How big Wikipedia would be if published as as printed volumes - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Size_of_English_Wikipedia.svg <comment><USER2> It's a few times bigger than the ODNB, but not really on a wholly different scale: <http://www.oup.com/oxforddnb/info/print/> . (The sample page is at <http://www.oup.com/oxforddnb/info/print/psample/> .)

The introduction to the ODNB at <http://www.oup.com/oxforddnb/info/prelims/intro> gives some other useful points of comparison. (Roughly: 50,000 articles, 10,000 contributors, GBP26 million, and 12 years (1992-2004), not counting the work on the old DNB or the post-2004 material for the new.)

So, by the enormously suspect calculation of applying the ODNB's cost per word to en.wikipedia's wordcount, it seems that you could create such an encyclopedia, to the highest academic standards, for the cost of about two small Alaskan bridges.

<comment><USER2> (news.yc automatically munges the pound symbol into 'GBP'?)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is awesome...

[http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Size_of_English_Wiki...](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Size_of_English_Wikipedia_broken_down.png)

</comment><comment><USER4> Seems really small, actually. I guess the site has a ways to go before it contains the sum total of all human knowledge, if that is the goal. But Wikipedia already kicks ass.

</comment><comment><USER5> Only 4.4 gb as uncompressed text.</comment>


Ask HN: Hackernews save is broken? - <AUTHOR> Hello,
I'm relying on hackernews save as a bookmark but since two days ago it seems to be down?
https://news.ycombinator.com/saved?id=billconan
shows "unknown"
I have a lot of valuable bookmarks, how do I recover them?
Thanks <comment><USER2> try:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/upvoted?id=billconan](https://news.ycombinator.com/upvoted?id=billconan)

<comment><USER3> I think they changed the text in the users page, so they changed the URL.

A few days ago, the user page said something like:

> _saved stories, saved comments_

and now it says:

> _upvoted stories, comments_

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Perhaps you should mail the hn admins instead.</comment>


Banned by Tesla - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@salsop/banned-by-tesla-8d1f3249b9fb#.f5lddvddz <comment><USER2> The article or the proceeding one has an error:

> Starting a 7:00pm event at 8:50pm is simply unacceptable

.

> (even though the invitation insisted that everybody be at the venue by > 7:30pm sharp).

So did it start at 7:00 pm or 7:30 pm?

That error notwithstanding, if this turns out to be true it seems pretty petty to cancel his preorder out of spite. In general I take a negative view of companies that "punish" their customers for writing negative reviews or comments. Makes me wonder if Tesla will let journalists review their vehicles fairly in the future.

Instead of this turning into a negative PR event, they could have turned this into a positive. Just call the guy, apologise for the late start, and invite him in to view the vehicle in a private showing. No doubt he would write an article either on the apology OR on the vehicle, and it is a net gain to Tesla's PR (or worst case he writes no article, and you still don't wind up with the negative PR we see here).

Instead now we have a company which may punish journalists and critics.

</comment><comment><USER3> I actually think that's rather magnificent. Mr Whiny can't have his toy anymore. Yeah it's bad PR, probably, but I can't be the only one who thinks these rude blog posts directed at well-known strangers saying variations of 'dear so-and-so you should be ashamed of yourself' are a bit tasteless, crass, and low class.

I mean, the VC wrote his original post as a direct personal attack and then distributed it in public on a widely-read platform. That's pretty nuclear. In ascending order of severity he could have:

\- Contacted Tesla directly

\- Written to Elon Musk directly, privately

\- Written a blog post about his crappy experience at the event

\- Tweeted Elon with a link to his blog post

All of which might have made him feel better about wasting his evening and maybe got him some compensation (jumping a few places in the waitlist, or something) while not being actually offensive.

<comment><USER4> The best part is that he wasn't even "banned by Tesla," he cancelled his order out of spite and so he could thrust himself into the spotlight again.

Honest to god, some people are insufferable blowhards. Sure, the event started late, sure Elon might have acknowledged that, but if he thinks that (a) any of this matters enough to write TWO articles about and (b) that anyone really cares what he thinks, he's deluding himself. Moreover, he just looks like a complete fool for posting this kind of garbage and expecting a positive response.

<comment><USER3> Wait, what? He as in the VC author cancelled his own order? Oh man. I read it as Elon instructed Tesla to cancel his order.

Edit: I think I was right. Here's the direct quote from first paragraph: _I also hear that you are not comfortable having me own a Tesla car and have cancelled my order for a Tesla Model X._ Maybe you read a phantom "I" between 'and' and 'have'?

<comment><USER4> Good catch, I think you are correct!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is an article I thought was legitimately satire (why would _Elon Musk_ call a random person?) until I saw that said person is a VC.

The network of Silicon Valley's elite is _weird_.

<comment><USER6> I guess this "VC" guy lives in LA.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I thought SV was all about customer feedback and refining your product. In this case your marketing event for your product but still.

</comment><comment><USER8> > I also hear that you are not comfortable having me own a Tesla car and have > cancelled my order for a Tesla Model X.

Is that even legal?

<comment><USER9> > Is that even legal?

In general, cancelling and refunding orders is legal; there are cases where it is not legal (e.g., where it is done to implement a policy of discrimination on a legally-protected basis in something which is legally considered a public accommodation), but in general its perfectly legal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Can I please have the last 3 minutes of my life back?

</comment><comment><USER11> I wouldn't want him as a customer (or anything) either. I regret even reading his posts.

<comment><USER2> It would be helpful if you explained why? Isn't obvious to me from reading his posts. The event did start 45-60 minutes late and he still never got to view the vehicle.

<comment><USER12> The guy left at 9:00, 15 minutes after they started the event. Doesn't sound like he even tried to see it.

<comment><USER2> He arrived 30 minutes before it was due to start and stayed an hour and a half. Not unreasonable.

I love how you twist facts to make it sound like the event didn't start an hour and a half late.

<comment><USER12> I'm not twisting facts, just stated he didn't even stay after the announcement to checkout the car, that's on him. Also this was a reply to the parent comment talking about seeing the car.

I'm also not saying it was right for Tesla to ban him, that was shitty, but getting so angry over a late start and ranting about it in a blog post directed at Elon also wasn't a great choice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> First world problems.</comment>


Nomic: a game in which changing the rules is a move - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomic <comment><USER2> Some friends and I played a game of Riskopoly. It lasted many hours, but was quite fun and interesting. Here is one variation of rules: <http://www.gilwood.org/riskopoly.htm>

The deals we did quickly spiraled out of control and we needed post it notes to keep track of all of them. Cease fires, profit sharing, time sharing, army loaning, all sorts of craziness.

<comment><USER3> We had a game of Monopoly that inadvertently led to this once we allowed combined onwership on a property group (or at least people giving the group to one owner in exchange for 1/3rd rent). By the end one player had permanent immunity everywhere but no properties and most had various 1/18th shares of rent coming in...

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> We used to play this game at philosophy group meetings as an undergraduate. Very fun. My favorite laws involved spelling words backward.

</comment><comment><USER5> Having mutating rules is a pretty organic and dynamic game design idea. One other game that does this really well is called Fluxx: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluxx>

</comment><comment><USER6> I've often thought about how games could be used as a sort of simulator for political ideas. This seems very interesting, especially in that context.

</comment><comment><USER7> my son likes to change the rules during games ... "if you do that move that means I won" ...

</comment><comment><USER8> the discussion one year ago:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=203683>

</comment><comment><USER9> Calvinball comes to mind as a perfect example of a nomic game.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_and_Hobbes#Calvinball></comment>


Deceiving Users with the Facebook Like Button - <AUTHOR> http://arnab.org/blog/deceiving-users-facebook-button

<comment><USER2> Checking the referrer (errr, "referer") header seems obvious to me, I wonder why they're not doing it.

Sure, the referrer can be spoofed _if_ you can set arbitrary headers, but you can't set headers on iframe requests anyway (and even XHR explicitly disallows setting Referer)

</comment><comment><USER3> A related side-note: my organization blocks access to Facebook, the iframe with his like button was also blocked by the filter.

<comment><USER4> does it end up blocking the entire page or just the iframe?

<comment><USER5> Just the iFrame.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> As the author points out, the easy fix is to let users know what they just liked, or ask them to confirm.

Also I suspect this service is fairly self-regulating. Facebook users are generally careful about what they broadcast. The author gives the captcha trick used by porn sites as an example...how many people are going to broadcast their taste in porn?

<comment><USER7> I see this story come up a lot, but according to reCAPTCHA, it's an urban legend. There is not really any evidence that spammers actually do this at all, let alone do it on a meaningful scale.

<comment><USER8> Unless my memory is playing tricks on me, I recall Luis Von Ahn mentioning this as an example of ways people had attempted to defeat his system at a talk of his several years ago. He may have been talking about theoretical attacks and not actual ones, but I'm on my phone now and can't effectively dig for a video if one exists.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> You have to click the button again to remove the "Like" relationship. --- Wow, talk about confusing as hell...

<comment><USER10> If you notice it when you're still on the page, it's easy. However, as I understand it one would have to go to their facebook page to see this, and it seems unlikely that most users would be doing that (constantly watching their facebook page, not just the homepage feed). If someone is "liking" a lot of pages, then there's also the difficulty of figuring out which pages the spam is coming from - even if it would be possibly to determine through a process of elimination, users would have to remember every page they liked by the time they noticed the spam.

Not a big issue now, but if lots of pages start using this capability, it could become a problem, albeit of a very minor variety.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> another similar issue i've come across is when there are multiple like buttons on the same page. e.g., does one like this blog/site or just the article?

not a terrible confusion or potentially too sinister, but a bit more attention than usual is required than the simple share.

</comment><comment><USER12> "The new button trades off this security for convenience."

Trend?

<comment><USER13> Not really a question. The trend has been going on for years now.

<comment><USER14> I disagree. See: Airport Security.

<comment><USER15> Yup, there you're trading off security for theater.

<comment><USER16> You're not actually 'trading off' security. You're trading convenience for a false sense of security.

<comment><USER17> And you deserve neither(?)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Sourceful – Crowdsourcing the best public Google docs - <AUTHOR> https://sourceful.co.uk <comment><USER2> Back when I was working on another startup, I hired a freelancer friend to create "The Freelance Rate Calculator" [0], which ended up on Sourceful a few months later. Before that, it went viral on Twitter (112,570 impressions) [1] and brought in a ton of traffic to my startup's home page.

Ever since then, I can't shake the feeling that I should probably turn it into a simple SaaS app.

It really made me think that nicely designed Google Sheets documents are probably the perfect way to prototype some applications. They're free, fast to build, and anyone can access them... And, apparently, you can get them to look pretty damn nice.

[0] [https://sourceful.co.uk/doc/101/the-freelancer-rate- calculat...](https://sourceful.co.uk/doc/101/the-freelancer-rate-calculator) [1] [https://twitter.com/panphora/status/1094081680166531072](https://twitter.com/panphora/status/1094081680166531072)

<comment><AUTHOR> It's a great spreadsheet! It's been doing really well on Sourceful and is currently the highest rated doc for tag "freelance".

I couldn't agree more with you about Google docs for prototyping. A Google Sheet + Form (e.g. collecting signup emails) combination offers some serious potential.

I would like Sourceful to be a place where projects like that are promoted and initial discussion around them takes place. Twitter/Facebook are not ideal places for that as the content there is too ephemeral.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I like the idea and have also noticed the rise of the public Google doc. I see it as a part of a greater trend of people flocking to semi-private internet spaces. (I'm in various semi-public Slack channels and Discord groups.) Bringing discoverability to these spaces could be valuable.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good point about Slack and Discord. It's interesting that even though participants are semi-private - in my experience - the standard of discourse is usually higher than the non-private places like Facebook.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> What are your thoughs about using Google Docs and Sheets as a quick-and-dirty way to create and distribute content, especially by non-tech-savvy users?

It appears that the use of this format has been growing, especially during the recent events (coronavirus pandemic, climate change then BLM protests).

<comment><USER4> I always felt strangely about it. It is quick, dirty, free, and easy, but the fact public docs hosted on Google Docs are very unstable, i.e. they don't get archived, and they're prone to removal by the writer at any moment, or by Google if either it breaks rules or if they get asked to by law enforcement/governments, I don't trust the URL to stay the same (not sure why), accessibility is poor, some docs require to be logged into google (and this also means identities are tracked) and they're not indexed. The list helps but I imagine it's quite a lot of work to keep it up, and in a year from now will be abandoned.

I can't say a static webpage is any better, since that requires quite a bit of know-how, hosting costs, and other in-conveniences than just making the google doc public.

I also feel confused when celebrities et al. share their deep thoughts, apologies, outcries, and other information by screen-shotting a story written in their phone's notes app and posting the images, but there really isn't anything simpler and more reliable than that (since writing in non-native apps, especially iOS, tend to reset themselves and delete your text if you exit the app for too long).

<comment><AUTHOR> Those are very good points. Without going into too many details, I am hoping to resolve some of the issues you've mentioned and provide a bit more stability to this format.

Haven't thought about celebrities screen-shotting their thoughts but it's definitely a thing :) there could be something there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is neat. I'd love to know what are the most shared google docs/sheets on the web. Is it possible to scrape these off of Reddit/Twitter/Forums etc and get stats on how many times they have been viewed?

<comment><AUTHOR> Sourceful viewing figures are taken into account in Sourceful to sort "Hot" page but not displayed to users.

Outside of Sourceful, to see what is the most viewed document on the web, the best way is to use a tool like ahrefs. However, the quality of the doc does not seem to be strongly correlated to this number as the top docs are often clickbait/practically useless.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Are these docs not indexed by google?

If yes, is curation the value?

<comment><AUTHOR> No, most of the time they are not indexed by search engines - unless the docs has got a lot of good backlinks, it will not be visible through search. Also, a lot of docs which seem to do well in Google search are scam pages with illegal movie downloads, etc.

So there is a lot of added value in showcasing and promoting great docs which are not easy to find. Another area is giving feedback to the doc owner though commenting - the collaboration system in Google docs is not ideal for high- level discussion about the doc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Lists can't be Show HNs. Please see [https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html).

<comment><AUTHOR> Apologies, I guess in the context of the Show HN it's less of a list and more a tool to submit and comment on Google docs to which people can try out.

<comment><USER7> Ok, I've put Show HN back and modified your title from "Sourceful – a crowd- sourced list of the best public Google docs".</comment></comment></comment>


Navy: UFO files could cause "grave damage" to national security if released - <AUTHOR> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/navy-ufo-files-could-cause-grave-damage-to-national-security-if-released/ar-BBYWUr8 <comment><USER2> The least-cost conspiracy theory here, is that 'project aurora' type developments sometimes lead to aircraft with unexpected flight patterns and low radar visibility, so the Navy is basically saying 'we don't want to reveal we couldn't detect this, and it was inside a risk window for our defence ring' along with 'this tech exists, but we don't want to say so or confirm'

The second least-cost conspiracy is that like 'Corona' with the NSA and donation to NASA, revealing original quality material informs hostile entities of the resolution of current detection and recording devices in ways the Navy do not wish to reveal, since it will alter the advantage in imaging and detection. This is almost the inverse of above: they did detect it, thats revealing in ways they don't want people to know.

The most expensive-cost conspiracy (i.e. what i feel is the least likely to survive occam's razor) is "Aliens"

<comment><USER3> I'd bet on #2 myself. The imagery likely reveals something about sensor systems that is still secret.

<comment><USER2> Yea, I think I disordered #2 and #1

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The last big wow moment in defence tech was stealth and the first US stealth plane flew in 1977. The next country to develop stealth was the Russians in 2010!

Now consider its 43 years later with computing technology power that was beyond the dreams of the engineers working on stealth in 1975-1977 and with US military budgets that have been at times larger than the rest of the world's spending put together.

I'd expect that the current state of the art experimental US military tech would be considered by many to be "out of this world".

</comment><comment><USER5> if there's aliens out there actually, it is critical to do not let that knowledge be confirmed in any way. Global societies at large are poorly prepared to manage the cultural and practical impact of a confirmed first contact.

Not to mention if these guys are bad, it's for our collective advantage to keep the knowledge restricted to the absolutelly minimal necessary people to manage and prepare the rest for the really bad news.

<comment><USER6> >Global societies at large are poorly prepared to manage the cultural and practical impact of a confirmed first contact.

We're living in a world awash in decades' worth of science fiction media and pop cultural references to aliens, government conspiracies and first contact, good and harmful . That governments around the world are keeping the existence of aliens a secret has, itself, become a meme within a meme. I don't know if the disclosure of first content would be as much of a culture ending event as is often assumed.

It's not aliens, though. It's never aliens.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Because they are using the tech against enemies would be my best guess..??

</comment><comment><USER8> Reminds me of the Avrocar story.</comment>


Hundreds of nuclear blast videos show explosions in the ocean and Nevada desert - <AUTHOR> https://businessinsider.com/new-nuclear-blast-videos-2017-3 <comment><USER2> _Not all of the blasts were supposed to be big. This one yielded about 80 times less energy than the bomb that exploded over Hiroshima._

[https://gfycat.com/gifs/detail/possibleinborndogwoodclubgall](https://gfycat.com/gifs/detail/possibleinborndogwoodclubgall)

That may be the most provocative of them all today.

What would be the response to a nuclear power using one of these in combat? Escalation? Retaliation in kind? The damage to the surrounding environment could be small, especially if used to target submarines and ships.

Escalation to the level of H-bombs would mean WWIII. No response demonstrates "weakness." Tit-for-tat seems the most likely outcome, with gradual escalation along the way.

It's far from clear how long that gradual escalation phase could last, but it could be a long time indeed. The first use of low-yield nuclear weapons in combat lays the groundwork for their use in the next conflict.

<comment><USER3> You might be interested in reading more about "Davy Crockett" ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_%28nuclear_devic...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_%28nuclear_device%29)) and the Fulda Gap ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulda_Gap](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulda_Gap)).

In short, for much of the Cold War the USSR had such a numbers advantage over NATO when it came to tank forces that the only chance NATO had to hold off a full-scale tank invasion by the USSR would have been the use of tactical nukes.

As you rightly point out, MAD strategy doesn't quite apply here. Yes, the Davy Crockett is a nuclear weapon. However, the fact that it only would've leveled the playing field probably means that the USSR wouldn't have immediately responded in kind. That said, a world of tactical nukes is definitely a scary one (Frank Herbert was rather prescient in this regard), and I'm glad we've never had to find out what it would look like.

<comment><USER4> > In short, for much of the Cold War the USSR had such a numbers advantage > over NATO when it came to tank forces that the only chance NATO had to hold > off a full-scale tank invasion by the USSR would have been the use of > tactical nukes.

Would it be effective against a tank invasion? I would have thought tanks were solid enough that you'd almost need a direct strike to destroy them, if the tanks were spread out it wouldn't be more effective than conventional weapons. I'm not sure about the soviet era one's but the current Russian ones are designed to operate on an irradiated battlefield.

<comment><USER5> [https://www.quora.com/How-effective-would-a-tactical- nuclear...](https://www.quora.com/How-effective-would-a-tactical-nuclear- weapon-be-against-tanks)

<comment><USER4> Thanks, I didn't know about these ones:

> The second category, no longer in use, were low-yield weapons that produced > high doses of radiation that would incapacitate the crews of the tanks. The > Enhanced Radiation (ER) warheads, commonly referred to as 'neutron bombs' > were a sub-category. Four 1 kt ER warheads would incapacitate the crews of > the battalion.

It's scary that humanity ever actually produced devices like that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Any with audio? To this day I'm only aware of one video where you actually hear the detonation, albeit with whatever equipment they could grab out of the dumpster behind the nearest Radioshack:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKwkTYeukE4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKwkTYeukE4)

<comment><USER7> I think, in most cases, the sound is omitted, since it's often the least interesting aspect of the event, and being a little underwhelming, almost detracts from the visuals.

They aren't like loud, irregular rolling thunderclaps, with interesting sweet spots and curious deviations or oddities. They don't rumble and crackle or anything. One bang, a trail off of distant reverberation, and not much else. You have to figure audio equipment doesn't do the explosions much justice during playback either, in terms of volume and possibly seismic effects.

It's just a single report, detached and delayed by the speed of sound, and the mandatory distance from the blast itself. The accuracy of this depiction is valuable, because it informs the viewer of what it would be like to witness a test first-hand, but as entertaining media that demonstrates the noises that relate to the visuals, the timing delay leaves an impatient gap between cause and effect.

To provide improved legibility, the videos would probably want to synchronize the auditory report of the bang with the imagery of the explosion, and push the sound backwards by a number of seconds to remove the delay between sight and sound, due to distance.

<comment><USER8> The truth is that the only way to really appreciate the sound of a nuclear detonation is to be blown away by it. Literally. When you see tanks being flipped over, and bridges being collapsed, that's the "sound" in the form of a mach stem trashing it. If you're close enough to really appreciate it, you're already dead.

<comment><USER9> I don't think this is actually true. As long as you don't get vaporized in the immediate detonation radius or killed by shrapnel, the acute survival rate is actually very good (that's why cold war PSAs always show people getting under blankets and desks; if you're alive after the blast, you have to worry about flying glass).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> As a non-American, while I do see the need for such tests during the Cold War, the way America ruined pristine pacific islands just saddens me. They should've been held accountable for that but alas better them than the USSR

<comment><USER11> If you're just talking about the islands themselves, I'd say that falls under the umbrella of aesthetics: are the islands more or less beautiful now? We'll never have an aesthetics court to argue such things, sadly.

<comment><USER12> There are a couple islands which have massive holes in them now. We're not talking about small craters. You can see them on Google Maps.

<comment><USER11> Holes in islands are natural. A meteorite could easily have made the crater instead. Humans didn't do anything abnormal to the islands, really.

<comment><USER13> Can't tell if trolling or serious.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> FYI, there is no sound on any of these videos.

However it's very interesting. With the smaller explosions, I'm really shocked by just how small they are.

We tend to think of better nuclear weapons as "bigger", getting into the double digits in terms of megaton yield. However, the trend over he last 40 years, as computers has shown is, is miniaturization.

Most likely, nuclear weapons will follow a similar law, particular if war forces them back into active development.

</comment><comment><USER15> I'm sure lots of folks have already seen this, but the aftermath is still visible from the air.

[https://goo.gl/maps/bHEEVZKKK1B2](https://goo.gl/maps/bHEEVZKKK1B2)

<comment><USER16> I spent a summer (intern) working at the Nevada Test Site and visited the Sedan crater when I was there (my supervisor gave me the 'nickel tour' as he called it).

He said that one of the goals of the Sedan test was to test the feasibility of using nuclear weapons to create a replacement for the Panama canal across the lower part of Mexico "in a hurry." I don't know what their conclusion was but I remain skeptical that such a plan had any merit.

I read that in the early 2000's NASA went back over this test as part of an effort to evaluate what the impact of a nuclear weapon would be as an asteroid defense. And caveat the issue of turning one asteroid into a dozen, they concluded that significant delta-V could be added to an asteroid in this way.

<comment><USER17> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Plowshare](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Plowshare)

Among other things, they were investigating the use of nuclear bombs to create artificial harbors (probably a lot more feasible than digging a canal across Mexico, but it sure would make one hell of a mess.)

The Soviets had their own version of this program: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Explosions_for_the_Nat...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Explosions_for_the_National_Economy)

<comment> King-Aaron Interestingly, the plan to create harbours using nuclear detonations was seriously considered by Lang Hancock (The mining magnate) in Australia during the 70's, as well as a method for extracting Iron Ore...

[http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2012/s3533473.htm](http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2012/s3533473.htm)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The most impressive video I've seen so far, just insane: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYbNlgQyz84](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYbNlgQyz84)

</comment><comment><USER19> For the macro-perspective: [https://www.ctbto.org/specials/1945-1998-by-isao- hashimoto/](https://www.ctbto.org/specials/1945-1998-by-isao-hashimoto/)

Everyone should see this if you haven't already!

<comment><USER20> This includes underground tests, right?</comment></comment>


Lens of human eye can be fully regenerated, at least in newborns - <AUTHOR> http://evidenceba.se/answers/16-yes-but-for-now-it-was-only-achieved-in-infants-answer-to-can-lens-of-human-eye-be-regenerated-after-cataract-surgery <comment><USER2> I had to have my lenses removed from both eyes when I was a child (in the 70s). The problem in my case was that they were dislocated.

Since the surgery, I wore very thick glasses to correct it. I switched to contacts in the early 80s (contact lens tech was barely viable by then) augmented with reading glasses.

Today I wear contacts to get to 20/20 or 20/30, and reading glasses for computer work or reading. My correction is around +8.25 or so for each eye.

This is very exciting news and I hope kids don't have to go through the pain of wearing super thick glasses growing up.

<comment><USER3> They won't - high index materials have made coke bottle lenses a thing of the past.

<comment><USER4> At a price, though: high-index plastic has much higher dispersion than the lower-index materials. This causes a greater "prism effect" near the edges of the lens, which interacts very badly with the new RGB-backlight monitors [0].

[0] [http://scottlburson2.blogspot.com/2016/01/lcd-backlights- and...](http://scottlburson2.blogspot.com/2016/01/lcd-backlights-and-eyeglass- lenses.html)

<comment><USER2> Yeah, I have a pair of those for when I'm not wearing contacts and the chromatic aberration drives me nuts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> UCSD press release: [http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/pressrelease/stem_cells_regenerate_...](http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/pressrelease/stem_cells_regenerate_human_lens_after_cataract_surgery_restoring_vision)

Nature abstract: [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7594/full/nature1...](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7594/full/nature17181.html)

Obligatory Nature paper DOI ident for sci-hub lookup: doi:10.1038/nature17181

<comment><AUTHOR> Exactly. Here are the most important points from the full Nature paper: [http://evidenceba.se/sources/42-lens-regeneration-using- endo...](http://evidenceba.se/sources/42-lens-regeneration-using-endogenous- stem-cells-with-gain-of-visual-function)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is absolutely possible. I know a woman who's entire eye was removed when she was a child, and it grew back completely about 30 years later. No one quite understands why (or why it took 30 years), but the human body is full of surprises.

<comment><USER7> You got to provide more info than that! Was it suddenly regrown? Or grew in spurts? Slow and steady? At what point did they decide it was regrown? How well does it work? Or is this like some joke I would tell my kids how my leg was chopped off as a child but later grew back?

<comment><USER6> I should track her down again because its been a few years. But from what I recall, it was slow and steady over maybe 6-8 months. When we met last, it wasn't quite 100% done: the eye was mostly there but it looked cloudy and she was keeping gause over it, so I don't think it "worked" all that well yet. But it did move in sync with the other eye.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> As I understand the matter, these sorts of interventions have/should be done as soon as possible after birth. The developing brain needs the visual feedback to develop vision properly. So it is good news to see them focusing on younger patients.

</comment><comment><USER9> My son did the older surgery when he was a newborn. I just wish we had to do this surgery now instead (or if we can benefit in anyway from this new technique.)

Note: did the surgery at "Associated Retinal Consultants." I can't read this without getting too emotional, and am not sure if this is considered a totally new thing or if we just missed out on this possibility then.

<comment><AUTHOR> This study was published 2 months ago. I was doing the research because my mom had a cataract surgery, and now she got diagnosed with posterior capsule opacification. I haven't found anything else. It seems like that's a very new thing.

<comment><USER10> Having the rear capsule become cloudy is pretty normal following cataract surgery. There is a YAG laser procedure called YAG capsulotomy where they put a hole in the area that is clouded up. The prosthetic lense stays in place and the cloudiness is gone. You can expect a floater that shifts around following the surgery.

I got cataract surgery in one eye a few years ago. I am much younger than the average patient. It's not as good as what you have naturally when you are young but it sure beats what you have with a cataract. In my case, the floater did become mostly unnoticeable within a year. It didn't really impede my daily life before that.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for sharing your experience. I found the info about YAG laser, and also that's the recommendation that my mom got, but it's great to read about an optimistic outcome. It seems to me that for now YAG is the best option.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> So since eyes don't grow in size from birth, could everyone have their lens removed early on to be saved as a potential replacement for later on in life? Would there be any benefit to doing this since there's already operations such as lasyk?

<comment><USER12> > So since eyes don't grow in size from birth

That isn't true.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I feel bad for whichever newborn needed such surgery :(

<comment><USER13> It's rare but not all that rare.

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> It'll be great if they can do this for older people eventually, so we don't need to wear reading glasses.

</comment><comment><USER15> Maybe it is based on stem cell availability?

Younger you are, more you have?

Guess they would have figured that out though.</comment>


The story of how LinkedIn shopped itself to Microsoft, Salesforce and Google - <AUTHOR> http://www.recode.net/2016/7/2/12085428/linkedin-microsoft-salesforce-google-deal-timeline <comment><AUTHOR> _June 7th AND 8th: Weiner and Hoffman each chat (separately) with Nadella, telling him the $182 offer just isn't good enough, but that they are open to a $200 per share offer in cash. Sure, Nadella says, but we need to find "cost synergies" with that price._

"Cost synergies" is a euphemism for layoffs. In other words, Linkedin's employees will be paying for the bid increase.</comment>


Messi Walks Better Than Most Players Run - <AUTHOR> https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/messi-walks-better-than-most-players-run/ <comment><USER2> As with just about everything, moving fast is only useful if you're going in the correct direction.

A lot of effort in sports and business is wasted by correcting from incorrect predictions. What Messi is good at is predicting where and when to be to maximize the probability of a successful outcome.

Watching him play is a curiosity as well, unlike a lot of other players who make their decision to pass or continue after their first move, Messi almost always continues to the second move when he has the ball.

He probably turns it over at a higher rate than most, but his touches typically occur in those previously mentioned high probability positions on the field, meaning that when he's not turning it over, he's putting shots on goal.

Since the cost of a turnover really isn't that high given the rate of change of possession in the game, he seems to be acting optimally.

Edit and addendum:

The guy who's always out fundraising might look like he's doing a lot of work, but it's very likely that the guy who only does the roadshow when the P_success is high will outperform the jackrabbit.

<comment><USER3> Note that Messi is, at times, criticised for not playing defence which means more effort running back and forth. He is definitely doing the right thing when attacking but it depends what one optimizes for.

<comment><USER4> Barcelona have built their team around him for the past 10 years. As their most important attacking asset, he's has the least responsibility to defend.

<comment><USER3> It doesn't really work like that. Everyone has the responsibility to do their best in the context of the team. If one is more capable he does more, there's no passing responsibility at this level and there is no preferential treatment. Everyone has to do everything in their power to help the team. When Barcelona was in its prime shape and Messi was scoring/helping score more than Barcelona's defence could take on it was ok. When the team does not win and you did not give all, it's a problem isn't it?

Of course this is just a superficial comment and take it with some salt, I have no clue what goes on the pitch, it might also be that he cannot sustain a full 90min and be productive attacking while also doing a degree of defense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Great article, very interesting analysis. I have some friends who absolutely love football and understand the metagame a lot better than me - when you watch it at first you have no idea how complex the various player movements are, making space, finding space, predictions etc.

On a side note, I really wish they would name football by its proper name: football, not soccer. To the billions of people who follow it globally that's the name of the sport.

<comment><USER6> In Spanish, they call it fútbol, rather than football, and in Chinese, I think it is pronounced something like Zúqiú. Most Southeastern Asian countries don't call it football or a variation thereof. Australians and parts of the British isles call it soccer I believe as well.

Things are named and pronounced differently in different languages.

The fact is, "football" was already taken in the American vocabulary by the time soccer rose to popularity in the US.

<comment><USER5> Isn't the spanish version just Football, but in Spanish?

<comment><USER7> Eh, it might as well be the equivalent of "soccer" (a meaningless made up word), since the Spanish word for neither "foot" nor "ball" are in the name. (In contrast to Chinese's zuqiu which is literally "foot" "ball").

<comment><USER8> Soccer is short for association football, formed analogously to rugger, which is short for Rugby football.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> You see this in hockey, also. Good players are very good at slyly getting into position when they're away from the puck. With hockey, if you skate too hard, defending players notice it (you can also hear the skate blades digging in) and will start keeping an eye on you or actively covering you.

Good players also do sneaky things like take a little longer to recover from a hard check and then, when everyone has skated away from them while they're still down on the ice, slowly sneak into a prime scoring position _behind_ the defensive players where they can't be easily seen.

<comment><USER10> Waiting behind defensive players wont work in soccer/football... Those players are offside. This means they are not allowed to receive the ball from a team member.

<comment><USER9> Horizontally behind (in the same zone) is what I was referring to. Picture the play all going to one side of the defensive team's zone, while there are still stragglers on the other (horizontal side).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Related - LeBron James moves slower than 99% of all rotation players, and has thereby been able to play more minutes in more games than ever without a dropoff in production. [http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/23384071/lebron- james-pla...](http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/23384071/lebron-james-plays- rests-keep-cleveland-cavaliers-hopes-alive)

</comment><comment><USER12> this is interesting, however i'd like to mention that the example given in the video, the concept of creating spacing on the opposite side of the field isnt a foreign one at all in soccer. generally, the ball creates gravity around it sucking in defenders and players, and there will always be a very open player on the opposite side of the field to pass to if an attacker with the ball is in good position to do so or if it makes sense.

messi definitely is one of those players who plays in a smart way where he doesn't need to run too much to tire himself out. however i also believe that there is a lot of value in a fast paced ball movement. the sort of play gets everybody involved in a high energy mental sort of way, whereas messi's relatively low energy, whilst clearly effective, is only effective because messi is such a fantastic/smart dribbler

</comment><comment><USER13> Nice. Notice also how in the recent match of Argentine vs Iceland (their first time playing for the World Cup), the Iceland team decided to play defensively but _NOT_ to mark Messi.

<comment><USER14> In their famous win against the Argentina of Maradona (Spain 1982), Belgium decided not to put an extra man marking defender on Maradona, while back then it was customary to do this. Now, if they would have lost the game, that decision would have been regarded as utterly stupid, while now it's seen as a brilliancy of the coach. You should take all of this with a grain of salt.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Messi is doing several things in the referenced video. First, he's staying wide (almost to the touchline) which is drawing the 2 defenders towards him. This increases the open space for attack, but more importantly it betters the overall ratio of attackers to defenders in the active part of the field. He's also intentionally walking. Running, and more so sprinting, causes opposing players to be more aware of you. Walking suggests you aren't actively participating. When the defenders turn their attention to the play, he slowly moves in behind them - this puts him in a more dangerous position (this isn't a great clip to demonstrate this because he ends up having to back up to receive the cross.) Notice also he's positioning himself so he's not substantially closer to one defender than the other - you don't really see the effect of it here - but that will tend to cause both players to cover him. If he can pull two defenders instead of one to cover him, he really doesn't need to do anything else to increase the odds for his team. But space-making isn't the real genius of Messi. His ability and willingness to take on several (or more) players at once, aside from the obvious advantage when he scores in such situations, will draw opposing players to him, opening up the rest of his team for through-passes into dangerous positions where defenders have been pulled out of place.

</comment><comment><USER16> In the article, I didn't see how they controlled for the team's behaviour in accommodating Messi's position. He is one the teams MVP and it is likely (IMO - I'm speculating) the team will dynamically reposition to accommodate Messi's current position, meaning he's less likely to need to run.

Mapping this to software teams: Messi would be the super-smart rockstar developer who doesn't get bogged down with busy work or bug-fixes. If we compare his rate of shipping software compared to his team-mates (or other more balanced teams), we'd have to control for how the rest of the team clears his way.

</comment><comment><USER17> There was a famous phrase by a hockey player (Gretsky?) - I don't go where the ball is, I go where it is going to.

<comment><USER18> That was indeed Gretzky, but FYI in hockey it's called a puck.

<comment><USER19> In 'hockey' there is a ball. In 'ice' hockey it's a puck. (I also realise Gretzky is an ice hockey player, but thought it was an appropriate pedanticism given the discussion of the name of 'football'/'soccer' above :))

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> when you are playing an offensive position you get to choose how you want to play the game. if your advantage is bursty movements but you don't have as good endurance then it is much better to conserve your energy and not get in a duel where you don't have an advantage.

</comment><comment><USER21> I love how data analysis and visualization are coming into football commentary, mainly via blogs like this. It makes a huge difference to how I've viewed the game over the years.

Unfortunately, the pundits they choose as TV analysts are typically not well versed in stats and probability, and often all you get from them is the experience of having played.

There was a thing about expected goals recently, where the TV expert dismissed it. I think it's a sensible thing to look at.

<comment><USER22> I just wish data were more availabile. Given that football/soccer is a continuous game (as opposed to the discreet stop/start of American football or baseball), gathering data requires a bit of labor so most of the data products are expensive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Unless I'm misinterpreting the chart (which starts at 5 miles btw) it does not even support the claim made in the title. There are plenty of players who run more and indeed contributed more goals+assists per 90 minutes.

Messi is obviously one of the best players ever, but his stats are inflated by playing in one of the dominant club teams. His stats for the national team while still very good are not _that_ much better.

</comment><comment><USER24> Somebody saw this and didn't give any credit: [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/89aruc/lio...](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/89aruc/lionel_messis_efficiency_he_runs_fewer_meters/)

</comment><comment><USER25> There's an incredible, predictable phenomenon in sports that the best player on the team gets the most criticism. I've seen awful teams with one superstar, and the popular opinion of why they lose is that the superstar isn't doing enough or, God forbid, isn't superman/woman and has weaknesses. It's never that the other 4 / 10 / 21 / etc people on the field who are terrible.

Then the superstar retires, memory of the absurd criticism is obscured by a haze of nostalgia, and they become examples of perfection which the next generation of superstars can't possibly live up to.

Messi is arguably the best ever. If he's not good enough for you, if he's not perfect enough for you, you're going to be disappointed with life and the human beings in it.

</comment><comment><USER26> I think Ovechkin is a great example of this as well. He has the burst for when he needs it, but a lot of the time he is nonchalantly positioning himself perfectly.

</comment><comment><USER27> How do they get continuous player and ball tracking data? Are their sensors? Seems like all major American sport franchises (NFL, MLB, NHL, NBA) would love to have this data. Though not sure how I feel about it. I am purest (big baseball fan) and a lot of these technology additions deteriorate the essence of the game.

<comment><USER25> > Seems like all major American sport franchises (NFL, MLB, NHL, NBA) would > love to have this data

The NFL and NBA already have it, as do college (American) football teams, AFAIK. I don't know about American baseball, but I do know that they track things like the rotational velocity of pitches and, very trendy now, the 'launch angle' of a batted ball (I suppose the movement of baseball players, other than the efficiency of fielders responding to a ball, is neither interesting nor unpredictable).

Here's an article about that data as applied to Lebron James, who apparently is very efficient with his movement like Messi.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17333058](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17333058)

I wonder why all sports don't put sensors in balls to eliminate judgment calls by referees, but perhaps either it's not worth the expense, it won't bring in more fans, or like self-driving cars, the computer errors will seem egregious to fans.

<comment><USER27> But the balls (baseball, footballs, etc) and players are not wearing sensors. This is done using cameras, not data directly sourced from the players and balls.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Love this article. Messi is the sensational player and dissecting his genius looks interesting

</comment><comment><USER29> Interesting article, according to this wouldn't Coutinho be the better team player contributing most overall? Messi doesn't do much defense, so naturally he stands around more in the front and FC Barcelona built everything around that.

</comment><comment><USER30> The one time I saw Wayne Gretsky play live (ice hockey) I noticed he played in a very similar manner. Floating most of the time but turning on the jets when an opportunity presented.

</comment><comment><USER31> Just like James Harden. If you have superior technical capabilities you know when to rest, when to slow the game down, how to orchestrate a successful dribble and wait for your colleagues to get into position. Most coaches understand that, fans often not so.

</comment><comment><USER32> Somewhat related, did anyone analyze the probability that the best team wins the tournament in soccer?

</comment><comment><USER33> >Can we say Messi gets a lot of his space by not chasing the play? Yes, that's precisely what our research shows." Bornn said. "Is he doing it deliberately? To answer that, you'd probably have to ask the man himself."

I will give my own experience, as a _TERRIBLE_ sport player at any sport you can name on earth, and one of the worst soccer players you could met.

Still, eventually I was selected for many street plays (were players are _more brutal_ , being the most nerd is a huge disadvantage, and most are very "serios" in the game).

WORST, in the streets of Colombia we play "mini soccer"/futsal. Is even more fast paced, the space is limited, and not much time to be idle, and the damm ball is heavier and HURT MUCH MUCH MORE. The goalkeeper is the more insane/brave of all. Is so fast that we don't play for time (like soccer) but up to # of scores (ie: "The game is to the first to score 12")

\----

> Is he doing it deliberately?

Totally. Just the fact he walks much more and move _tell it_.

In my case, I do it to be usefull as bad player, I become a "strategic hindrance".

I play defense most of time, because lack of qualities for offense but also, because I play strategy because my body have not time to act fast :)

I always look at the play, and just move to where the ball must come in. Most player get in a hurry when get the ball and try hard to be liberated from the burden -and is true for "professionals" look at plays long enough and it become obvious.

So this mean a) pass it fast, or b) run like hell and pass it fast. So, I get into position and suddenly I was always in the _most inconvenient of the places_ for the opposite team. (this was the fact I get selected: People start to note that I ruin a lot of plays!)

Rarely I'm able to get the ball, and is easy to overcome me with dribbles.

However, disrupt the flow is _more than enough_.

Even when other players let me alone with the goalkeeper, I just move to cover the largest angles in the field, to obstruct them.

This work most of time. I force them to fire, or try to get around me, that disrupt the flow and allow to lost control or to the goalkeeper to do his play - In mini soccer, the goalkeeper is more offensive-.

Now, because most latin-america players play from young age -mean street soccer- I suspect you quickly get a sense of movement/space faster (mini soccer mean many more plays mean many more experience).

And if you have talent, like Messi, apply the same idea and now know how take over the ball?

You have the key to victory.

</comment><comment><USER34> Oh man, what a nothing article. Wide players staying wide to stretch the defence - revolutionary!

<comment><USER35> Sarcastically revolutionary, because everyone does this, every game. We all know it, we all see it on every team across every league.

Oh wait, no, sorry: the complete opposite of that. This guy exhibits extreme outlier behaviour while also being one of the most successful players in the game. Maybe there's something worth analysing in terms of why that might be. You know, like the research referenced in this article.</comment></comment>


Obama Asks Supreme Court for Warrantless Cellphone Searches - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/19/obama-administration-asks-supreme-court-to-allow-warrantless-cellphone-searches/

<comment><USER2> Most people aren't aware that police are already surreptitiously downloading the entire contents of smartphones during routine traffic stops.

[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/04/michigan-state- po...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/04/michigan-state-police-we- only-grab-your-cellphone-data-with-a-warrant/)</comment>


Get an unbiased opinion on if you should get out of bed - <AUTHOR> http://shouldigetup.com/ <comment><USER2> This site assumes that I am the one who decides whether or not I should get out of bed, but since I had a kid three years ago I haven't had much of a say anymore...

<comment><USER3> I used to set my alarm for 7am. Now I have a cat who feels 6:50am is more appropriate and is incredibly accurate in his ability to tell me it is that time.

<comment><USER4> Be the Alpha and get a squirt bottle instead of letting a cat dictate when you can and can't sleep.

<comment><USER5> A bit harsh for that 10 minutes. I like being woke up by my cat. Most of the time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> What's the weather got to do with getting out of bed? I sleep in a house with walls and a roof to protect me from that stuff.

<comment><USER7> Sometimes it's nice to get up early and go outside to get a little fresh air before the daily grind.

<comment><USER8> I live in Minnesota. We had a warm (7 deg C) day a couple of weeks ago after months of sub-freezing temps, and I was reminded of how good it feels to be outside and not miserable. I actually got to the office, made a cup of coffee, then left the office again just to walk around outside and enjoy the outdoors.

Probably sounds crazy to people with shorter winters, but you really don't know what you have until you don't have it.

<comment><USER9> I was just reflecting on how much life is easier when you have a mild winter (this year, NYC). Aside from temps, the past 12 months here have been incredibly sunny. The summer and fall were perfect. Thank you El Niño.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I expected this to be one of those joke web sites that just says "YES" any time you load it. I don't entirely get the point of "should I get up?" sometimes saying no.

<comment><USER11> Since it told me "yes" (because the weather is nice?), I still kinda think that's what it is.

<comment><USER12> It told me yes because the weather is awful here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> IF you're sitting in bed reading HN, then yes, you should get up.

<comment><USER14> I often check HN in bed as a way to wake my brain up after sleeping, works for me. Besides, being lazy in bed is not necessarily time wasted.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Ehhh... so it's a weather website? What's that got to do with whether I should get up >_<

<comment><USER16> If there's going to be crazy precipitation... maybe I'll just stay in bed.

Without checking the weather though, anytime it's rainy in the morning I always feel 300% more lethargic, as if some primal instinct is saying "it's raining out there, better just not."

<comment><USER17> I like to think it's that the sound of rain is _so relaxing_ that I am just in a state of pure comfort and that's why I don't want to get out of bed.

I also have a folder of rain sounds collected off of archive.org and some other places, for when I want to get deep work like programming done. I feel much better at creative tasks when I'm relaxed by rain sounds.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Another interesting app/site that I'm using to help me get out of bed is EarlyRisersHub . You check in every day and earn points, and compete with others this way. [http://www.earlyrisershub.com](http://www.earlyrisershub.com)

<comment><USER19> Interesting! I've grown a bit tired of gameification of real life with apps, but this made me realize that it's really helpful to Kickstart a new habit.

<comment><USER20> $1,000 stretch goal: Will stretch before climbing out of bed

$2,500 stretch goal: Will stretch after climbing out of bed

$5,000 stretch goal: Will perform universe-encompassing long yawn during duration of both stretches

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> It is working something in background but nothing is happening.

<comment><USER22> It apparently needs location access to show anything. No thanks.

<comment><USER23> Well duh. How is it supposed to make any statement about the situation at your place when it does not know your location?

The only alternative is: return (rand() > RAND_MAX/2) ? "Yes" : "No";

<comment><USER24> Assuming a perfect random number generator, this would be the only way to make the website's answer truly "unbiased." Right now it has a heavy bias on the weather.

<comment><USER25> That's still biased towards a very lazy lifestyle.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Doesn't work in the latest Chrome Dev, the dev console says that you need to use HTTPS in order to call getCurrentPosition().

</comment><comment><USER27> It doesn't seem to work in Safari on iOS :(

</comment><comment><USER28> Wouldn't this decision heavily depend on whether, and when I have to go to work today?

<comment><USER29> Personally, I've found myself sleeping better and feeling happier when I manage to stick to an early start, regardless of whether I'm working or when.

For a long time I generally got up as late as I could get away with, but am now very glad I managed to coax myself into being a (relatively) early-riser.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> If you're up and reading in bed the answer is almost always yes. You never want your brain to associated laying in bed with anything other than sleep or sex.

<comment><USER31> I find this so ridiculous - both as someone who has worked in research psychology and as a person who, like many others, has a bed and likes to sleep...

If we were such simple creatures that we could be so easily conditioned to not sleep because of previous non-sleep activities in bed, sex of all things would be one of the biggest drivers of insomnia. It produces a significant reward and we're very much wired to want it - as such, it would make a powerful unconditioned stimulus if anything could. Therefore, the previous poster's claim isn't even valid on its face. Sex should absolutely be done elsewhere if we're so easily conditioned away from sleep.

Instead, I'd substitute the idea that things like light exposure _do_ matter (so tv and digital tools are often counter to falling asleep). Another useful idea is the rule of thumb that if you're trying to sleep but can't, after some period of time of tossing and turning, get up, keep the lights dim but do something else and come back in a little bit and try to get yourself in the sleep groove again. It's conceptually not so different from a pilot aborting a landing and going around again, I guess.

<comment><USER32> If you're having sex while reading this, you should definitely stop. You don't want to associate browsing Hacker News with anything except procrastinating at work... so put your pajamas back on.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Asking for location / weather IS NOT UNBIASED.

</comment><comment><USER34> The temperature would be a nice addition -- it may be a sunny morning where I am, but it's also 21 degrees (-6 C).

<comment><USER35> Temperature is much less important than the 4 factors they do list, in my opinion.

Right now it's -23C here, with no wind and a bright sun reflecting off of perfect powder. It's so beautiful that it's one of those days you contemplate skipping work -- there are not too many nice skiing days left this season.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> The weather being reported is much more optimistic than what I'm seeing outside my window.

</comment><comment><USER37> Funny, it picked up my location perfectly, but the time is off by one hour.

</comment><comment><USER38> NaN mm/hour - not interested</comment>


Ask YC: who gives away free money? - <AUTHOR>

So, I know most people here want to do the start up thing so as to be financially independent, getting all the work out of the way early so as to get onto the really cool hacks.  But, our economy being as robust as it is, surely there are very rich people who would sponsor random promising hackers to do whatever, instead of slaving away for 6 months -> year on one very specific and narrow problem domain.
Our creative hacking, logical rigor, and awesome platform for idea modelling can have such a much more fundamental impact on society than all the web apps in the world.  That's why pg's hacker philosopher idea is so cool!  Who else is positioned like we are to revolutionize the world of thought?  So, my question is, where are all these smart investors, with a vision bigger than just the monthly bottom line?
I, for one, do not wish to research ponies and rainbows.  That is not to say they are bad, but I have other interests. <comment><USER2> What..in the world...

People don't do startups to change society. They do it to get rich. Changing society may or may not result.

People give away money either to feel good about themselves or to help accomplish a goal.

If a rich person's goal is "to change society", and a startup's goal is "to get rich", then the rich person will only invest in startups that will change society in the ways the rich person wants it to change. Which is what happens already.

But if a rich person's goal is "to get richer", then they'll invest in startups that they think have a decent chance in getting rich, regardless of whether or not they change society.

Therefore, the current system actually invests in _more_ startups than your system.

So what are you proposing?

I guess a more direct answer to your question is: Nobody.

<comment><USER3> Your view that startups are created only to make $$$ is kind of cynical. Money is important, but I'd think that the really cool startups are the ones that try to change society. They just happen to get rewarded by the market.

Anyways, I agree that the original post is kind of random...

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, it's one of those questions that get right to the heart of the issue, but people don't feel comfortable asking because their context is based on one specific answer. Many times, those are exactly the questions that should be asked. Sometimes they're just retarded. I decided to give it a shot.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> One last-resort (but creative) option is to sit out on the curb in Harvard Square or on University Ave with your laptop and a cup for change. Plenty of people do that so they can sing or perform because it's something they love. If you want to do creative things and think it will be that important to the world, then the people who will mock you for doing something like this shouldn't bother you too much.

<comment><AUTHOR> Romantic, but I don't want to be a starving artist if I can avoid it.

<comment><USER4> Darn. I was hoping you would do that and then I could walk by and say "haha! i suggested he do that!"

But actually it may be a good idea. It would be great marketing.

<comment><AUTHOR> Seriously, think how little money it takes to live, and fairly comfortably - probably only about $20,000 a year. That's nothing for any of the multi- millionaires that roam this site. There should definitely be some kind of criteria to determine whether a person is promising (such as what they've done on their own time), but besides that I don't see any problem with the idea.

<comment><USER5> I would like to point out going to grad school is a great way to live like that and be around creative types.

Edit: Wow that's an old post NM.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> There is no one smart enough to seek you out and understand what you are doing. You have to network which means lots of "ponies and rainbows" until you meet the right investor.

</comment><comment><USER7> I'm planning to work as a consultant part time and spend the rest of my time working on a problem I'm passionate about. Unfortunately this means no retirement savings, and penny pinching indefinitely. I hope I can figure out some better way to do this in the long run.

</comment><comment><USER8> What do you mean by ponies and rainbows?

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not referencing ID.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Slave away for what it takes to get rich, then give yourself the free money.

<comment><AUTHOR> Which is a waste of time if I can get funded.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> You've already asked this before. Last time it was funding for intelligent design (no, really?) and now it's a idea modeler?

<comment><USER11> Looks like he took rms' advice and re-made the thread without referencing ID: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=57867> .

Am I just closed-minded, or does "logical rigor" sound uncomfortable coming from an IDer?

<comment><USER10> as with last time, he wants to find "patrons" to give him free money so that he can play da vinci somewhere.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is a general question asked on behalf of all hackers who primarily want financial independence.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Good books on mathematics for somebody who's only taken high school math? - <AUTHOR> I was just reading Lockhart's Lament again (http://www.maa.org/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf, if you haven't read and reread it yet), and I got a tremendous urge to really start getting into math. Problem is, I don't know where to begin with it. So I figured I'd ask: what books out there discuss math in the same way Lockhart does? I don't want a drab textbook: I want something that makes math as fascinating as it was in middle school, when I actually had fun learning about this stuff. Something that really is ecstatic about math.
I remember having a book about Fibonacci that was like that, but it was a pretty small book. Just as an aside.
And, if you don't have a good math book (though that's what I'm looking for), are there any books you've read that inspire that same sort of ecstasy in you? Personally, I've found myself inspired both by Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything, along with Malcolm Gladwell's The Tipping Point. (Even though the latter wasn't exactly a scientific book like it purports itself to be, I was still fascinated by the concept it discussed.) Anything else? <comment><USER2> A snapshot of my bookshelf's "math" section, which really hasn't changed much since I was in high school and hadn't taken calculus:

W.W. Sawyer, _What is Calculus About?_ and _Mathematician's Delight_

Courant and Robbins, _What is Mathematics?_

Hogben, _Mathematics for the Million_

Steinhaus, _Mathematical Snapshots_

Ivars Peterson, _The Mathematical Tourist_

Davis and Hersh, _The Mathematical Experience_

Polya, _How to Solve It_

Huff, _How to Lie With Statistics_

McGervey, _Probabilities in Everyday Life_

Raymond Smullyan: _The Lady or the Tiger_ , _Alice in Puzzle-Land_ , others

Anything by Martin Gardner. I happen to have picked up _Mathematical Magic Show_ and _Mathematical Circus_ , but I'm sure there are many other collections.

I also recommend cryptography stuff. David Kahn's _The Codebreakers_ is not really a math book, but it is awesome and it stars mathematicians, as does Simon Singh's _The Code Book_. You could read Schneier's _Applied Cryptography_.

This is HN, so I would be remiss if I didn't point out that you can learn a lot of fun _and_ useful math by reading SICP, Knuth, or any good algorithms book.

If anybody out there knows a good, spirited statistics book addressed to someone who knows calculus, tell me. I keep planning to go through _Fundamentals of Applied Probability Theory_ but I never get around to it; see "Related Resources" here:

[http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Electrical-Engineering-and- Compute...](http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Electrical-Engineering-and-Computer- Science/6-041Spring-2006/CourseHome/index.htm)

Having said all of that: I have a Ph.D. in physics/EE, so I've _got_ to tell you, if you haven't tried calculus you haven't lived. ;) I'm not sure how to go about learning calculus in a _fun_ way for a _mathematician_ \-- I took fairly standard first- and second-year college courses in calculus and physics and learned it that way. The folks on Amazon seem kind of enthusiastic about Spivak:

[http://www.amazon.com/Calculus-Michael- Spivak/dp/0914098918/...](http://www.amazon.com/Calculus-Michael- Spivak/dp/0914098918/ref=pd_cp_b_1?pf_rd_p=413864201&pf_rd_s=center-41&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0471000051&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0WF0SV95HM895E3YYW28)

<comment><AUTHOR> I took calculus my junior year, but again: I don't trust my high school experience to tell me whether or not I like something.

Thanks a ton for the names. I'll check out the library later this afternoon!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Check out Mind Tools by Rudy Rucker. He is a math professor and novelist, and this book is a tour of advanced math concepts. Super fun and interesting. [http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Tools-Levels-Mathematical- Reality...](http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Tools-Levels-Mathematical- Reality/dp/0395468108)

</comment><comment><USER3> If you like to be instructed by trippy 1970s cartoon characters, Prof. E. McSquared's Calculus Primer is good. [http://www.amazon.com/Prof-McSquareds- Calculus-Primer-Interg...](http://www.amazon.com/Prof-McSquareds-Calculus- Primer-Intergalactic/dp/0971462402)

<comment><USER4> Totally awesome.

I first encountered this book when I was about six years old, and my mother was using it for a calculus class. I didn't understand the content by any means, but I enjoyed the cartoon characters. Despite not understanding it, the book helped instill in me a fondness for math.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I read this little gem over the summer: Godel's Proof ([http://www.amazon.com/Godels-Proof-Ernest- Nagel/dp/081475837...](http://www.amazon.com/Godels-Proof-Ernest- Nagel/dp/0814758371/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221043351&sr=8-1))

At 160 pages, it's the ideal size to carry with you everywhere you go. All summer long, any time I had an extra half an hour, I would take it out and read/re-read a chapter.

</comment><comment><USER6> Steinhaus, Mathematical Snapshots Polya, Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning Pappas, The Joy of Mathematics Gardner, The Colossal Book of Short Puzzles and Problems Winkler, Mathematical Puzzles: A Connoisseur's Collection Andrews, Number Theory (Dover Books on Advanced Mathematics)

\- The last book is not really that advanced, It can be understood by most with an understanding through high school algebra II.

</comment><comment><USER7> As an aside, does anyone know of a mathematical dictionary? I've been trying to follow some books and I just get lost in the terminology -- as I scour the net for the pieces I need, I can get the context, but that seems entirely inefficient. Along the same lines, I'm having trouble making the leap from understanding simple proofs to advanced ones.

Is there any hope, save for going back for a math degree? :)

<comment><USER8> You should check out this online resource for mathematics:

<http://mathworld.wolfram.com/>

If you need a dead tree version, Harper Collins is coming out with a new edition:

[http://www.amazon.com/Harper-Collins-Dictionary- Mathematics-...](http://www.amazon.com/Harper-Collins-Dictionary-Mathematics- Borowski/dp/1439508860/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220994362&sr=8-8)

I have an older version and it's good for quickly looking up some of the vocabulary, however, it won't give you a deep understanding.

<comment><USER7> I will definitely check out both. Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Take a look at _Journey through Genius_ by William Dunham. I read it after high school and ended up spending much of the summer with a straightedge and compass making geometric constructions. It's not all geometry, though; there's plenty of other good stuff, including some gems from Euler and Cantor's incredible diagonal proof of the cardinality of the rationals.

</comment><comment><USER10> Based on what you wrote you would hate Courant and Robbins _What is Mathematics?_ , too rigorous. I think you would enjoy _Mathematics from the Birth of Numbers_ by Jan Gullberg and _Calculus Made Easy_ by Sylvanus Thompson.

You might also find _Unknown Quantity_ interesting. I think Gullberg would be my #1 req for you.

</comment><comment><USER11> On another thread, there was a recommendation for Roger Penrose's 'The Road to Reality'. Haven't read it, but it purports to build from basic math through to advanced concepts and physics, step by step.

</comment><comment><USER12> One of my favorites:

[http://www.amazon.com/History-Mathematics-Carl-B- Boyer/dp/04...](http://www.amazon.com/History-Mathematics-Carl-B- Boyer/dp/0471543977)

</comment><comment><USER13> Concrete Mathematics by Graham, Kunth and Patashnik

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete_Mathematics>

</comment><comment><USER14> Hmm. No math book suggestions but I recommend reading anything by Milan Kundera.

</comment><comment><USER15> Men of mathematics (E T Bell) and A mathematician's apology (G H Hardy).</comment>


So you want to do the SICP... - <AUTHOR> http://www.uponmyshoulder.com/blog/2011/so-you-want-to-do-the-sicp/ <comment><USER2> I'm close the finishing the last major chunk of the book. Working with two colleagues for around two hours a week, its taken us nearly a year to get this far. Of course, we did every exercise, and lost a lot of time trying to work around incompatibilities between standard Scheme and the interesting corners of DrScheme [now DrRacket - mcons, I'm looking at you]. Now we use mit-scheme and I wish we had done so from the very beginning.

I don't think the book is perfect. I found the structure of Chapter 4, where a Scheme interpreter is built, confusing and irritating. The exercises are interspersed with the text in a way that doesn't allow you to test any of your solutions unless you read ahead to get more infrastructure. This seems deeply unREPLy to me. Once I had typed in enough of the supporting code to actually run my proposed solutions, and pulled some hair out debugging my broken code, I had some marvellous moments of epiphany. That Ahah! is what maks the book's reputation, and what makes the effort worthwhile. But it could have been better.

As a group, we're not sure where to go next.

My day job involves hacking my way around >>10e6 lines of C. Even now, I don't feel that I understand the idioms of Scheme-in-the-Large in anything like the same way. I'm not sure any book can give you that. I probably need to write some code to solve a real problem first.

So if any of you have completed [the] SICP, what did you read next that seemed to be a good continuation of your education?

c

<comment><USER3> I definitely agree that there are a few parts of the book which could be re- ordered so that you could always play with the exercises right away without reading ahead. Really good advice for someone about to start is to explore ahead before getting bogged down in the exercises for a particular section, like the metacircular interpreter and the compiler. I think the end of Chapter 2 also requires some destructive put/get functions which aren't introduced until Chapter 3.

I'm reading Christian Queinnec's Lisp in Small Pieces now, and I think it's a great next book after SICP. It picks up right away with a metacircular evaluator very similar to the first one in Chapter 4, but diverges from SICP to explore different semantics, like Lisp-1 vs Lisp-2, dynamic variables, exceptions and control flow with catch/throw and continuations. Later chapters address macros and compilers I think one to bytecode and another to C.

It's very well written and the translation from French is clear if a little bit flowery. Highly recommended, but watch out for the Scheme code from the author's site. I don't think it's been touched since the early to mid 90s and I had a rough time trying to get it to run in any "modern" Scheme. I'm just translating the code as I go to run in Racket, which is much easier than trying to figure out what a thousand line Makefile does, or re-write some strange non-hygienic macros. If someone has advice for running the LiSP code, please speak up!

[http://pagesperso- systeme.lip6.fr/Christian.Queinnec/WWW/LiS...](http://pagesperso- systeme.lip6.fr/Christian.Queinnec/WWW/LiSP.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I got almost to the end of chapter 4, I have my solutions available on github:

<http://github.com/sztywny/sicp>

The Scheme community wiki is far from being the best resource for looking up the answers to the exercises. Eli Bendersky has a good page with answers written in Common Lisp:

<http://eli.thegreenplace.net/category/programming/lisp/sicp/>

Also, if you throw "sicp exercise x.yz solution" into Google, a couple of other blogs will pop up frequently - it is best to always consult different sources, sometimes some of the posted "solutions" are a bit confused, or at least not discussed clearly enough.

After you get used to some basic FP idioms, the exercises aren't really that hard, especially if you had at least the most basic exposure to the topics the programs in the book touch (circuits, elementary higher math etc., remember it was a part of the beginning EE/CS curriculum). There are just a few common causes of confusion and problems with the exercises that are very well summarized in the paper "Why calculating is better then scheming":

[http://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/people/staff/dat/miranda/wadler87.p...](http://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/people/staff/dat/miranda/wadler87.pdf)

Another thing is that when the programs in the book start to become larger, it becomes harder and harder to work with them, it's basically hundreds of functions in a single long file. Using some stronger form of modularization throughout the book would help a lot, at least from the moment they already have explained how one can achieve it (they describe message-passing etc.).

</comment><comment><USER5> SICP will take a while if you really want to solve all the exercises and understand the meaning in each word. (It took me about a year and a half of sporadic studying, it took Eli Bendersky [1] roughly a year too).

It's a difficult journey, but it is a scenic tour of a lot of the core concepts in computer science.

[1] <http://eli.thegreenplace.net/2008/04/18/sicp-conclusion/>

</comment><comment><USER6> They should do an updated version in Java, to increase the appeal.

(Just kidding, of course, but it would be a great practical joke if they announced something like that)

<comment><USER7> It would be worth it just to watch Abelson and Sussman go all zed shaw on their ass.

<comment><USER8> As one of Sussman's students, I can confirm that he would indeed (politely but pointedly) "go all zed shaw on their ass"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> If you like the book, you will love the movie: [http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.001/abelson- sussma...](http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.001/abelson-sussman- lectures/)

</comment><comment><USER10> I'm taking it pretty slow, but I'm also posting solutions with explanations to the SICP exercises on my blog. See the ones I've done so far by starting at <http://www.billthelizard.com/2009/10/sicp-challenge.html>

</comment><comment><USER11> I've been working on it (prof. Erlang programmer) via Racket. I'm only on section 2.3 and I've gone through section 1's exercises several times. You really gain an appreciation for math to controlling flow as opposed to something being "null" or matching a certain condition. It's good stuff once it starts to click. Painful, but I think it will pay off in the long run. I've only been at it part-time for 5 weeks!

</comment><comment><USER12> There's an iPad app called iScheme, it's actually a functioning REPL. Could be a nice way to work through SICP.

<comment><USER13> Really? Cool... Havnt been following but thought Apple were rejecting REPL applications.

<comment><USER14> You just can't load code from external sources. I am not familiar with iScheme, but Pixie Scheme III is a scheme REPL and when you quit the app your work is gone... You can cut and paste into another app (notes or something that will sync with dropbox) but according to Apple's rules if you interpret code you can only run code you include yourself or that which is entered by the user.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Highly recommend it, here are some great resources that I found from a previous HN thread: [http://groups.google.com/group/hacker-news-reads- sicp/web/re...](http://groups.google.com/group/hacker-news-reads- sicp/web/resources?pli=1)

</comment><comment><USER16> I've seen that scheme REPL before. I used to be a programming tutor, and I'd use it to demonstrate functional programming to my tutees if we had extra time after I finished helping them with their assignments--typically by writing a function that would find the solutions to a quadratic equation with around half the usual number of tokens. (In case you forgot, there's a ± in the quadratic formula.)

</comment><comment><USER17> I was very happy when SICP in Clojure was announced. It offered to kill 2 birds with one stone. But it has slowed down over the months <http://sicpinclojure.com/?q=content/current-status>

<comment><USER3> On the other hand, the subset of Scheme in SICP is pretty small, so one doesn't need to invest much in Scheme to read SICP and do the exercises. And I think a lot of the concepts covered in SICP are clearly visible in the design of Clojure (lazy streams, purely function programming and concurrency concerns) and so I think SICP alone is great at priming someone for Clojure. Then I think it would be better to approach Clojure on its own terms, with something like the Joy of Clojure, which seems to be a very nice book from what I've read of it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> This is so great. Working in the MIT REPL was such a pain in the ass. The book was written unfathomably well, but trying to get the editor to work could break the most resilient of men.

<comment><USER19>
      >> Working in the MIT REPL was such a pain ...

Racket is a pleasure to work with.

        http://racket-lang.org/

<comment><USER20> Great, I wasn't aware that DrScheme was renamed DrRacket.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> "The" SICP? I have never heard it called that before.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hmm. I didn't even think about it, it just sounded like the best way to put it — "SICP" as a noun due to the fact that it's so well known.

I guess it's not that terrible of a mistake, as you were the only one to notice, but thanks for the correction. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> There's also an online companion version with narrated slides and 'graded' exercises.

<http://icampustutor.csail.mit.edu/6.001-public/>

<comment><USER23> Very nice</comment></comment>


Congress claims Snowden has been in contact with Russian intelligence - <AUTHOR> https://www.engadget.com/2016/12/22/congress-claims-snowden-has-been-in-contact-with-russian-intelli/ <comment><USER2> No, "Congress" doesn't claim that. The Select Committee on Intelligence claims (or rather vaguely asserts) that. But they offer no evidence for their assertions, other than the unreliable (and misquoted) speculation of a Russian parliament member.

See also - [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13240783](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13240783)</comment>


Presenting the SpaceX Interplanetary Transport System [Video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.facebook.com/SpaceX/videos/10158028115495131/ <comment><USER2> Nice animation, I repeat animation. I'll believe it when I see it!

<comment><USER3> I'm fairly confident that you don't need to worry about anyone being confused and thinking that SpaceX has already launched a mission to Mars.

Ideas always come before execution.

<comment><USER2> No #$%#. It's just that's all of these claims are just not happening fast enough</comment></comment></comment>