procedure was found unreliable). Without going into debate about DSM and psychiatric clinical practice, psychology has little to do with this. Terminology should be used properly, and we should be aware what words mean, especially if we criticize sloppy science or health care.

<comment><USER38> > Without going into debate about DSM and psychiatric clinical practice ...

A wise choice, since that debate took place, psychology was found wanting, and is being abandoned as a result. Which part of this are you not clear about?

> ... psychology has little to do with this.

Psychology has everything to do with this. Psychology's basic premise is that there is a normal behavior, a "good thing", and we should all aspire to it. Meanwhile, in reality, evolution requires diversity to function. Diversity stands at odds with the idea that there is a single correct model for behavior.

The important thing to understand about evolution is that it's strongly backed by scientific evidence, unlike psychology's belief system. One piece of evidence in favor of evolution, by no means the only piece, is us -- we arose by way of natural selection, and this happened by way of innumerable failed experiments. No natural selection, no humans. That's strong evidence for how badly psychology pictures reality.

> Terminology should be used properly, and we should be aware what words mean, > especially if we criticize sloppy science or health care.

Don't tell me, tell the director of the NIMH and the highest-ranking psychiatrist in the country, who is arguing for the abandonment of the DSM:

[http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/05/the-s...](http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/05/the- scientific-backlash-against-the-dsm.html)

I cannot impress on you strongly enough that the present criticism of the field of psychology is entirely justified by facts.

<comment><USER22> Please stop confusing psychology and psychiatry. That was the point of my post. You're using these two words as if they are synonyms. They are not. In fact they have little in common. One is a science (psychology), the other mostly (not completely) pseudo-medical quackery with little to no basis in the actual science it's supposed to be grounded in.

As for the DSM, I'm afraid the highest ranking (what they have ranks in psychiatry now? ;)) psychiatrist's idea will lead to even more quackery. DSM isn't perfect, there is a lot to complain about theoretically and practically, but it was at least a working attempt at objectivity. Abandoning the idea of having a list of (at least somewhat well) operationally defined disorders and working to improve that will again lead psychiatry to a state where a psychiatric diagnosis is no better than a random choice of an arbitrary label (it really was like that in the first half of 20th century, later things stated getting _a little_ better).

<comment><USER38> > Please stop confusing psychology and psychiatry.

Please stop confusing psychology and science. A psychiatrist is a psychologist with a medical degree. Which part of this is in any way confusing? The reason for the special category "psychiatrist" in modern times (wasn't always true) is to allow drug prescribing, which is what psychiatrists now do (psychologists do most of the talk therapy).

> DSM isn't perfect, there is a lot to complain about theoretically and > practically, but it was at least a working attempt at objectivity.

To aspire to objectivity, the DSM's editors would have had to allow evidence for causes of mental disturbances, not just effects (the DSM only lists symptoms, effects, not one cause is listed). But when given a chance to accept a cause-effect relationship, the editors rejected it, a story told in "Book of Woe" by therapist Gary Greenberg.

Imagine a medical text that only lists symptoms, not causes. Modern medicine would collapse. And modern psychiatry/psychology has collapsed.

According to the director of the NIMH and many others, psychology will be replaced by neuroscience, a field that will tie causes and effects. I hasten to add that neuroscience isn't ready for this burden yet, but it's not tainted in the way that psychology is.

<comment><USER39> > (the DSM only lists symptoms, effects, not one cause is listed).

This is false. While causes are usually not the primary focus of the DSM given its intended purposes, a number of diagnosis do include causes (particularly, those that where the presence or absence of a particular cause is relevant to diagnosis.)

There are many very legitimate criticisms possible of the processes behind the DSM in general or any particular edition of the DSM in particular, but this is not one of them.

> Imagine a medical text that only lists symptoms, not causes

The DSM isn't a general manual of psychiatry, its -- first and foremost -- a _diagnostic_ guide.

> According to the director of the NIMH and many others, psychology will be > replaced by neuroscience, a field that will tie causes and effects.

Neuroscience doesn't differ from psychology in tieing causes and effects, it differs in modelling lower-level, _intermediate_ causes and mechanisms -- which are fundamentally very important to psychology.

OTOH, its unlikely to _replace_ psychology (rather than simply informing and refining it) for the same reason that chemistry is still around after various domains of physics did more to reveal the lower-level, intermediate processes underlying the higher-level effects studied within chemistry.

<comment><USER38> >> (the DSM only lists symptoms, effects, not one cause is listed).

> This is false.

Check your facts. Here is what the sitting director of the NIMH had to say about the DSM and the issue of symptoms, as he announced his decision to abandon it:

[http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming- dia...](http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming- diagnosis.shtml)

Quote: "Unlike our definitions of ischemic heart disease, lymphoma, or AIDS, the DSM diagnoses are _based on a consensus about clusters of clinical symptoms, not any objective laboratory measure_. In the rest of medicine, this would be equivalent to creating diagnostic systems based on the nature of chest pain or the quality of fever."

Circle the word you didn't understand and raise your hand.

> Neuroscience doesn't differ from psychology in tieing causes and effects ...

That is _exactly, precisely_ how neuroscience differs from psychology. Psychology does not address causes, only symptoms, as the above quote demonstrates, and as any honest appraisal of modern psychology shows.

> OTOH, its unlikely to replace psychology ...

Yes, I agree with this. Neuroscience won't replace psychology, for the same reason astronomy didn't replace astrology: stupid people who need to believe in things that have no empirical basis.

But in the future, unfortunately not any time soon, neuroscience will become the preferred treatment for non-imaginary ailments.

<comment><USER39> > Check your facts.

I've actually read substantial portions of the DSM-III, -IV, IV-TR, and -5. The facts are exactly as I stated them.

> Here is what the sitting director of the NIMH had to say about the DSM and > the issue of symptoms, as he announced his decision to abandon it

None of that supports your claim about causes. Nor does it support your claim that psychiatry or psychology are somehow not science. What it does suggest is that pyschiatry is less well-developed than other fields of medicine, which is well understood.

> Psychology does not address causes, only symptoms

Repeating this doesn't make it true. Psychology in its current state doesn't have a lot of information on low-level mechanisms, to be sure, and that weakness is widely recognized; but to the extent that information is available on causes, it incorporates them. Neuroscience informs pscyhology by investigating low-level mechanisms, in much the same reason that physics informs chemistry.

> as the above quote demonstrates

The quote you are referencing doesn't mention "causes" at all, nor does it address "psychology".

What it does address, when taken in its full context (to which you provide the link) is the problem that comes when allowing the existing symptom based categories to _limit_ research to develop a better understanding of psychiatric diagnosis to support better treatment.

> But in the future, unfortunately not any time soon, neuroscience will become > the preferred treatment for non-imaginary ailments.

Neuroscience isn't a treatment.

And its been quite important to developing psychiatric treatments for some time, its not a future contributor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I learned nothing from this article but that neuroscience and psychology don't really have any concrete definition for psychopathy and they don't seem to have much predictive insights on it at all. Fascinating.

<comment><USER41> There was some anecdotal evidence to support the prediction,

 _"I'm obnoxiously competitive. I won't let my grandchildren win games. I'm kind of an asshole, and I do jerky things that piss people off," he says. "But while I'm aggressive, but my aggression is sublimated. I'd rather beat someone in an argument than beat them up."_

I think the takeaway is that sociopathy might be more normal than we thought.

<comment><USER7> He likes to win arguments.

so maybe roughly 100% of humans?

<comment><USER14> _He likes to win arguments / so maybe roughly 100% of humans?_

Not at all. Some humans "argue" or "debate" to understand the truth of an issue, rather than to "win." In "losing," I actually learn more. I see that as the difference between mathematicians (truth-seeking) and lawyers (win- seeking.)

<comment><USER42> A number of other people don't like to argue at all, or if they argue it's only to make people they care about feel good. They usually just let their opponent win, although sometimes after putting up enough resistance to make their opponent think it was a good fight.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Makes me wonder if scientists and supporters of vivo animal testing are unwitting psychopaths, not just simply having low moral intuition.</comment>


Ask HN: Ideas for being productive for a few months - <AUTHOR> I've been living in SF for a couple of years now. I was all set to change employers, only to get denied at the border when I tried to re-enter the US. My immigration lawyers are telling me it could take a few months to clear this up.
So, aside from all the stress and hassle trying to deal with having a whole life and apartment with all my stuff that I can't access now, does anyone have advice on how to spend a few months? My would-be employer isn't interested in having me work remotely in the meantime, and I'm not sure how difficult it is to find a temporary developer gig for a few months.
Some of my ideas:
* online courses. I'm very interested in getting more experience in ML/data science (I have a bachelors degree in math/CS) but I often start online courses and then lose motivation.
* start a side business. I'm not really an entrepreneur-type but it might be a good learning experience. Again I'm afraid that I might lose motivation; I'm not great at self-driving myself.
* contracting/consulting. But I don't have a lot of contacts or potential clients.
* travel. But I've already traveled a fair bit in the last couple of years.
For what it's worth, I'm Canadian. The bulk of my software experience is in developing real time, distributed systems. I feel like having a few months off could be a tremendous opportunity to grow myself and learn something new, but I also know from experience that I have difficulty with motivation and self-driving myself. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. <comment><USER2> Sounds to me like you should use these next three months tackling your "lose motivation" problem! If you are able to learn how to motivate yourself (and also do the hard work of being self-critical, smashing through mental barriers that are keeping you from what you want), it will pay more dividends than any of the other ideas you've already posted.</comment>


Show HN: RouteRelay – One 1-800 number that connects to all your phones - <AUTHOR> https://routerelay.com <comment><USER2> Wow, pretty expensive for something you can do with VoIP.ms for much cheaper. Their toll free numbers are $1 a month, and 1.9c per minute incoming. The outgoing rate to the number that answers would be 1c a minute in the US.

So, for the RouteRelay $50 plan with 400 minutes, it would cost $12.60 a month at VoIP.ms. Granted, it doesn't have as beautiful of a dashboard...

<comment><AUTHOR> @deftnerd, Thanks! During my user research and analysis in this area, VoIP.ms didn't come up. So, I appreciate for bringing it up. The responses from the user research suggested that call forwarding and easy to use call management is the number one concern in getting 1-800 numbers; thus, this project came along. As we progress, we would like to bring down the pricing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Great idea - definitely will check it out in the future.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! We are looking for feedback as well, so let us know if you think of anything.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> So it's Google Voice but with a 1-800 number?

<comment><AUTHOR> Essentially, yes. That 1-800 number can forward the call to your existing device such as landline or mobile.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Wow, that is insanely expensive for a 1-800 forward: about 5x more expensive for the same amount of minutes than my usual provider.

<comment><AUTHOR> The pricing is much more simplified, as I would put it. There are providers that would charge hidden fees and up front number registrations. This is our initial launch, would love to hear your feedback as you could be our potential customer :) and using existing services.</comment></comment>


More Apple Car Thoughts: Software Culture - <AUTHOR> http://www.mondaynote.com/2015/11/01/more-apple-car-thoughts-software-culture/ <comment><USER3> The software folks (Google, Apple) are going to figure out how to build great cars much faster than the car folks are going to learn how to build great software.

Car companies are incentivized through their engineering know-how, massive supply chains and complex dealership relations to keep optimizing complex gas engines that require significant maintenance. The software folks, having no burden of legacy on the other hand are incentivized to make the engine and car platform as simple as possible, basically an electric motor (or 2, or 4...) with virtually no serviceable parts. The cost and profit structures of the two sides will look very different, and that is going to make the customer experience much better on the "innovative" side (no more haggling the price of a car for example, 1st party servicing, etc).

Forget the Palm quote. Look at Nokia in 2007, when the iPhone was introduced: 50%+ marketshare, 100,000+ employees, 100 million+ devices/year, they already had "advanced" features like app stores and web browsers. But they were fundamentally a hardware company and supply chain oriented, optimizing the bill of materials and crippling their products to death, and could not make the transition. Not even 10 years later, they are extinct! That is what BMW and friends should be worried about.

<comment><USER4> > incentivized to make the engine and car platform as simple as possible

The question at core of the post is: how simple is possible?

When iPhone launched it didn't have copy and paste. That was fine because you can iterate on software and user expectations are different. But you can't launch a car without airbags.

What complexity can the software folks eliminate and still have a viable product? The internal combustion drivetrain is a good example, though replacing it with electric has its own complexities (e.g. batteries and their control systems). But is there much more? Software-culture companies are having problems being clever with just door handles. Will you convince users they don't need reliable cup holders - a plain old boring mechanical part?

If you can't simplify much more, will just IC to electric swap make enough of a difference?

<comment><USER5> Terrible example. When the iPhone launched, it could make calls and send messages extremely reliably. It was foremost a phone. Copy/paste wasn't a core part of that functionality.

<comment><USER6> According to test engineers at Ericsson, the first iPhone was "a crappy phone" [0]. It routinely dropped calls [1, 2]. It also didn't have 3G or MMS, something most if not all other phones had at the time. But apparently it was good enough, did other things well, and could be updated and replaced. That's a major difference between consumer electronics and cars.

[0] [http://www.techsite.io/2015/10/16/ericsson-engineers- thought...](http://www.techsite.io/2015/10/16/ericsson-engineers-thought- iphone-was-a-crappy-phone/) [1] [http://www.pencomputing.com/reviews/apple_iphone_3months.htm...](http://www.pencomputing.com/reviews/apple_iphone_3months.html) [2] [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2009/07...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2009/07/31/AR2009073100971.html)

<comment><USER7> And yet, it seemed to do pretty well.

<comment><USER8> It was perceived to do very well. And that is the only thing that counts.

That's the same thing today too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9>
        … but does Apple's personal computing software knowhow
        translate into the high-reliability real-time code
        required for a safe, reliable and, of course, elegant
        electric car?

It doesn't have to. Not all the software in a car is high-reliability real- time code. My prediction is that Apple will make all the user facing software and buy all the rest. The reason I think so is that it's not enough to write the high-reliability real-time code. Besides thoroughly testing it you will have to get it approved by authorities - worldwide.

       Proud incumbent automakers look down on the interlopers. Dr.-Ing. Dieter
       Zetsche, head of century-old Daimler-Benz, has no patience for Silicon Valley
       companies intruding on his turf:

       "What is important for us is that the brain of the car, the operating system, is
       not iOS or Android or someone else but it's our brain […] We do not plan to
       become the Foxconn of Apple," Mr. Zetsche said, referring to the Chinese company
       that manufactures iPhones.

That sounds like a Daimler car had a Daimler brain but that's just not true. The most important ECUs are made by companies like Bosch, Continental or TRW. These suppliers sell to all car manufacturers and they will be more than happy to supply one more.

Thinking about it this makes me really curious how Tesla handles this. Has anyone an idea which third party ECUs from which suppliers they use?

<comment><USER4> > My prediction is that Apple will make all the user facing software and buy > all the rest.

That's actually a very interesting point in light of the Foxconn comment - <USER2> seems to make a lot of sense for Apple to get the car hardware from a Chinese manufacturer, e.g. Geely.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Maybe only partially related, but one of the things that surprised me the most when moving to the US from Germany, was seeing the large Mercedes star on one of the buildings while driving through Sunnyvale [0].

A few days later, I found myself at a BBQ filled with other fellow German ex- pats and basically all of them were working for Mercedes [1], VW, Bosch [3] ... As it turns out, all of the big German car companies are conducting research out here.

It seems like a lot of the interesting UI and Autonomous Vehicle research is being done out here. From what I gather, they seem to think that the mechanical engineering going into these cars can be done in Germany at a level that they are happy with, but anything to do with the UI/UX and Software that controls the vehicle would be a better fit over here.

I am originally from Stuttgart, which is where Bosch, Porsche and Mercedes were founded and have their headquarters and I tend to agree. Germany is a great place to optimize an existing technology or come up with interesting mechanical changes, but dealing with something as fluent and user-centric like on-screen interfaces or the Software running e.g. the Navigation, doesn't particularly play to the slow moving German company mindset. I think that as long as there's a problem that can be measured exactly (torque, gas milage, ability to withstand mechanical pressure, ...) a German company will do a great job. For the "softer" qualities, I can see a good symbiosis with the culture out here in the valley.

That being said, meeting all of these people and seeing the companies within a 20 minute drive was an entertaining turn of events.

[0] [https://firstname.lastname@example.com,-122.0357596,3a,15y,...](https://firstname.lastname@example.com,-122.0357596,3a,15y,243.23h,88.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sus2JnQFTcKWtu8UHjbe4_A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)

[1] [http://www.mbrdna.com/](http://www.mbrdna.com/)

[2] [http://www.vwerl.com/](http://www.vwerl.com/)

[3] [http://www.bosch.us/content/language1/html/rtc.htm](http://www.bosch.us/content/language1/html/rtc.htm)

<comment><USER11> Based on my experience (from working there), car manufacturers often do not implement stuff themselves, they outsource. E.g. the HTML5-based infotainmemt system in the Porsche 918 was not created by Porsche (though they market it as if it was), but by S1nn.

From a software engineer perspective, if you work at a car manufacturer, you usually do not write software yourself, you're hired to write specs for external companies and verify that the results are conformant. Which honestly is boring.

The car manufacturers should react to the influx of new competitors (like Apple, Google) by becoming software companies themselves, but management is too stupid to see that. S1nn is a perfect example: Apple or Google would have bought the company right away, so should have Porsche. Guess who bought them instead? Harman.

<comment><USER10> > you're hired to write specs for external companies and verify that the > results are conferment

Sounds like a hilarious game of chinese whispers / telephone. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I love the quote from Ed Colligan:

Messrs. Zetsche and Lutz might want to meditate on Palm CEO Ed Colligan's infelicitous words mocking the newborn iPhone in 2006 [emphasis mine]: "We've learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone. PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They're not going to just walk in."

<comment><USER13> Mythicizing the iPhone is both dishonest and unhelpful. They didn't just figure it out and walk in, it took them years and many iterations to build a world class product.

Apple was able to use the wedge of UX to convince customers to but their devices and gave them time to fix the gaps in their hardware and software.

<comment><USER12> How is quoting the Palm CEO dishonest? The fact that he was so wrong about Apple is kind of the point.

<comment><USER13> The point is that he wasn't "so wrong". Apple didn't succeed immediately and without stumbling a few times. At the same time the competition screwed up monumentally.

IMO, Apple will need another wedge and that car makers screw up in order to repeat their iPhone success. This is a possibility, but not a certainty, as some here proclaim.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Good point, but I think they already have the culture necessary in whatever group is responsible for their CPU design. That's a low-fault tolerance environment, too.

The advantage of the incumbents is that cars, as long as they have to be driven manually, are not entertainment machines and cannot really be entertainment machines. Passengers already have their own phones etc.

I think Tesla's on to something, but it's not software. I don't think it will necessarily transfer well to Apple.

</comment><comment><USER15> Toyota got a lot of heat over their software implementation surrounding the whole stuck accelerator debacle.

They have set the bar pretty low, despite their myriad of experience.

Pretty sure a technology company that designs cpu's for a living can do better than toyotas example of what not to do, at least in an electronics sense.

They have already hired staff that has a lot of experience in this field, and already had all the engineering chops and bank account to fund this.

While they have a lot of experience to catch up on in the auto industry, I don't think it will be amateur hour.

Has Apple ever released a cpu that had the same quality control issues as Apple maps?

</comment><comment><USER16> Lutz also recently said he thinks Tesla is in huge trouble and that (I'm going to paraphrase here) "we tried running our own retail locations at bmw and they are much too expensive so they need to get rid of them asap".

He had an excellent run in the motor industry, but now he seems to be sadly outdated on what is happening. So I think we should all be happy to take the opposite side of his position. Which is that huge wrenching changes are coming. And not from the incumbents.

</comment><comment><USER17> After Toyota I don't think I would trust a closed source self driving car.

</comment><comment><USER18> I don't see why Apple couldn't win this one as well. His criticisms are correct; ordinary software crashes all the time and people are cool with it. Heck, I even spent all of Friday discovering a Swift compiler bug. I'm sure Apple appreciate that certain kinds of software need to be more sturdy and can find the expertise somewhere.

But I don't think Apple's products tend to win because of better engineering. They somehow do OK on making the product and a stellar job of selling it. They've built a cult around their nice looking things with simple interfaces. Whenever they make something new, you can always find a friend (non technical) who praises their stuff. Undoubtedly, when they build this car, that same friend will be praising the 8th wonder of the world.

</comment><comment><USER19> May be this Zero Error tolerance for Car Software will help shape the future direction of Swift ( If it hasn't already been done )

</comment><comment><USER20> I don't think I agree that OSX helps Apple - Apple succeeds inspite of OSX

Look at finder its worse than windows 95's file explorer

</comment><comment><USER21> It's the Clang IR, same stuff they are making you push to the app store. Realtime software updates passed as proof carrying byte code. That's where Apple will be king, the agility to safely update.

</comment><comment><USER22> Apple's software culture is not suitable for cars. You need real time, reliable, simple and rock hard.

Do you really want the company that created iTunes for windows to drive your car?

<comment><USER23> Do you want one of the PayPal developers to drive your car?

<comment><USER24> Do you want the guy who launches rockets that travel amazing distances to dock with a space station to make your car?

PayPal was a merger of two companies BTW.

Judging by the work Google put into WebKit before the fork, Apple didn't even have a rigorous testing coverage, fuzzing, etc IIRC.

I wouldn't even trust Google to do the kind of stuff automakers and defense contractors do with respect to verification and testing. Someone else was right, this could only come from their hardware groups like PA Semi and not from the guys who write the apps or OS front end.

<comment><USER23> Considering the developers will have their friends and family use these machines, I believe the incentive is there to get it right.

Also, isn't self-driving vehicles a more difficult software challenge than guiding a rocket?

<comment><USER17> Having ability is not the same as having incentive. And in this case having ability doesn't just mean "showing that it works" like most people seem to think.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Note the author: Jean-Louis Gassée. He's forgotten now, but he was head of product development at Apple after Jobs was fired. He left Apple in 1990, not having done much of note. He started Be (an early multiprocessor 680x0 desktop machine with its own OS), but that failed. Since then, he's mostly been a pundit.

<comment><USER26> I think you're being a little hard on Gassée. He held numerous high level positions at technology companies and worked on the Newton, BeOS, and other technology which while not market successes, were still influential. At one time BeOS was considered a contender as a replacement for MacOS.</comment></comment>


If you want to get press mention Iran - <AUTHOR> http://blog.jgc.org/2010/09/if-you-want-to-get-press-mention-iran.html

<comment><USER2> Here's a way to combine two ideas: mention to some small-minded politician that unless you get a bit of funding, Iran might develop a working version of the Babbage Analytical Engine before the west does... and if that happens, well ... [shake your head slowly at this point].

<comment><USER3> [deep breath, intense stare] WE CANNOT ALLOW...... [dramatic pause, another breath]....... AN ANALYTICAL ENGINE GAP!!!!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The Economist did a special report on Clarke's book back in July. It's interesting how the tone has shifted now that this kind of attack is no longer hypothetical. (Probably.) For one thing, in the Economist article, the perpetrators of such an attack are all terrorists, Russians, or Chinese.

<http://www.economist.com/node/16478792?story_id=16478792>

</comment><comment><USER5> > China is less vulnerable because they can monitor their entire Internet, cut > it off, and take control. Thus cyberwar is advantageous for China over the > US.

The US could cut off the Internet without much more difficultly than China, esp. as they would only need to pull up the drawbridges — most of the good stuff is hosted in the US anyway. I'd much rather try and sell "we had to pull up the drawbridges because of terrorists, but don't worry, youtube and facebook aren't going anywhere" to the US public than "No more communicating with the outside world" to the chinese public.

In terms of monitoring, I don't think China actually has the ability to proactively filter/block attacks of this kind — since the raison d'être of their monitoring is preventing internal dissent, not external attack.

As to which is more vulnerable, America might have more critical infrastructure online, but whether they are more vulnerable is anyone's guess.

</comment><comment><USER6> _China is less vulnerable because they can monitor their entire Internet, cut it off, and take control. Thus cyberwar is advantageous for China over the US._

Is this true? China's systems don't have a soft, chewy center?</comment>