The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science - <AUTHOR> https://www.nas.org/projects/irreproducibility_report <comment><USER2> The site is down so I can't read the original report, but I've read reports on this topic in the past so I'm going to chime in with some "usual suspects" caveats:

1\. No result is 100% reproducible because you can never completely reproduce the conditions of any experiment. The best you can hope to do is to reproduce the conditions that _matter_ , but enumerating those has to be part of the theory you are testing, and so you can never be 100% sure that you have a complete list.

2\. Even a completely non-reproducible result can be scientifically significant. For example, celestial events are almost never reproducible. Our understanding of celestial mechanics nonetheless rests on solid science.

3\. The end-product of science is not truth, it is _explanations_ of observations. Those observations can (indeed must) include non-reproducible ones. Sometimes the explanation of non-reproducible results is "experimental error" or "delusion" or "we just don't know." But non-reproducible events are nonetheless within the purview of science.

On the other hand...

4\. The statistical tests currently in widespread use as a criterion for publication in peer-reviewed journals _guarantee_ that _at least_ one result in 20 will be due to chance and not because the hypothesis being tested is actually true. That, combined with the suppression of negative results, guarantees that the results published in scientific journals that adhere to those standards _will_ be unreliable. But that doesn't really have anything to do with reproducibility _per se_ , it has to do with the fact that the journals use a weak criterion for defining positive results. That, combined with our human predilection to value positive results over negative ones and the understandable desire of scientists to advance their careers, all but guarantees that journals will contain many defensible but false results. But this is not because of a lack of reproducibility per se, it's because of poor policy choices.

<comment><USER3> > The statistical tests currently in widespread use as a criterion for > publication in peer-reviewed journals guarantee that at least one result in > 20 will be due to chance and not because the hypothesis being tested is > actually true.

That's wildly overly pessimistic. That would only be the case if scientists just went around, looking at the world, and came up with null-hypotheses willy nilly. That's generally not the case. There is often a _reason_ for conducting the test and a plausible cause of action. There are two possible reasons for a significant result:

* The null hypothesis is correct but they got "unlucky" data (5% chance or p% chance)

* There is a real effect (and the null hypothesis is actually wrong)

This becomes more problematic in reproducibility tests, though, since that biases my prior towards a correct null hypothesis and now you must be very careful about pre-registration and the numbers of folks worldwide that are trying to reproduce a given experiment.

<comment><USER4> Are you aware of the scale of failure here? The article (referring to the executive summary here) gives some really incredible figures. In psychology 100 reproducibility studies were only able to produce statistically significant results from 36% of prominent papers - compared to the 97% of the original studies. In biotech, a firm tried to reproduce 53 "landmark" studies in hematology and oncology - only 6 could be replicated.

The reason this is being called a 'crisis' is because it's looking like the vast majority of science, particularly in the social and human physiological sciences, is junk.

<comment><USER3> Absolutely! I'm only addressing the common misconception in the grandparent that the p-value is the percent likelihood that the effect is real. That's not at all accurate.

There are definitely other reasons that lead us to such horrifying results — especially in fields where experimenters _do_ conduct experiments seemingly at random and without a reasonable pathway of action (I'm looking at you, social psychology and friends).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> To be clear, the "NAS" (nas.org) that published this study is the National Association of Scholars [0], a political group, _not_ the National Academy of Sciences (nasonline.org) [1], a nongovernmental organization that consists of scientists elected by their peers to provide independent scientific advice to the US government. There was in fact a study published recently in PNAS, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, on this topic [2].

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_of_Schola...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_of_Scholars)

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

[2] [http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/03/08/1802324115](http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/03/08/1802324115)

<comment><USER6> Good catch thanks! Wikipedia says "The National Association of Scholars (NAS) is an American non-profit politically conservative advocacy group, with a particular interest in education"

Thanks for the link to the PNAS -- looks like a whole special issue, not just an article, in fact. Great. I'm gonna ignore the fake-NAS one, and read the real-PNAS one.

I wonder what National Association of Scholars' motivation is here exactly.

<comment><USER7> Isn't the entire purpose of reproducability is to eliminate such questions from discussions about science?

<comment><USER6> To eliminate what such questions?

To eliminate any questions about social context or bias or agenda? Totally not possible, social context is an inherent part of science, as in all human endeavors.

I think the purpose of reproducibility is to well, make science _possible_, it is the fundamental bedrock of science -- to determine what and how we can make reliable predictions about the world. It doesn't mean bias and effects of social context no longer exists though. Science exists anyway, in a social context -- as evidenced by the past couple hundred years!

In general, I don't think science exists to eliminate _any_ questions, science exists to ask questions. Eliminating questions may be a goal of ideology or religion, but not science. (and in the real world, they certainly influence each other. science is a goal to strive for, not a fait accompli. Scientific understandings of the world are always changing; science is an approach to understanding the world, not a set of settled conclusions).

<comment><USER6> Also, if we're looking for the social context that leads to the reproducibility crisis, I think it's a lot more likely to be about academic career incentives (you _gotta_ publish things, a lot of things, that all seem like important and socially useful results, none of which are negative results -- when the actual practice of science means negative results are an expected and useful thing, not indication you are a bad scientist), than the political ideologies/biases of researchers.

Maybe I'm wrong. There are probably ways to investigate it. This essay isn't one of them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Some of the comments miss an important distinction.. Science in the popular press, often refers to science versus completely non-science ways of forming an opinion or deciding policy. Meanwhile, science within a technical community, is subject to human error and manipulation, and relies on a reproducible result, as well as peer-review, to find answers to conflicting claims.

There are certainly non-Science ways of forming an opinion and deciding policy, in many cases totally legitimate. But once science is claimed, then of course it has to be subject to science rigors.

<comment> m-watson Yes, thank you for saying this. I feel like, often, people use science as some ethereal being. It is a process that has to be used. If that process isn't happening it isn't science. That doesn't mean everything has to be science, but things that are science should be held to a certain standard but should also be taken with the extra weight if that standard is met.

<comment><USER9> It's important to make the distinction between Pure Science and anything on the sliding scale from technical description to ELI5. There are levels to it, you and I know.

<comment> m-watson Oh absolutely there is a sliding scale on both the actual practice of science as well as the reporting. From the practice of it, I know as simple anecdote I have participated in conducting research in hard science (physics), softer hard science (biology), social science (behavioral and economic), as well as straight policy analysis with a "scientific approach" through data science. The findings from those are reported differently and have stronger or weaker words and conclusions. I think that is where the practice sliding scale comes in, is how the researcher decided to write up and report their findings and appropriately identifying their methodology and short-comings.

From the journalism side I think you end up with the problem the wide spread field of journalism has, you have to be read by your audience. That means something with a wider audience is probably going to be more on the ELI5 side which means both the reader and the journalist have to take any reported findings more lightly.

The sliding scale, I believe, comes in with the rigor something is reported. That is both in the practice and the journalistic side. More details can give a more granular understanding showing limitations but some times broad strokes are necessary to get some information out to a wider audience or more quickly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> In response to several threads here: it is important to distinguish when scientists are self critical vs. when non-scientists are critical of the scientific method. For instance, there is a long history of scientists criticizing how the scientific process is currently conducted for the purposes of improving the scientific endeavor. That work is sometimes used by non- scientists who question the overall scientific method. However, such use is invalid as the scientific self-criticism

1\. assumes the validity of the scientific method

2\. relies on the scientific method as its critical lens

Whereas those who critique science as a whole:

1\. assume that the scientific method does not work and does not arrive at "truth"

2\. then use scientists being self critical to prove #1.

Such a "proof" does not work as there is its uses the assumption "the scientific method arrives at truth" to derive the contradiction "the scientific method does not arrive at truth". See for instance comment: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16859200](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16859200)

In reality, work on reproducibility is about improving the practice of science overall. It does not in itself show that science is inherently untrustworthy. What it does show is that scientific discovery is difficult and it takes a lot of effort and new findings should be treated _critically_. What does critically mean in this context? It means _with in the boundaries of science_ analyzing the theoretical basis, hypothesis, method, and experimental results for potential flaws. It does not mean to be skeptical as a default because science "doesn't work."

<comment><USER11> >scientists criticizing how the scientific process is currently conducted for the purposes of improving the scientific endeavor.

I think what happening here is a bit more serious. They are showing a widespread crisis. It is not just some minor feedback to improve the process.

>It does not in itself show that science is inherently untrustworthy.

I think when statistics is involved, the results are inherently untrustworthy. This is not really surprising because there is a whole bunch of ways these studies that involve statistics could go wrong. And we are still finding new ways on how this could go wrong.

Then there are things like publication bias, that takes this to a whole new level. Things like that means that a biased body of journals can project any consensus that it favors just by selecting studies that fit its narrative. The inherent issues with statistics means that you can find studies that shows any possible outcome.

<comment><USER4> > _" I think when statistics is involved, the results are inherently > untrustworthy. This is not really surprising because there is a whole bunch > of ways these studies that involve statistics could go wrong. And we are > still finding new ways on how this could go wrong."_

Another very real issue here is that malicious use of statistics can be used to show nearly anything in ways that can be extremely difficult to detect, even when the maliciousness is hidden in plain sight. And then going a step beyond that there's plain old number fudging which is almost impossible to prove since variance works as sufficient plausible deniability. And finally there is of course plain old ineptitude. Like you mention even when trying to do things completely by the book, statistics are _incredibly_ difficult to get right.

Something that comes to mind here is the recent MIT study stating that Uber drivers earned $3.37/hour. That study was completely broken. [1] It's debatable whether the cause was maliciousness or ineptitude, but the point is that these problems arise, with a disturbing regularity, even when the most reputable of names are attached to them.

[1] - [https://qz.com/1222744/mits-uber-study-couldnt-possibly- have...](https://qz.com/1222744/mits-uber-study-couldnt-possibly-have-been- right-it-was-still-important/)

<comment><USER12> Feynmann said, "The first rule is that you must not fool yourself. And you are the easiest person to fool."

There can be malice, sure. But there can also be _desire to believe_. And, hey, here's a statistical analysis that shows what the investigator is already biased to believe anyway...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Lets take a page from Marx. Science is many things, in particular a relationship between capital and labor. The scientific method is a wonderful idea, but it is subordinate to the economic forces that underlie scientific activity. Look at the conflicts and contradictions between those doing science (labor) and those deciding the science to be done (capital), and that is the ultimate source of these crises.

The executive summary lists 40 points on how to improve the reproducibility of science. A bit over half of them are addressed to the sources of capital such as private organizations, universities, and governments. I think many of those points are good. However, I don't think the other points, the ones that recommend doing science in different ways, have a good punch. Even if you fix the problems there are today, so long as science is a rat race of trying to get grant money to stay afloat while burning out grad student after grad student, I think other pathological practices will creep in as a completely rational response on the parts of scientists to a hostile ecosystem. There's just a very big gap between how science should be done and what capital owners want from science.

<comment><USER14> > _There 's just a very big gap between how science should be done and what > capital owners want from science_

It was "a team from Bayer Healthcare" who "tried to replicate the results of basic cancer studies," failed, "and kicked off a media storm questioning the legitimacy of cancer science—and science in general" [1]. The "capital owners" looking out for their own buck are performing more effectively, narrowly speaking, than academia.

[1] [https://www.wired.com/2017/01/fighting-cancers-crisis- confid...](https://www.wired.com/2017/01/fighting-cancers-crisis-confidence- one-study-time/)

<comment><USER13> Even if that's true, that only science that can have a profit motive slapped on it can be done effectively in the current system is a problem. If only such science were done, then we would have different crises of science to deal with because profit seeking is at odds with much science, in particular basic research.

It's also quite obviously the case that profit seeking research has incentives to be bad science in other ways.

<comment><USER14> > _It 's also quite obviously the case that profit seeking research has > incentives to be bad science in other ways_

I agree. My point is the Marxist framework is a bad one for modern science.

We have endowed academics and ones working for private institutions and getting grants from public bodies run by scientists. Privately-financed biotech companies founded by academics taking moon shots and getting acquired by marketing and distribution powerhouses. Even delineating who is "capital" and who is "labour" quickly becomes pedantic more than useful.

<comment><USER13> > My broader point is the Marxian framework is a bad one for modern science.

I will concede that it's reasonable to think it's an incomplete and limited framework, but I have to take issue with calling it _bad_. For example, I think this starting point is more productive than the premises of this report.

> Privately-financed biotech companies founded by academics taking moon shots > and getting acquired by marketing and distribution powerhouses. Even > delineating who is "capital" and who is "labour" quickly becomes pedantic > more than useful.

In this example it's plain to me that VCs are capital and entrepreneurs are labor. That's usually the game in such moonshots. Here we can analyze what sort of science is being done through this relationship through a Marxian lens too. VC's want to make big bets with potentially astronomical upside. That means only certain kinds of science will ever be done in this way. Yea, this kind of science is probably more replicable on average, but what about something like Theranos? This sort of science funding has its own problems with inefficient and incomplete allocation of resources.

I'm not a hardcore Marxist; I don't think you can reduce the world to one grand theory based on hot takes inspired by Hegel, but I think it's a more powerful tool than most care to admit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The article may be good, but the source has a definite bias. See [https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/National_Association_o...](https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/National_Association_of_Scholars) to see what that bias is.

That said, they should be well-informed on the subject. So it probably does contain a lot of good information.

</comment><comment><USER16> There has to be similar prestige/career-building/notoriety/funding for spending time on reproducing the experiments of others. Without that shift there will _clearly_ be a greater tendency to just try something new.

Also, when experiments depend on source code, etc. we need real engineering tools/principles applied. (Something like: "you _can't publish_ paper X if you aren't including a public repository with build/run instructions".) Unfortunately, there are all kinds of reasons why scripts/builds could fail just a few months or years later so they would have to be checked too.

I think it would be cool if document-generation caught on in the publication of papers, i.e. the paper itself is _generated_ by running actual experiment scripts and producing charts, etc. from plain text source.

<comment><USER17> So, Jupyter?

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Being reproducible is only _critically_ important if people treat individual studies as meaningful.

That IMO is a far more dangerous stance. Any study can have hidden flaws, none should be trusted without some form of replication.

<comment><USER19> How often is a study even repeated in the course of normal scientific research? I think most studies are focused on expanding the research and therefore knowledge about the science being studied. Accepting previous studies as fact is dangerous and could easily lead to a house of cards scenario. I think this is especially true in the very specific, niche studies that are common in today's highly competitive graduate student and publish or die research landscape.

<comment><USER20> That is why, as a (global) society, we should spend our resources in making sure the data we have is accurate by funding research and repeated studies, and that data should be open to all to verify and build upon.

<comment><USER21> I think we're passed the point where studies can be reproduced effectively. I actually think the scientific model is falling apart. We've discovered the easy things, and those studies were easy to reproduce. We built a model of science around the low hanging fruit.

How are you going to reproduce a study about a cancer drug? Synthesizing the drug itself is a huge endeavor, never mind finding a group of participants with the exact cancer you need. How would you reproduce the Large Hadron Collider experiments? You'd need to rebuild one of the most technically challenging, most expensive scientific instruments ever made.

<comment><USER22> > I actually think the scientific model is falling apart.

      You must have a totally different definition of "the scientific model" than I do. I suspect (although I could be wrong) is that you have an oversimplified view of just what the scientific process is.

The scientific model/process is not a linear list of discrete steps moving from "Ask a question" to "Communicate results"; it is not a discrete and static set of criteria we apply to individual experiments or instrument output.

Berkeley University does a good job of providing visualizations on this topic:

[http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_02](http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_02)

<comment><USER21> Ok, I read your link. I still think my comments stands. My argument would be that the "Community Analysis and Feedback" section is practically impossible to maintain.

Back in early science days, this used to be a valuable section because the pool of "scientists" was huge and they often crossed disciplines. Now you have all sorts of specialties such that the pool of colleagues who are able to understand and assess your work might be, like, 8 people.

There was a Japanese mathematician who recently put out a huge proof that claimed to solve a major math problem (I am forgetting all of the important details here, so forgive me). The news wasn't so much that he created the proof, but that they couldn't find anyone to verify it!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> We did an article trying to help people be better critical thinkers when they hear about psychology research. I thought the author did a good job getting into how these studies go wrong and also the types of magical results you should be suspicious of. [https://medium.com/@jhreha/most-psychology-research- is-bs-73...](https://medium.com/@jhreha/most-psychology-research-is- bs-73d4793b4dc6)

</comment><comment><USER24> We know that weak classifiers can be bagged to produce a strong classifier al la Adaboost.

Each study is a weak classifier and would have a 'reproducibility crisis' if retested on new data. However after lots of studies of similar phenomena, a strong classifier emerges. In the field, we call this converging lines of evidence.

<comment><USER25> I'm not sure I really agree with this, because in science studies are biased towards aligning with the results of previous studies. This can be due to many factors: authors' expectations, journals like to publish positive over negative results, peer reviewers will look more critically (in an analytical sense) at work that disagrees with accepted research, etc....

It can be very hard for many reasons to stand up and say "this prior work is wrong".

<comment><USER24> The argument is not that all is perfect in science. It is not. The argument is that strong replication for each study is not required for progress. Back to my analogy to the algorithms like Adaboost. Why ever aggregate over a a bunch of weak classifiers over a single strong one? Well, please correct me if I am wrong (machine learning is not my field), but the primary advantage is computational cost. Sometimes, for the same overall classification performance, training hundreds or thousands of weak classifiers requires fewer computations than training the strong classifier.

To me it brings up an interesting point. If we view experiments as classifiers, then how would a machine learning expert set science policy and practice?

Also viewed this way, it makes me wonder about p-hacking, which increases sensitivity while increasing false positives. Since negative results are not generally reported, I wonder whether p-hacking diminishes replicability at the study level for efficiency at the aggregate level. This is an empirical question, as ethically it is of course a dubious practice under current understanding.

<comment><USER26> The ensemble advantage is completely the other way around - we might choose to use a large ensemble of classifiers because they can get slightly better results than the best single strong classifier we can make; and we might choose not to use an ensemble because of computational cost reasons, especially because you train a model once but infer forever (and likely on more limited hardware) and _inference_ for a hundred classifiers takes a hundred times more computing power even if you skimped on training length. A good example is the Netflix Prize, where the best accuracy was achieved by a large ensemble, but the practical implementation afterwards chose a slightly less accurate non-ensemble approach for performance reasons.

What you describe sometimes happens in a tradeoff between very different ML models (e.g. an ensemble of decision trees versus a single deep neural network has the properties you describe), but within any single paradigm (an ensemble of neural networks versus one NN with more training time) it's the other way around.

<comment><USER24> Always willing to learn more. I was going off of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdaBoost](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdaBoost) which mentions ___" Unlike neural networks and SVMs, the AdaBoost training process selects only those features known to improve the predictive power of the model, reducing dimensionality and potentially improving execution time as irrelevant features need not be computed."_ __

edit: When I read about ensemble theory, you receive support for the increased computational cost.

 __ _Evaluating the prediction of an ensemble typically requires more computation than evaluating the prediction of a single model, so ensembles may be thought of as a way to compensate for poor learning algorithms by performing a lot of extra computation. Fast algorithms such as decision trees are commonly used in ensemble methods (for example Random Forest), although slower algorithms can benefit from ensemble techniques as well._ __

But I found this interesting:

 __ _Empirically, ensembles tend to yield better results when there is a significant diversity among the models.[4][5] Many ensemble methods, therefore, seek to promote diversity among the models they combine.[6][7] Although perhaps non-intuitive, more random algorithms (like random decision trees) can be used to produce a stronger ensemble than very deliberate algorithms (like entropy-reducing decision trees).[8] Using a variety of strong learning algorithms, however, has been shown to be more effective than using techniques that attempt to dumb-down the models in order to promote diversity.[9]_ __

..which under my analogy would seem to suggest that exact replication is less productive than having a diversity of study designs.

<comment><USER27> Not quite. If you read the latter paragraph closely, you would note that an ensemble of stronger models performs better than a multitude of dumb models.

Then there is a problem that an ensemble of biased classifiers (mostly in the same ditection in this case - positivity bias) will magnify the bias.

This is a reason why metaanalyses have to get at the actual raw data to pool and analyse as well as correct for multiple biases. Even then the process is not perfect.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> What I'd like to know is if the "irreproducibility crisis" is really some combination of "sample size was too small" and "effect size was too small". When I went through a lot of these studies myself and saw the ones that don't reproduce, I saw this theme over and over. "P-hacking" is less of a concern to me when the effect is real and widespread.

It's so bad now that for any article/study, I look at the sample size first. If it's too small (especially < 100) or they don't say I just ignore it. And if you don't publish or give some estimate of your effect size I just think about it directionally but don't give it much weight mentally.

<comment><USER29> I'm not sure this captures the whole problem. Sure, huge sample sizes are great, but look at the current top comment by lisper - we have gained a boatload (that's a scientific term) of insight from single events. LIGO is currently rocking a sample size of 7 but I doubt you ignored it.

<comment><USER28> Of course there are exceptions and what I said doesn't capture all cases (like with massive fixed costs or unique kinds of studies), you're right. I find it's a pretty good rule of thumb, though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> A good solution would be to simply reduce the p-value threshold.

The current "standard" p-value in many fields, of 5%, is arguably too high. consider throwing a double six in backgammon has probability of 3%. That means that, on some level, throwing 6-6 would be a valid scientific "proof" of ESP. (p-value<0.05) This of course is even before p-hacking.

A high p-value is basically externalizing part of the research cost onto other scientists and in the process creates a lot of false-positive "noise".

</comment><comment><USER31> I think Planet Money did an episode on this a few years ago. Good stuff, and maybe easier than reading a paper. :)

[https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/03/07/591213302/epis...](https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/03/07/591213302/episode-677-the- experiment-experiment)

<comment><USER32> The report (not a paper) is actually written for a lay audience and very readable: [https://www.nas.org/images/documents/irreproducibility_repor...](https://www.nas.org/images/documents/irreproducibility_report/NAS_irreproducibilityReport.pdf)

<comment><USER33> It's a position paper from a conservative think tank and needs to be treated as such.

<comment><USER34> > and needs to be treated as such

What does that even mean?

You have one point "it's a conservative think tank" \- which does not mean anything - coupled with another empty statement.

Now I sure don't mind criticism of that entity, but I find it ironic that it is done with such an empty statement that's just a not very cleverly disguised type of ad hominem attack.

May I suggest you take some time actually reading the paper and then coming back with criticism of their actual points?

<comment><USER35> It is absolutely relevant to consider the political motivations of publishers of reports like this, when the publisher is a politically active organization as opposed to an independent research group.

While the report itself may not push an obvious partisan agenda, a critical reader should consider the conservative agenda of the NAS in relation to why they might publish such a report. In the conservative wing's long-standing opposition to science, it's not far-fetched to view this report as being published tactically -- even if all of its points are well-founded -- as something to point to when future efforts attempt to undermine science-based policy on issues like climate change, stem-cell research, abortion, etc.

Especially when the President of the NAS is a public "climate skeptic".

[https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/bottling-up- glob...](https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/bottling-up-global- warming-skepticism/29754)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I mean, this is still a good thing, since it charts a map of decidedly grey areas, where information may always be ambiguous, and useful information needs to be sussed out carefully.

It's better than presumptively assuming that " _Science_ " is an infallible always black-and-white.

</comment><comment><USER37> Maybe papers need Yelp reviews on reproducibility. 1-Star couldn't reproduce.

</comment><comment><USER38> I have met several "refugees" from particle physics, that left in part because of flimsy statistical methods. So let me ask: who is going to reproduce the experiment that found the Higgs boson?

</comment><comment><USER39> One of Slate Star Codex's top all-time articles discusses this very issue. Highly recommend: [http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/28/the-control-group-is- ou...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/28/the-control-group-is-out-of- control/)

<comment><USER40> > On the meta-level, you're studying some phenomenon and you get some positive > findings. That doesn't tell you much until you take some other researchers > who are studying a phenomenon you know doesn't exist – but which they > themselves believe in – and see how many of them get positive findings. That > number tells you how many studies will discover positive results whether the > phenomenon is real or not. Unless studies of the real phenomenon do > significantly better than studies of the placebo phenomenon, you haven't > found anything.

This is such an astute observation that reproduction studies can be used to find a placebo control group for bad scuence. Parapsychology was one such group, but now we can find many others. Brilliant.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> "In order to be a true scientist, you should be familiar with philosophy, first"

</comment><comment><USER42> There is the problem of conflating science with mathematics.

</comment><comment><USER43> Judging by the sheer amount of XKCD content in this report, Randall Munroe should get a co-author credit.

</comment><comment><USER19> This is the exact reason I don't believe science should be used blindly to affect government policy. It flies in the face of democracy and is subject to falsehoods just like any other human endeavor.

<comment><USER44> If we don't use science to make decisions, what are we supposed to use? Gut instinct?

Of course science is imperfect, but it tends towards truth over time, whereas dogma and populism have no way of correcting mistakes that isn't just as likely to introduce new ones.

<comment><USER45> > If we don't use science to make decisions, what are we supposed to use? Gut > instinct?

I thought the parent comment made it clear: the alternative we are supposed to use is "democracy". That is, the people who are ruled should determine the rules that are imposed on them.

Now, democracy does not preclude the use of science to make decisions. The voters may rely on science to inform their decisions (when the science is available). It does however preclude a rule by scientific experts/bureaucrats.

But I also think it's foolish to frame the decision as solely one of "science" vs. "gut instinct". The are many phenomena, especially when it comes to human society, that are too causally dense for us to sufficiently tease out the causal factors to make accurate predictions.

In those conditions, the goal should be to minimize the consequences of being wrong. We do that by decentralizing decisions to the greater extent possible.

<comment><USER27> How do you know democratizing decisions results in minimax optimal decisions?

I would expect the result to be strongly biased due to societal norms, much less direct manipulation.

Suppose a majority wants strong social programmes and basic income. The tiny problem is the economy is nowhere near big enough to afford it. Satisficing (!) executive branch puts some of the policies starving innovation and education budgets. Causing long term harm and stagnation.

Where is the minimax decision in here? Over what timeframe?

(P.s. I could've as easily picked liberal, fascist, military or conservative example. This one is relatively easy to understand.)

<comment><USER45> I should clarify that there were two parts to my answer: first was answering your question "on behalf of" the parent poster. It seemed their position was to "let people vote on it". I was somewhat defending that position, but more just clarifying that democracy wasn't necessarily in conflict with using science to make decisions.

The second part of my response was to your framing of "science vs. gut- instinct". My point is that sometimes ignorance is thrust upon us by the complexity of the circumstances. In that case, my point was that decentralized policy making (separate from any notion of voting) was essential to reducing the worst case.

In other words, _I_ am not claiming that democratization "results in minimax optimal decisions". I _am_ claiming that decentralized governance structures do "result in minimax optimal decisions". Does that change your question?

edit: fixed spelling

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Recently I have been beginning to question university education. It seems that today's education system has mismatched priorities which may have an impact on the reproducibility crisis. You see, to come up with a fantastic new alloy, you don't have to be a genius. Or even very good. You have to be persistent, and clever enough to realize when you've found something interesting. You will need to understand your field very well, but there are many, many fields. And each one is quite narrow, so while it is hard to understand your field well, many, many people can do this.

So my less dystopian future goes like this. Train lots and lots of physicists, chemists, engineers, programmers, materials scientists, biologists, mathematicians. And (shock horror) through higher taxes employ them. Employ them on promising ideas, and on impossible ideas. Employ them on the problems of the day, and on arcane research that will almost certainly never bear fruit. And sure, right at the top in the Apples and Googles of the world, you'll have the best and brightest pulling together all of the discoveries made without all these reproducibility issues.

Or we could continue down the dystopian path. The low tax path where there really are only meaningful jobs for the best and the brightest. Where we rely on Apple and Google to decide what ideas are worth pursuing. Where the skills and abilities of a great many are not used. And most of us fight for the crumbs from the oligarch's tables. And the oligarchs? For every Elon Musk, there will be 10 who just want the biggest yacht and the prettiest mistress.

Let me say that again. In a low tax environment, the skills and abilities of a great many will not be used. And we will all be poorer for that. Genuinely poorer, because great discoveries will not be made. And it is happening now.

And I'll go one step further. We are also wasting the talents of our best writers and artists. The BBC and other national broadcasters are squeezed. Squeezed so that the idea of something as original and amazing as Monty Python appearing now is laughable. And again, we are all the poorer for that. Not just the lucky ones who get to make amazing shows or works of art, but all of us who never get to revel in them.

The low tax, small government world is a step backwards. If you wish to sum it up succinctly, you may say it is a world where, in order to placate the very rich, we take away opportunities from many, and impoverish the world as a whole.

<comment><USER47> > Recently I have been beginning to question university education. Why are we > bothering to educate anyone except the very, very best students in physics, > maths and engineering? In fact, why aren't we identifying these students and > sending them straight to Caltech? It seems intuitive that this would solve > one half of the reproducibility crisis.

That doesn't seem intuitive at all.

<comment><USER46> Please read the comment again. I address this in the very next sentence.

<comment><USER47> Well, not really.

<comment><USER46> From the HN guidelines:

>Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.

<comment><USER47> I just don't see what relationship the second thought has with the first.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


IBM To North American Employees: To Keep Your Job, Move To India - <AUTHOR> http://www.alleyinsider.com/2009/2/ibm-to-north-american-employees-to-keep-your-job-move-to-india-ibm

<comment><USER2> "Multiple IBM staffers have written in to SAI to claim the company has a program in place of demanding deliberately difficult relocations, with the company saying anyone who refuses to move will be considered a "voluntary departure" and denied severance benefits."

If companies can legitimately do that, what keeps them from just throwing in the paycut to drive workers away without the potential hassle of relocating people?

<comment><USER3> I think it was Wozniak in _Founders at Work_ who described the proper way to cut personnel costs, as Hewlett-Packard used to do. Everyone (including the CEO) took at 10% pay cut, and got alternate Fridays off.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Not surprising. This is the same company that gave a substantial portion of its employees a 20% paycut when they were forced to start paying over-time then acted like it was a pay raise because most employees work over 40 hours a week.

</comment><comment><USER5> > From the article: "It's more of a vehicle for people who want to expand > their life experience by working somewhere else," said [an IBM] spokesman. > "A lot of people want to work in India."

A lot of people want to move to a foreign country to make less money? IBM is either lying, or the people they hire aren't very smart.

<comment><USER3> You could get smart people to move to Third World countries for 50-70 cents on the dollar. Plus two round-trip plane tickets per year, 6 weeks of vacation (with a guarantee that this perk persists upon return to the US), increased leadership responsibilities and creative control, spousal job placement, and a guarantee of the option to return to the US with at pre-cut pay, plus 25 percent, in 5 years (when the economy has improved). This might actually be a very smart way of cutting personnel expenses in the short-term while giving people an opportunity they'll enjoy.

If you don't offer such a package, your talent is going to vanish and you'll only be able to send utter mediocrities overseas. No one with options is going to move to another country while remaining a subordinate code monkey doing grunt work for "the palace" an ocean away (which happens in branch offices of many multinational companies). Which means that your New Delhi office will be trained by the cast of Dumb and Dumber. Epic fail.

<comment><USER6> _"the palace"_

Heh.

I can't agree more with your characterization. I work for a company whose main office is overseas, and almost every single dealing with the central office (especially if any work on their part is involved) is encountered with a "let them eat cake" attitude. You get used to the idea that they don't think any of the satellite offices exist.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I don't like IBM at all, but this article sounds overblown and not properly based. The original InformationWeek article sounds more realistic:

      The document states that the program is limited to "satisfactory performers who have been notified of
      separation from IBM U.S. or Canada and are willing to work on local terms and conditions." The latter
      indicates that workers will be paid according to prevailing norms in the countries to which they
      relocate. In many cases, that could be substantially less than what they earned in North America.

And that is quite a real option if they include other countries like Brazil or Argentina.

</comment><comment><USER8> IBM is the Walmart of the consulting world - they'll do anything to ensure their prices are the lowest. In a few years, they're going to consist of one guy in New York forwarding mail to the other hundred thousand in India.

<comment><USER9> Since when does IBM have low prices?

<comment><USER7> Nevar: <http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/9/27/95759/4240>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I recommend to get license for a hand gun if you are moving to India.

<comment><USER11> That put's a new spin on:

"Multiple IBM staffers have written in to SAI to claim the company has a program in place of demanding _deliberately difficult relocations,_ with the company saying anyone who refuses to move will be considered a "voluntary departure" and denied severance benefits."</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is there a good tutorial on using Mercurial MG with TortoiseHG? - <AUTHOR>

I am looking for a good tutorial on using the Mecurial MG extension on TortoiseHQ windows client. And the whole process of using the patch queues. <comment><USER2> I assume you mean 'MQ' rather than 'MG'. I'd recommend learning to use patch queues via the command line first:

<http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/MqTutorial>

Once you've done that, using the GUI should be straightforward.</comment>


Google enforces EU cookie regulations on its Adsense publishers - <AUTHOR>

Dear Publisher,
We want to let you know about a new policy about obtaining EU end-users' consent that reflects regulatory and best practice guidance. It clarifies your duty to obtain end-user consent when you use products like Google AdSense, DoubleClick for Publishers, and DoubleClick Ad Exchange.
Please review our new EU user consent policy as soon as possible. This requires that you obtain EU end users' consent to the storing and accessing of cookies and other information, and to the data collection, sharing, and usage that takes place when you use Google products. It does not affect any provisions on data ownership in your contract.
Please ensure that you comply with this policy as soon as possible, and not later than 30th September 2015.
If your site or app does not have a compliant consent mechanism, you should implement one now. To make this process easier for you, we have compiled some helpful resources at cookiechoices.org.
This policy change is being made in response to best practice and regulatory requirements issued by the European data protection authorities. These requirements are reflected in changes recently made on Google's own websites.
Thank you in advance for your understanding and cooperation.
Regards, The Google Policy Team <comment><USER2> "This is idiotic. Website operators who use AdSense are now required to figure out if a visitor is from the EU and show them some stupid warning."

From comments on adsense.blogspot.com</comment>


The Unnerving Existence of Teen Boss - <AUTHOR> https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-very-unnerving-existence-of-teen-boss-a-magazine-for-girls <comment><USER3> HN folks without kids of a certain age may not realize just how deeply children today are into Youtube personalities/channels, Twitch streamers, etc.

That being said, I think it's generally a positive thing. Teen Boss isn't replacing kids reading the WSJ, it's replacing tweens swooning over boy band photos in Tiger Beat.

YT/Streaming isn't without its weirdness, but it's significantly more participatory and encouraging of people creating and making things as an alternative to purely consuming media.

I'd rather my daughter want to make YouTube videos and open an Etsy shop with her designs than mindlessly watch Hannah Montana (which I feel like is the equivalent from a decade ago).

As a peek into this world, check out Rosanna Pansino (Nerdy Nummies YT channel) and how successful she is:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6i2cebTn0nc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6i2cebTn0nc)

There are worse role models for kids.

<comment><USER4> what stands out to me, is what appears to be the "get rich quick nature" of all the articles. call me old fashion, but at that age I'd rather be teaching kids the value of hard work, delayed gratification, research, skepticism, etc, etc.

In fact I'd rather kids would read the WSJ than this garbage, at least then they'd understand how hard it is to start and maintain a business. Otherwise you're setting this kids up to follow every MLM trap they got offered later on in life. HODL HODL HODL am i right?

<comment><USER5> As opposed to 'I generated $32k in 30 days selling a crypto USB stick' that is currently #3 on this forum? Or is that completely different?

<comment><USER6> You're saying that like spaceflunky's comment included an endorsement for that post, or that his posting a comment here means that he approves of every single post on the site.

<comment><USER5> I'm saying that there seems to be a disparity in the value judgements the HN hive-mind applies to itself, and the entrepreneurial activities of young women.

Go on the thread for yourself, there are lots of people picking apart the idea, but no one saying the creator is foolhardy for favoring an entrepreneurial career / calling him a scammer.

<comment><USER7> there is no hive mind, there is no "it". there are individuals, and all of us have our own minds.

your collectivism is a misapplied abstraction leaking reality at every seam

<comment><USER8> Lmao

'Individuals' on HN (or 20-something CS guy from the U.S.) and their 'unique opinions' are so fucking similar and revolve around a couple of basic platitudes and ideologems

Pretty much anything that isn't a specific technical subject is totally boring and predictable on HN

Also your last sentence is painfully cringey to read

<comment><USER9> idk how you could not notice that any voting-based link aggregator or comment section has a hive mind effect.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> "One of the most troubling features of life under twenty-first-century American capitalism, I find, is the way that it can limit your sense of human potential; in the process of choosing from among overpriced health-insurance packages, I sometimes forget that it is possible for a government to refuse to allow its citizens to go bankrupt while they're attempting to stay alive. One issue of Teen Boss features a quiz called "Which CELEB-PRENEUR Are You Most Like?" The options are life-style blogger, creator of a name-brand fashion line, owner of a YouTube channel, and founder of a personal-makeup brand. Another quiz helps girls figure out their "life motto," letting them choose from "Be Your Own Biggest Cheerleader," "Nothing Is Impossible," and "Always Do What You're Afraid to Do.""

I really like Jia Tolentino's writing.

The magazine sucks because it valorizes materialism. There's not much more to it than that. Greed is repackaged as positivity and girl power, but it's still a void. The passage I quoted is right--our idea of success is slowly narrowing to this kind of 21st century internet-mediated entrepreneurship. We should dream bigger than kids screaming about video games on youtube.

It reminds me of the often repeated phrase used to respond to people criticizing a popular kids' book: "Well, at least they're reading." The version that would defend this kind of content says "at least they're making something!" The act of creation by itself isn't noble, neither is the act of reading alone. "Would you rather they just watch TV??" No. It's a false choice. Aim higher.

<comment><USER11> >our idea of success is slowly narrowing to this kind of 21st century internet-mediated entrepreneurship.

Material success, power, fame - have been drivers of ambition throughout all of human civilization. The unprecedented success of capitalism over the last 2 centuries has been marked by countless individuals pushing forward towards those goals.

>Greed is repackaged as positivity and girl power

You have cynical spin on this, but I suppose traditional moral gender roles would be more fulfilling? Or maybe women should be encouraged to go into low profit social work? What is it you want?

<comment><USER12> This has absolutely nothing to do with your tendentious gender-virtuous criticism. That's way out of line. It would be just as bad, if there were an analogous boy's magazine.

The point is that replacing the idea of one's worth and potential - <USER2> power/boy power, whatever - with shallow get quick money and get famous schemes is a negative.

Would you prefer children who dream of utilizing their potential to become great at something, like a career path, scientist, scholar, artists, farmer etc., or whose dreams are about becoming Youtube stars or selling crap to a bunch of people?

As for the general remarks on history, power is the only factor in ambition beyond survival. Material success is just one form of power. Fame is power + self gratification for the emotionally weak. Ephemeral fame and get money quick schemes are superficial and weak means to power.

On the other hand, appeals to a universal subject, which doesn't exist, references to human nature, which we can't even define as a term, much less define what the elements of it are, don't really work in a proper argument.

<comment><USER11> >It would be just as bad, if there were an analogous boy's magazine.

There's a constant hum about the lack of women entrepreneurs and how women should be encouraged to pursue entrepreneurship, the earlier the better. What do you think that looks like?

If you do nothing, that's wrong, if you do something, it will never be right and will be critized.

This is an entrepreneurship magazine designed to appeal to teen girls. Entrepreneurship is a boring topic for most teens, so this is their attempt at making it relatable and fun. Give them a break.

>Would you prefer children who dream of utilizing their potential to become great at something, like a career path, scientist, scholar, artists, farmer etc.,

I noticed entrepreneur is not one of the options you listed, which is what this magazine advocates. But I support all those career paths as well. Advocacy for one, doesn't mean denial of others.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I honestly don't see what's wrong or surprising about this. I personally find the content nauseous, but if a hypothetical thirteen year old daughter were curious about it I'd be happy to read through an issue and talk about it. It sounds like a good conversation starter for the different axes of human ambition and human value. Teaching from the extremes isn't my favorite idea, but so be it.

I force myself to listen to crazy angry conservative and christian radio on and off for the same reason. If we can't embrace aspects of human personality that we find loathesome, I don't think we can love others, or ourselves.

Interestingly I feel like this article comes from a similar place as anger radio (which is, ironically, overwhelmingly money-motivated and exploitative).

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't see the value in otherizing media like this. It exists, it's part of our culture, and in one way or another, it's a part of us. Embrace it, engage with it, teach from it, but don't revile it.

<comment><USER14> I had a different reaction. It felt very wrong. I don't like how our culture worships money. It's bad enough that more college students see 'being very well off financially' as a more important goal than helping others (compared to other generations) [1]. If children are getting these messages at an even younger age, that's disturbing. After all, children are more impressionable. I want the next generation of children to know there are more important things than money. I believe children will be happier their whole lives if they're raised with those values.

[1][https://www.thestreet.com/story/12791561/1/millennials- just-...](https://www.thestreet.com/story/12791561/1/millennials-just-want-be- rich-study-finds.html)

Saying "It exists, it's a part of our culture" is such a defeatist response. Culture is formed by all of us. You don't have to just let it happen. You can push back, and work to change culture for the better. That's why I like your last bit - we can engage with it and teach from it. I'd expand that to include: we can disapprove of it.

<comment><USER15> > It's bad enough that more college students see 'being very well off > financially' as a more important goal than helping others (compared to other > generations)

That's not surprising, considering that current college students did a lot of their growing up in the aftermath of the housing crash. It's kind of unfair to chide them for being preoccupied with financial stability (or for _claiming to be when asked_ , not the same thing). Meanwhile, what's the messaging like about college today? That you should drop out to start a company, and that if you're studying anything not STEM related you're kind of a dope.

But really, in the link "helping others" is a close second at 65%, only a point behind the boomers and two points _ahead_ of gen x. So, there goes declinism. Millenials are only about 4 points higher than gen-x in "well off financially" (70.8 to 74.4), hardly a generational sea change. The real difference is with the boomers, who come in at 73% "develop a meaningful philosophy of life" and 44% "well off financially". Perhaps rather than rejecting helping others, _every_ generation since the boomers has rejected the solipsism it takes for a college student to list "develop my philosophy" as their primary goal.

<comment><USER14> >It's kind of unfair to chide them for being preoccupied with financial stability

The question is not about financial stability, but with "being very well off financially."

> Perhaps rather than rejecting helping others, every generation since the > boomers has rejected the solipsism it takes for a college student to list > "develop my philosophy" as their primary goal.

I'll give you that point. Younger generations may not be as materialistic as we think. But that doesn't invalidate my argument: It would still be shitty if they became more materialistic. That could happen if we tell 12 year olds they need to worry about their personal brand.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> What really is unnerving about this? Ambition, craving financial success, and gasp-horror 'entrepreneurship' may be beneath the kind of people who end up writing staff columns for the New Yorker, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it.

Dare I say it, "I have to remind myself that I can't overdo it, so I'll do my posts, and then turn off my phone for the night and just be isolated." might be good advice for the author, who from her Twitter seems to be a fully paid- up member of 'lol trying to adult' Twitter.

<comment><USER16> It's unnerving because:

1) It reinforces the idea that for young women, the only way to achieve business success is to be performatively "girly" \-- being unceasingly cheerful and social, presenting a breathless aw-shucks ("so amazing!") demeanor, working on things like fashion lines and skin care products or on image-first careers like "Instagram influencer." Society accepts that ambitious young men will present to the world in lots of different ways, but when it comes to ambitious young women we try to hammer them all into the same shape.

2) It puts pressure on its readers, who are in an age bracket we generally associate with childhood, to trade the traditional privileges of childhood -- shielding from the pitiless demands of the market, space to experiment with different facets of their personality, time to dedicate to education and self- development -- for the precarious, rat-race lifestyle that adults live every day. Kids who are saying "there is no such thing as a regular 9 to 5. We work 24/7!" are kids who have internalized the idea that work is all there is, that their lives don't have room for anything else. That would be a sad thing for a fully grown adult to believe, much less a thirteen-year-old.

<comment><USER5> 1) An alternative reading of the magazine is that it is celebrating young creators, who have achieved success through alternative routes (make up lines, t-shirts, YouTube channels) than the standard middle class millennial career path of "being born into the right family, liberal arts education, job at BuzzFeed/Vanity Fair/Teen Vogue/New Yorker while building out performative angst Twitter persona." Following that line, for most people without the right background/connections/ability to take an unpaid internship in New York for three months, results in them becoming on several levels completely unemployable.

2) The readers are self-consciously choosing this media themselves anyway - through the YouTube channels they subscribe to and watch, the Instagram influencers they follow, the products they buy. Instead of mindlessly scrolling through social media feeds, these readers are now being encouraged to think how they can follow in their footsteps.

This article imo, reveals much more about the prejudices of the author than the readers or the publishers.

<comment><USER16> _> An alternative reading of the magazine is that it is celebrating young creators_

Who are creative within a narrow, conventionally "girly" band of creative endeavors. _Teen Boss_ would not be interested in a 15-year-old girl who invented a revolutionary new type of automotive engine, because it is not a magazine about girls with grease on their hands.

Girls who _want_ to should be free to engage in those kinds of "girly" pursuits, of course. To each their own! But by focusing _only_ on those pursuits, _Teen Boss_ sends the message to girls who are interested in other things (like STEM!) that they're weirdos who are walking away from success instead of towards it in their own way.

<comment><USER5> > Who are creative within a narrow, conventionally "girly" band of creative > endeavors. Teen Boss would not be interested in a 15-year-old girl who > invented a revolutionary new type of automotive engine, because it is not a > magazine about girls with grease on their hands.

Perhaps not, but then you're being reductive by equating engineering with 'grease on their hands'.

There's plenty of STEM careers that don't involve any grease - such as materials science, fashion design, sound engineering, to stuff that this magazine would wholeheartedly endorse, like developing your own make up line. 'I made thousands building a FaceTune competitor' certainly would.

For that matter, how many people on Hacker News deal with grease in their day to day work? And is the kind of thing being discussed here that different from 'I made $32k a month recurring revenue' IndieHackers story, the likes of which regularly gets voted to the top of HN?

<comment><USER17> If fashion design is STEM, then there's nothing that isn't STEM.

<comment><USER5> Materials science isn't STEM?

<comment><USER17> I said fashion design.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Assuming it's not a hoax, is this really any worse than existing girl magazines? When I was a teen, I got peeks at my sister's magazines and they were primarily about makeup and boys(to graduate you to magazines with misguided sex "secrets"). At least Girl Boss teaches you to make money, supposedly.

Would we feel differently if it was called "Boy Bo$$"?

<comment><USER19> > Would we feel differently if it was called "Boy Bo$$"?

Good point! If this were geared towards boys and had articles like "How to turn your Minecraft playing into $$$ by streaming" and "Getting started in sales: baseball cards edition" would there even be a discussion? Would the New Yorker be so indignant?

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Well if this isn't late stage capitalism, then I don't know what is. In a couple hundred years, I could see this magazine cover being hung up on display in a "museum of capitalism".

As other commenters have pointed out, it's certainly better than celebrity gossip, and probably not any worse than the other crap they would be exposed to. Entrepreneurship is a fantastic thing to promote, and being a social media star is certainly more fun and lucrative than being a 9-5 office drone with health insurance.

But there's something insidious about priming teenagers into this materialistic mindset, that the way to "make it" is to gain a large social media following competing in a shallow clickbait-ridden space, where only the top 1% or so can ever make it anyways (not everybody can be a social media star, just like not everybody can make a living as a musician. Our attention span is limited).

I don't have a problem with this magazine. This magazine is simply a sad reflection of our hypercapitalist reality.

<comment><USER21> Strongly disagree. It's a reflection of our hypercompetitive society. It's not shallow; it's realistic. Look around: everyone is embracing consumerist capitalism (China, India, etc.) The societies that appear to have some reservations about it (Western Europe) are irrelevant—they won't exist in their modern form a century from now.

<comment><USER22> Consumerism doesn't make you any more effective as a nation, in fact it makes you quite a bit less efficient. Driving in circles with cars you can't afford wastes money and resources (and all of the manpower that went in to you being able to do that) just as fast as it wastes your soul. A culture designed to maximize productivity and minimize inefficiencies would probably look a lot like Soviet-era state sponsored art: valorizing labor and industry.

<comment><USER21> Except Russia is collapsing faster than anywhere else.

<comment><USER23> Right, because they switched to the American version of crony capitalism.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I remember being around that age and being obsessed with entrepreneurship. It was in the short stories I read, it was discussed in class, I even joined a Young Entrepreneurs after-school club, where students -- aided by local businesspeople -- would create a company, decide on products, then produce and sell them.

And while I'm a guy, I remember that club being balanced roughly 50-50, boys and girls, and in point of fact, most of the leadership positions (we elected Presidents and VPs, in mock-corporate fashion) were girls.

I think all that's changed is the focus of how and where money is earned, and maybe not all that much? The article mentions that some of the ideas recommended are "snow shoveling" and "setting up a laser tag course", which aren't the wild, forced-estrogen-display, YouTube-infested hellscape that some other commenters seem to be upset about.

<comment><USER25> I remember telling my elementary school class when we were discussing what we wanted to be when we grew up that I wanted to be like Roberta Williams. Which was strange from their vantage point because I was a boy, and because nobody had a clue who she was. But my statement was driven entirely by my desire to make and sell video games.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> _" Reading the magazine feels like watching a wall of YouTube videos inside a Claire's jewelry store while a tween-age life-style coach screams at you to double your net worth."_

Lol.

 _" Money is to Teen Boss what sex is to Cosmopolitan—the essential, irreplaceable, attention-getting hook. (On the cover of each edition, the dollar signs in "Teen Bo$$!" occupy the same prime real estate, in the upper- left corner, that the word "sex" does on most Cosmo covers.)"_

Well encouraging young women to make money and work for financial independence is better than encouraging them to become sex objects, as many other mags targeting them do.

</comment><comment><USER27> My 7 year-old boy already wants to start his own business, and routinely runs his ideas by me. He's also a Minecraft fan, and his favourite YouTube channel is PopularMMOs. When he started watching it a lot and referring to "Pat & Jen", I decided to find out what that is all about. I was surprised to discover after a little googling that they're a married couple who pull down $11m/yr from YT.

And yes, as a parent I am unnerved by this article. While I don't want to discourage his budding entrepreneurship and do want to encourage his initiative, I want him to apply it in a way that is realistic for a kid his age, and I also want to protect him from the inanity (and worse) of stuff like TeenBoss and various get-rich-quick schemes and snake oil sales. I want him to learn the value of hard work, practise, being punctual, and skills that will help him excel in whatever it is he decides to do as an adult. At this point, that means studying, doing well academically, and possibly starting a cottage business his parents can help him with (fortunately, he's a First Honors student).

</comment><comment><USER28> I think this magazine is quite bizarre, but on the other hand I think entrepreneurship starts young. My first 'business' was selling coke at my school. The coke machine cost $0.50 and I saw at Sam's Club you could get some massive box dozens of offbrand cola for ~$10. Keep them in a cooler, sell them at breaks for $0.25 - that was a ton of money for a middle school kid. Always wondered why more people don't take advantage of little market openings like this. Maybe a silly magazine can inspire people to think outside the box a bit more.

</comment><comment><USER29> The way some people see this magazine is the way I see some of the "adult" Entrepreneur/Startup Lifestyle stuff that's out there.

</comment><comment><USER30> I think many in this forum are at it to make money. So I sincerely doubt they'd have a problem with it. To me it's an emblem or icon if you will of what's going on in today's world. Value purely is existentially equated to money. To me that's bad. However is it as bad as everything else? No. Is it better than most everything else. Yes very much yes. Sucks to say because it makes me see the ugly realization of the actual capitalistic world we live in.

</comment><comment><USER31> I've apparently read my last complimentary article for the month. Slate also has an article about this, so if it's a hoax, it's a very convincing hoax: [https://slate.com/technology/2018/02/a-close-reading-of- teen...](https://slate.com/technology/2018/02/a-close-reading-of-teen-boss-a- magazine-for-gen-z-entrepreneurs-and-a-horrifying-artifact-of-our-times.html)

<comment><USER32> It's easy for multiple media sources to get duped, but this seems almost too unbelievable to be a hoax.

<comment><USER33> The world of niche publications is quite wild.

I once saw a magazine dedicated to a single hairstyle. (It was already at its 3rd edition and I later learned of new editions)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> It's increasingly looking like the biggest shift in our lifetimes is not sudden mass automation of the labor industry but the shift from a service industry to a content creation industry.

If you're not a content creator/owner, you're a content consumer. Content is the new rent seeking.

</comment><comment><USER35> Teens have been a monetized commodity since the birth of MTV. This isn't a surprise. After 40 years, this qualifies as a 'murican cultural value.

<comment><USER36> Earlier than that, if you count efforts like American Bandstand and other examples:

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Entertaining article. My favorite line: Describing the cover model's smile as a "rictus of high-octane enthusiasm".

</comment><comment><USER38> Families used to teach children the value of a dollar by getting them to setup a lemonade stand or mowing a neighbor's lawn. Now they can command far higher pay by managing that neighbor's social media account. Go get em.

</comment><comment><USER39> We live in a brutal economic climate. Who can blame these kids for setting their sights on fame and fortune?

</comment><comment><USER40> Gro$$

</comment><comment><USER41> how much of a sociopath do you have to be to be a part of this magazine

<comment><USER42> 1.7 Patrick Batemans, with the interview to be decided on whoever found the most creative way of displaying their extra 0.7 of a Bateman.</comment></comment>


"This part is a real designer's wet dream, we need to lose it."  - <AUTHOR> http://folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Wet_dreams_and_little_rubber_feet.1.txt&sortOrder=Sort+by+Rating <comment><USER2> Reminds me a bit of a less weighty story: back in the late '70s and early '80s there was a company that made really attractive blue bypass capacitors (if you've seen a CADR Lisp Machine memory board you know what I'm talking about).

There wasn't anything particularly special about them other than their nice look, and at some point I read about a production stoppage that caused by them (I guess a lot of designs used them). At some point the procurement people asked the EEs "why these?" and the problem was quickly solved.</comment>


Most Americans back NSA tracking phone records, prioritize probes over privacy - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/most-americans-support-nsa-tracking-phone-records-prioritize-investigations-over-privacy/2013/06/10/51e721d6-d204-11e2-9f1a-1a7cdee20287_story.html

<comment><USER2> I don't believe most Americans feel this way. It as a poll of approximately 1,000 people. Do we not think they are capable of preselecting the people they poll to insure the outcome they want? I am sorry but I have a VERY difficult time taking any polling seriously anymore.

<comment><USER3> I've had a very difficult time taking print newspaper seriously.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> MURRRICA !!1!</comment>


Show HN: Canny the Robot – Programming a device with headphones - <AUTHOR> http://research.kumpf.cc/2015-ProgrammingWithHeadphones/?canny <comment><AUTHOR> Direct link to video here:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=780A0cv1qgA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=780A0cv1qgA)

Any comments or questions about how the robot/audio programming works are more than welcome :)

<comment><USER2> Yes, is it binary.. ?

<comment><AUTHOR> The audio used to program the robot is analog (tones in the form of sine waves), but the data itself modulating the tone is binary.

More specifically, it's AFSK. See the diagram/info on the Wikipedia page about for a more detailed explanation.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency- shift_keying#Audio_F...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency- shift_keying#Audio_FSK)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Another interesting write-up about Canny on IEEE Spectrum:

[http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/diy/canny- robot-...](http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/diy/canny-robot-rocks- out-to-audio-programming)

Would love to hear thoughts from other engineers and designers oabout where you think a programming interface like this could lead.

</comment><comment><USER3> Could you go into more detail about how the main decoding circuit works? How does it turn an audio signal into UART?

<comment><AUTHOR> Serial/UART is just a simple way of organizing how 1s and 0s are sent (start bit, data bits, optional parity, and stop bit, all at an agreed upon baud rate).

To send data to the robot, the transmitter (computer + headphones) encodes 1s as tone (9876Hz) and 0s at another frequency (12345Hz).

So for the decoding circuit all you really need are 3 stages: a microphone, an amplifier (opamp chip), and something that can very tightly look to see if the 0s frequency (12345Hz) is present since UART rests high when idle. A phase locked loop (PLL) is excellent for frequency locking, but can be a little hairy to use. The LM567 tone decoder chip however has a PLL inside but is a simple chip to work with.

A little variable resistor next to the tone decoder is used to precisely dial in the frequency. Lots of other resistors and capacitors in there to hook everything together, but that's essentially it. Does that make sense? Happy to answer more questions if you have any :)

Circuit schematic for reference here: [http://research.kumpf.cc/2015-ProgrammingWithHeadphones/imgs...](http://research.kumpf.cc/2015-ProgrammingWithHeadphones/imgs/CannyCircuit.png)

<comment><USER3> Ah that does make sense! On first read I thought there was some other level of processing, like converting specific tones into bytes (9520Hz -> 0x42). You're translating the pulses directly to and from bits, which seems more sane.</comment></comment></comment>


White House silent on renewal of NSA court order - <AUTHOR> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/18/white-house-silent-renewal-nsa-court-order

<comment><USER2> _At Wednesday 's hearing, Litt was asked by Bob Goodlatte, the chairman of the House judiciary committee, if the administration thought if a surveillance program "of this magnitude … could be indefinitely kept secret from the American people?"

"Well," Litt replied, "we tried._

</comment><comment><USER3> "We welcome a discussion about the balance of security and liberty, we just don't care what you say and won't take any of your input. But discussion sure is great. Yay for democracy"

</comment><comment><USER4> As concerned citizens who would sign a white house petition to block the renewal of the NSA data collection order?

<comment><USER5> As a concerned citizen I believe white house petitions are the most counterproductive tool to channel citizen rage.

<comment><USER6> What would be a good alternative?

<comment><USER5> Honestly - anything that makes elective representatives experience it. Best would probably be showing up at town hall meetings and asking smart questions. But even a two line email "I disagree with your stand on x. Please reconsider your position on x" is in my opinion making a much higher impact than any of these petitions.

<comment><USER7> One effective strategy that was used in Finland was buying huge posters of the politician in question and placing them in key areas where said politician had a lot of voters.[1]

The socialist minister tried to impose new copyright-related taxes. The poster says "Exploitation of the workers! Arhinmäki wants the buyers of computers and phones to pay a blank media tax". A few days later he succumbed to pressure.

Demonstrations haven't been that effective.

1\. [http://imgur.com/b58pLB4](http://imgur.com/b58pLB4)

<comment><USER5> This is great stuff. Now who is up for a kickstarter? Feinstein definitely deserves a few NSA billboards of her own!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> We the people are not authorized to know the results.

<comment><USER9> Your knowledge of the results is not required. Talk to your congressional representative about that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'd say the public deserves this for being so passive, but maybe everyone is just scared that they will be targeted for speaking out.

<comment><USER9> Even if they are targeted, they may not know at all.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi#Zersetzung](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi#Zersetzung)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> The "Code of Silence" isn't only efficient in the Mafia.

</comment><comment><USER12> Whether or not the court order is renewed will be secret, won't it? Isn't the whole point to make all the agency regulations secret? I mean, the original court order wasn't public, why would the renewal be?

</comment><comment><USER6> If you haven't seen the video of the House judiciary committee meeting: [http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/314032-1](http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/314032-1)</comment>


Donald Duck In Mathmagic Land - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYia02Dk8Nc&feature=PlayList&p=F37791813A5EEC70&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=36

<comment><AUTHOR> And the wikipedia page about it:

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

</comment><comment><USER2> When people ask me where I learned to play pool I mention having seen Donald Duck in Mathmagic Land when I was seven or eight years old. Although it didn't help much, since I don't think I'm that good.

The bit where Donald's mind is "cleaned out" so he can think clearly had a big influence on me also. There's a lot of gems in this.

</comment><comment><USER3> I loved this movie when I was a kid!</comment>


Ask YC: Will you still consider startups without immediate revenue models? - <AUTHOR>

I'm sort of wondering whether we're really at that point where only the apps that save money or add value will really get funding, let alone survive.  Are we basically scrapping the idea of relying on ad revenue or acquisitions entirely?  Just hoping to get some feedback from someone inside YC, or even anyone else in the HN community. <comment><USER2> Of course. Though the plan for startups without a source of revenue should not be to rely on acquisitions (a suicidal strategy) but try to create one.

<comment><AUTHOR> Cool. I didn't want it to sound as if we would rely on an acquisition. I guess all of the talk about the economy made me curious as to whether you guys will judge apps differently (although I would think the team remains one of the most important aspects). Thanks for following up.</comment></comment>


How Spotify ran a large Google Dataflow job for Wrapped 2019 - <AUTHOR> https://labs.spotify.com/2020/02/18/wrapping-up-the-decade-a-data-story/ <comment><USER2> This they can do, but you can't change your display name unless you hook up with Facebook. [0]

[0] [https://community.spotify.com/t5/Live-Ideas/Account- Change-U...](https://community.spotify.com/t5/Live-Ideas/Account-Change- Username/idi-p/703799)

<comment><USER3> You can make a new account and contact the support team who can transfer almost all your info to the new account including followers and playlists. Not ideal though.

<comment><USER2> I find the biggest value of Spotify is the listening history they have gathered on me throughout the years. I would hate to lose all those excellent recommendation they give me based on that data.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Interesting. I wish it had more details as far as inputs/outputs, data sizes in different phases.

One thing that I wonder about is how much work could they do to collect this data on a forward moving basis. Often I see huge lookback jobs that answer predictable/static questions -- prime candidates for aggregation during ingest.

<comment><USER5> This is the thing I was most forward to reading about in the article, but there were no figures about how large the "largest Google Dataflow job ever" is. There are a bunch of relative figures, 5x 2018 - but what does that translate to? How long did it take?

<comment><USER6> Ya, concrete details were conspicuously missing. Like petabytes? Exabytes? I suspect that the "largest dataflow job ever" is significantly smaller than the kind of crap Google regularly throws at the backend that dataflow runs on. With that infrastructure at their fingers, I suspect engineers regularly fire off jobs orders of magnitude larger than necessary simply because it's not worth the 3 hours of human effort it'd take to narrow down the input set.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I thought this was such a marvel! However, my excitement level was tapered when I realized the playlist Best of the Decade was not created by only my music listening habits.

Seems as though users were pinned to some general playlist that had characteristics similar to listening habits? Still hats off from an engineering perspective. I as well wish there was more technical detail provided.

The year recap playlists though are fun personal snapshot of time.

<comment><USER8> I think the decade lists were a bit underwhelming considering not too many people were actually using Spotify all that much 10 years ago. I still got a ton of my music from CDs, iTunes downloads and other more nefarious places.

<comment><USER9> I became a paying customer (Premium subscriber) oct 5, 2009. Everyone at my school was using Spotify at the time, albeit the free version. (Norway)

<comment><USER10> Interesting, maybe it was more popular back then in the nordics as spotify is a swedish company?

<comment><USER11> Maybe it also depends on the stationery and mobile access you have. In Germany streaming music wasn't feasible a decade ago since you had pretty limited data plans and arguably it still isn't really all that feasible on mobile internet still unless you download for offline on WiFi.

Meanwhile in Denmark or Poland there is very little in terms of data limits.

<comment><USER12> 10 years ago, barely anyone had a smartphone. Spotify then was about Desktop usage.

<comment><USER13> I remember creating a mobile app for Spotify before they did. It used a reverse-engineered API on a server to download songs and stream them to mobile devices. Most of my friends used it at my school. There were some issues with the server providers and eventually Spotify disliking the fact that the server constructed DRM free music files and stored them temporarily on a disc.

Eventually, Spotify released its official mobile apps and a web player so the project had no use. But it was fun times, it was really marvelous how anyone could find their favorite music from the service and listen to them in good quality without a torrent connection.

Nowadays, I think all those friends who used the hack are Premium subscribers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Basically the perfect use case for cloud computing. Tons of compute for a short time. In this case there can't possibly be people arguing for their own datacenter over cloud.

<comment><USER15> > Basically the perfect use case for cloud computing. Tons of compute for a > short time.

I completely agree.

> In this case there can't possibly be people arguing for their own datacenter > over cloud.

Devil's advocate time: This solution was great for the cloud because it was designed for the cloud. There might be equally good or even superior solutions designed for on-prem or even on-device computing. For example, this ceases to be a big-data problem if you are simply aggregating listening metrics for a single user on a single device.

<comment><USER16> IMO, this is a great example for how the policy of "owning your own data" actually leads to objectively "better" Engineering solutions.

If Spotify leveraged _my_ phone to calculate these statistics of _my_ listening history (owned and stored locally), this article would have been written about an app update.

No need for a massive ad-hoc job with high-bandwidth round trips, just a simple app update.

It's funny to imagine how engineers of the future might look back on our pride over this kind of computing similar to how we look back in horror on how wasteful we once were with mining oil back in the 1910s, etc.

<comment><USER17> > If Spotify leveraged my phone to calculate these statistics of my listening > history (owned and stored locally), this article would have been written > about an app update.

Then the article would be about the challenges of battery life on users' phones, and trying to coordinate listening history on PC vs. phone.

<comment><USER16> To be clear, I'm not a data ownership nut, I just find the problem space interesting and underrated. Apologies for the hyperbole in the last paragraph, it was more tongue in cheek than serious.

The article on coordinating and compressing listening history (the particular challenges of distributed schema evolution at the "edge"), would have been a much more interesting article to read, IMO.

Also, I know you probably weren't very serious about it, but I don't think that a few SQL queries against "thousands of data points" (temporal rows, reading between the lines) would be a significant battery life drain! It would have still been interesting to see that benchmarked. But "big data" is cooler, I guess. :)

<comment><USER18> Fwiw you can clock a few hundred listens a day for 30,000 a year or 300,000 over a decade, which is approaching non trivial levels for a phone, especially if you're doing anything more than an index scan.

<comment><USER16> Oh for sure. I was just going off the article's own phrasing, which I agree sounds strange (seems too small). But if you think about it, very few people probably listen to 30k _different_ songs on Spotify in a single year, so maybe it does make sense.

Of course this all depends on the level of detail they want to store, it could be a uuid, a tstzrange, and some Booleans about whether the song was liked, downloaded, etc.

Every year (or once you reach some storage threshold) you could "compress" this information by aggregating rows by song, and throwing away precision on the time stamps, until you're just left with a uuid, full/partial play counters, and dates that the song was liked/unliked, downloaded/removed, etc. You could give users the option to modulate the level of detail in the records, to trade off storage constraints against recommendation UX.

It's a set of constraints that differs greatly from a huge ETL job, but my point is that this kind of edge work leads in interesting directions, too :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> One massive SQL query across a billion plus users.

<comment><USER20> Databases are the one area of computer science that makes me realize these machines can do magical things.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I'm curious how much data this involves per user. This is clearly a massive undertaking when you're talking about ~250 million users but I bet it would be easy to provide the same info if all the data was local on a device and each user ran their own query. This assumes that the space required to store all of your listening history fits on device which I think is a safe bet.

<comment><USER8> > This assumes that the space required to store all of your listening history > fits on device which I think is a safe bet

Space-wise, yes, but users are likely using multiple devices and may have switched phones, reinstalled the app, wiped data etc.

Then you have to consider that the scripts would have to be individually written for each platform, and would have to be careful about power consumption, CPU usage etc., especially on mobile devices. And there's not just data mining but also video encoding (for the stories).

And then there's this part:

> To bring you a Decade Wrapped, we had to process these data stories over 10 > years' worth of data for all of our monthly active users

<comment><USER22> > And there's not just data mining but also video encoding

I was under the impression that the stories were live graphics. They certainly where on PC, as I had issues running the WebGL because of my script blockers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I'd recommend them to check out Clickhouse for exactly the same purposes. Works well for Cloudflare, Yandex, Sentry.

Another idea is to run probabilistic queries instead of exact ones, could bring down costs way more.

</comment><comment><USER24> There's more info at [https://techcrunch.com/2020/02/18/how-spotify-ran-the- larges...](https://techcrunch.com/2020/02/18/how-spotify-ran-the-largest- google-dataflow-job-ever-for-wrapped-2019/).

(via [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22359528](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22359528))

</comment><comment><USER25> In early December, Spotify launched its annual personalized Wrapped playlist with its users' most-streamed sounds of 2019. That has become a bit of a tradition and isn't necessarily anything new, but for 2019, it also gave users a look back at how they used Spotify over the last decade. Because this was quite a large job, Spotify gave us a bit of a look under the covers of how it generated these lists for its ever-growing number of free and paid subscribers.

</comment><comment><USER26> Was a neat little feature, too bad the share functionality didn't actually work.

</comment><comment><USER27> I thought we had a thing about preserving post titles from the source?

<comment><USER28> That's still true, submission used to link to [https://techcrunch.com/2020/02/18/how-spotify-ran-the- larges...](https://techcrunch.com/2020/02/18/how-spotify-ran-the-largest- google-dataflow-job-ever-for-wrapped-2019/)

See [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22359865](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22359865)

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> This may be a more appropriate source, from the source:

[https://labs.spotify.com/2019/11/12/spotifys-event- delivery-...](https://labs.spotify.com/2019/11/12/spotifys-event-delivery- life-in-the-cloud/)

<comment><USER30> This is correct link [https://labs.spotify.com/2020/02/18/wrapping-up-the- decade-a...](https://labs.spotify.com/2020/02/18/wrapping-up-the-decade-a- data-story/)

<comment><USER24> Ok, we've changed to that from [https://techcrunch.com/2020/02/18/how-spotify- ran-the-larges...](https://techcrunch.com/2020/02/18/how-spotify-ran-the- largest-google-dataflow-job-ever-for-wrapped-2019/). Thanks all!

<comment><USER31> The new Spotify blog only states that "the Wrapped Campaign data pipeline had one of the largest Dataflow jobs to ever run on GCP," without claiming that it was the largest ever. I didn't see any additional evidence in the TechCrunch article to support this being the largest either.

Not sure if a better title is warranted ("How Spotify ran its massive Google Dataflow job for Wrapped 2019", "How Spotify ran one of the largest Google Dataflow jobs ever for Wrapped 2019"?).

<comment><USER24> Ok, we've knocked the largest down to size in the title above.

I always tell startups not to use superlatives on HN. Modest language sounds stronger.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Impressive, but I'd be more impressed if they fixed their random shuffle.

<comment><USER33> What's wrong with the spotify shuffle?

edit: Did a search, seems like there's quite a few problems (only playing recently added songs, only playing 100 songs out of the playlist, etc.). I know google music has also had long standing issues with shuffle play - and in fact I left it over these kind of issues. Is it really difficult to implement a shuffle?!

<comment><USER34> It may be the case that 100 tracks are sent to the device and the shuffle logic chooses from them locally.

<comment><USER35> Not sure why you are being down voted, this is essentially how Spotify's shuffle works. At least, if you MITM the official client and load a large playlist/context you'll only see a small window worth of tracks being loaded. And you won't see any request from the client when you then shuffle that playlist, it's done locally.

This may, of course, have changed. My experiments while (badly) implementing librespot's shuffle functionality were a few years ago now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> No tech crunch... You can't have my cookies..

</comment><comment><USER37> why is this link doing a redirect through some ad network?

<comment><USER38> I wonder why I never see this behavior despite every other person mentioning it

<comment><USER39> It's really quick. Open the network tab and check the "persist logs" checkbox to ensure that the request logs don't disappear after every redirect, then clear your cookies for advertising.com and guce.techcrunch.com and reload the page. You'll see the request for techcrunch.com redirect to guce.techcrunch.com, which redirects to guce.advertising.com, which redirects back to techcrunch.com. It happens so fast it's not noticeable on page load.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> This is interesting, but what I actually find even more interesting than this is Spotify continuing it's usage of Google Cloud products even after being acquired by Microsoft. Can anyone shed some light as to why this is the case? Has that acquisition not been a "traditional" MS acquisition?

<comment><USER41> There was some news about Microsoft acquiring Spotify in April 2018, but as far as I can tell that never went through.

<comment><USER42> There was also a breaking story about Google acquiring Spotify on the exact same date a year later!</comment></comment></comment>