Bellwoods – a Generative Art web game in 13 kilobytes - <AUTHOR> https://bellwoods.xyz/ <comment><USER2> Reminds me a lot of "flOw in games" who went on to make flower and journey.

[http://interactive.usc.edu/projects/cloud/flowing/](http://interactive.usc.edu/projects/cloud/flowing/) (it's old, so flash or ps3 required)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(video_game)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_\(video_game\)) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatgamecompany](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatgamecompany)

</comment><comment> 52-6F-62 Being from Toronto, I feel the funny need to drop this here:

[http://www.trinitybellwoods.ca/](http://www.trinitybellwoods.ca/)

The aesthetic of this little toy seems like it would have fit a couple of album releases called "Friends in Bellwoods" that were all inspired by the park and the neighbourhood around it.

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

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

I'm guessing this is called Bellwoods because its a tiny wood that rings like bells?

<comment><AUTHOR> Glad you caught the reference! I was born in Toronto and Trinity Bellwoods is one of my favourite spots in the summer. The name also has a second meaning with the sound as you noted.

I can't take credit, it was @mlissa_h who suggested the name!

<comment> 52-6F-62 Well you should post it on r/toronto. It's a lot of doom and gloom around there lately for obvious reasons...

this might cheer some people up!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is an enchanting game. If you are interested in the code, I found the github and the author was generous to share the source code for educational purposes [https://github.com/mattdesl/bellwoods](https://github.com/mattdesl/bellwoods)

</comment><comment><USER4> How do you choose the tonal scale for the "music"?

<comment><AUTHOR> Mostly through experimentation. I ended up with a set of notes that I liked and give enough variety when played semi-randomly, while still keeping with the happy/uplifting mood of the game.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Love it! I keep searching for a "win condition"? Is there one? It's okay if you want to keep me guessing ;)

<comment><USER6> I can't get past level 3.

<comment><USER7> Have you chased the birds?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Oh wow, that's beautiful. Love it. How'd you get it so small while having sound? That's awesome.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! All of the graphics, colour palettes and sounds are procedurally generated which makes the game small in file size and endless to explore.

<comment><USER9> Not quite endless, I found an 3 edges of the space. Couldn't move beyond.

<comment><AUTHOR> The terrain is bounded by walls (a design decision to keep users from getting too far away from portals) but you can discover new palettes and worlds forever, by continuing to step through unexplored portals.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: How I Won Facebook Games Without Hard Work - <AUTHOR> http://kevinwang.us/cheating-a-guide-to-achieving-high-scores-without-hard-work/ <comment><AUTHOR> This is the first thing involving writing I've ever published, so I'd appreciate any comments about my writing. Please let me know what you didn't like or did like about it!

<comment><USER2> Congratulations for starting and putting it out there :)

First impression is that it looks good.

I didn't like the too long, out of context and unattributed quote at the beginning though. It definitely threw me off (wasn't I here to read about Facebook games?).</comment></comment>


Rand Paul says no-knock warrants 'should be forbidden' in wake of shooting - <AUTHOR> https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/2020/05/18/rand-paul-no-knock-warrants-should-forbidden/5215149002/ <comment><USER2> > Taylor's death has ignited a firestorm across the nation in recent weeks, as > prominent activists and politicians questioned why an unarmed black woman > had been gunned down by white officers

The whole police immunity for murder and violence needs to stop. If a civilian did something similar even if under worse conditions they would be treated horribly by the cops and be put to jail under shitty conditions for years. A policeman can easily say "I was worried for my life!" when shooting an unarmed person but a civilians can't say the same thing if they shoot a cop that invaded their house, or even another civilian.

Hell, the police can even demolish your house during an investigation and they don't have to pay anything for it. [https://www.denverpost.com/2019/10/30/swat-team-destroyed- gr...](https://www.denverpost.com/2019/10/30/swat-team-destroyed-greenwood- village-familys-home-police-dont-have-to-pay-for-damages/)

<comment><USER3> Don't forget the doctrine of "qualified immunity". Police officers/departments carrying out their official duties can only be sued for violations of "clearly established" law. Seems maybe reasonable in theory, but in practice means that even if they do something obviously, blatantly illegal, they can avoid consequences if they can argue that the specific set of factual circumstances had not previously been judged to be a Constitutional violation.

Here's one case that recently came to my attention: [https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/micah-jessop- br...](https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/micah-jessop-brittan- ashjian-v-city-of-fresno-et-al/)

The plaintiffs allege that, while executing a search warrant, Fresno police officers personally stole several hundred thousand dollars worth of coins. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided that even if this theft happened, the officers could not be sued:

> We recognize that the allegation of any theft by police officers—most > certainly the theft of over $225,000—is deeply disturbing. Whether that > conduct violates the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches > and seizures, however, would not "be 'clear to a reasonable officer.'" [...] > Because Appellants did not have a clearly established Fourth or Fourteenth > Amendment right to be free from the theft of property seized pursuant to a > warrant, the City Officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Yesterday the Supreme Court declined to consider the plaintiffs' appeal, which means they're SOL.

<comment><USER4> That is the right decision...the officers should not be sued for the alleged theft because they were seizing property pursuant to a warrant.

The _police department or city_ should be sued for it, if the warrant were unlawfully obtainedor if items seized during the search allegedly went missing. _And they were sued._

The ruling you are complaining about was specifically about removing the officers as individual defendants from the civil case. The city of Fresno is _still_ a defendant in the case. It is simply the individual officers that are not.

On another note--the difference in values in that case is due to how the police recorded the coins into evidence. When physical money is taken into evidence, they record the stated value of the money (i.e., a quarter is recorded as a quarter...even if it is a rare quarter worth $1million on the collectibles market, since it's not the police's job to get an appraisal for items taken into evidence). The plaintiffs valued the collectibles at their alleged market values.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> IIRC, the police officers wore plainsclothes, and did not announce themselves.

They arrested the murdered woman's boyfriend for his self defense of armed intrusion.

The person they were serving the warrant on was already in custody.

Clearly these cops are criminals. There's nothing else that can explain the circumstances here.

<comment><USER6> The warrant story is a lame cover up. I'm curious what they were up to really that night.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I feel like, in general, in most countries around the world, the police are bad people and not trustworthy. I have little respect for the police, and usually abide by a personal policy of avoiding them, and refusing to cooperate whenever possible.

In my one run-in with the police in the bay area, after I was mugged at gunpoint and called the police immediately after, they were entirely unreliable and unhelpful. They refused to go after the perpetrators despite having a clear opportunity to at the time.

In many countries, the police is corrupt, harassing civilians to extort them into giving bribes. In Indonesia, planting drugs during a stop to extort money out of tourists is a well known scam. A drivers license check is never passed without a bribe (amounting to the entire contents of your wallet).

In Hong Kong, where I live now, the police has a history of brutally repressing peaceful protests, including the shooting of unarmed civilians, and the cover-up of multiple rapes and murders perpetrated by policemen.

Oftentimes, even when they are not outrightly criminal, the police is there to enforce awful laws that infringe on people's basic human rights.

Fuck the police.

<comment><USER8> I live in Germany and in 2015 our police, for the whole year, in the whole country only fired 88 bullets. Germans go through 3 years of training and have a lot of training on non-violent/lethal deescalation.

I also used to live in the US, and the cops there are nuts.

Jon Oliver did a good video on accountability:

[https://youtu.be/zaD84DTGULo](https://youtu.be/zaD84DTGULo)

<comment><USER9> We Germans aren't perfect either, not a single cop got prosecuted for the police violence at G20, and we routinely get scandals for Nazi cops or a lack of accountability...

<comment><USER8> I am aware of issues our police have. But I'd take Germany over the US any day of the week.

[https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/fbi-white- supremacists-i...](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/fbi-white-supremacists- in-law-enforcement)

There are a lots of issues with race and police in the US also.

<comment><USER10> As long as you feel better than someone

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I have some experience with the police force and I think the problem may run deeper and be a bit less dramatic, and I think this might be true nationwide. The gist is that benefits and compensation for police officers have been going down in recent years. Lower pay, worse insurance, no retirement; all of these things lead to less, and less qualified, applicants. This drives down the employment requirements and removes the older, more level-headed officers.

In the past they required a college degree; now it's just a high school diploma or GED. In the past they provided plenty of training (ie. time on the range; de-escalation procedures, etc.); now you get 12 bullets twice a year for certification. In the past you received a good pension and great insurance; now if you die on the job your family gets nothing.

Who in the world would WANT to be a police officer in this situation!? You get little pay, little respect, and you have to run into the problem while everyone else runs away.

This is in no way an excuse for what happened in my town (Louisville, KY) but I thought it might shed some light as to why it happened. I don't think cops are bad people and it only takes a few to really drag them all down. They are generally just people trying to go to work and make a living. The vast, vast majority of police officers don't wake up wanting to end someone's life. They just want to make their town a bit safer and stay alive to spend time with their families.

<comment><USER2> > Who in the world would WANT to be a police officer in this situation!?

People with some sort of authority fetish, who want to abuse their power over others.

> You get little pay, little respect

And quite a bit of authority.

It is very similar to teachers really.

<comment><USER11> You are correct. Several members of my family are teachers and they too get little respect, low pay, and some authority.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I appreciate Mr. Paul's sentiment and agree with him. I would like to see him go further though and end the drug war that the US gov has waged against the American people. I think these no-knock warrants and other systemic, organized violence committed by a militarized civilian law enforcement is largely enabled by this war.

</comment><comment><USER13> Why not just issue a warrant to drill a hole for a camera, or use other tech to passively see through walls? Guess that takes away the fun of brute force entry and trigger happy law enforcement that needs to put their training to use.

<comment><USER14> >> Guess that takes away the fun of brute force entry and trigger happy law enforcement that needs to put their training to use.

Civil forfeiture is another huge reason. Not about killing them, but taking their property.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Are there any good, constitutionally sound arguments FOR no knocks?

<comment><USER16> Is there a good constitutional argument against no-knock warrants? Constitution says no unreasonable searches or seizure without a warrant. With no-knock warrants, there is warrant, so it isn't a constitutional issue. Just ban them. Everything doesn't have to be a foundational constitutional issue.

<comment><USER17> The text of the 4th could be interpeted to prohibit that kind of search. There are reasonable searches without warrants as well as unreasonable searches with warrants.

<comment><USER16> I've read the 4th amendment as a limitation on what can be done without a warrant, not with a warrant. But reflecting on what you wrote, and re-reading the 4th amendment, you are right, that having a warrant doesn't mean a search is automatically reasonable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This suggestion is going to sound stupid, but what is the current tech and cost of bullet proof riot shields?

Could we use technology to re-train and equip officers with shields and non lethal weapons to eliminate the fear of death, and unnecessary fatalities?

What would the price be? A few billion?

<comment><USER19> The premise here is wrong. These guys aren't looking for better ways to deescalate - they're itching to kill. Never forget the UPS shootout last December where _19_ cops opened fired, killing the hostage and a bystander, taking cover behind the cars of families.

<comment><USER18> It's more in response to the litany of cases where cops reacted by shooting.

It sounds like a ridiculous idea for sure, but where are we exactly with full body armor and bullet proof visors (full body suit is even better than just a frontal bulletproof shield)? If we're already there with the tech, then we can disarm them of guns and basically remove a scenario where a cop can kill.

We would need alternative weapons like high powered tasers.

<comment><USER14> >> We would need alternative weapons like high powered tasers.

These are exceptionally unreliable weapons.

There's no real way to bulletproof a cop. Armor piercing .223 can go through pretty much any reasonable body armor / shields you would wear into a situation like this and is readily available to fire out of AR-15s and the like.

<comment><USER18> Thanks, I was probing to see where we were at with the tech. Would it ever be possible?

<comment><USER14> It's definitely possible for the value of "can it actually be done regardless of obstructions," super thick steel plating and such will get it done. But the officer will be basically immobile.

Kinetic weapons are tough to defeat using countermeasures, perhaps obviously so.

I like your line of thinking though. Too many people just complain about the status quo and relying on government action rather than potentially solving it another way. It's just that in this case, physics is a real bitch.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> So I assume Paul will introduce a bill to end this in his next session. Or this is him just blowing hot air and a problem he only wants to pretend to solve. We'll know soon enough. My money is on the latter. You don't get to his level of politics in the US without kissing some major law enforcement asses. And those are some giant asses.

<comment><USER21> It does sound like something he might do. He has sponsored, consponsored, and supported bills to fund police body cameras, impose limits on roving surveillance, reduce or eliminate harsh treatment of prisoners, eliminate indefinite detentions, provide for sealing or expulsion of non-violent offenses, amend the controlled substances act, reform asset forfeiture laws,etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> No-knock is obviously unavoidable at times. But it should only be done by specially trained police units, including the training not to shoot unarmed people. I believe it's done this way in most Western countries.

</comment><comment><USER23> In Europe many just shake their heads and say "Only in America." German police (I'm sure many other police forces too) specifically first aim for the leg.

<comment><USER24>
      specifically first aim for the leg

Even if that's really a thing there, U.S. case law makes it clear that if an officer has the luxury of just winging a perp, then her life was _not_ in imminent danger and therefore use of deadly force was improper in the first place.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> The credibility bias that flows from local judicial systems to local law enforcement needs systematic measurement, analysis, and mitigation.

</comment><comment><USER26> I see a lot of people outraged and making emotional appeals. The wake of a tragedy isn't usually the best time to pass legislation, or even form a coherent opinion. There's an estimated 8000-50,000 no-knock raids per year (sources have numbers all over the place, Vox seems convinced it's 20,000) and since 1980, only 40 innocent bystanders have been killed. Overall, the risk of either an officer or civilian dying is ~1/1000\. I'm not finding any good sources on how many people are arrested, or what the warrant is typically for, which is important to weigh the benefits. Incidents where they get the house wrong or an innocent person is hurt are newsworthy because they're rare and they can rile people up along political lines and push an agenda.

If there's a warrant for a dangerous person's arrest and you expect them to fight back, I'd rather that be in a no-knock raid in the middle of the night at their home with 50 police using military hardware, than one or two cops at a traffic stop that turns into a high speed chase/shootout in a busy public area.

<comment><USER5> Can you back up your assertion for not acting with legislation in response to a tragedy?

In pretty much any other aspect of life, from business to personal, people will react then.

Especially since this isn't a one-time tragedy, but one that plays out continually. We need to act _now_ before we let this happen again. I'm going to need to see a citation on your numbers, but 40 since 1980 is once a year! By your criteria of not responding after a tragedy, you are actually arguing that we should never act at all.

<comment><USER26> My brief googling lead me to Wikipedia, which sources most of its statistics from the new York times, but I also read some stuff from the ACLU and other left-leaning news orgs. There's very little good data out there is my biggest takeaway.

Which brings me to my point, the reactions are emotional, not logical. If we're creating policy based on feelings that aren't backed by data or actually run counter to data, that's bad policy. Many areas do regular no-knock raid and many areas have banned them entirely. I expect organizations with strong opinions on this subject can investigate the effects and do better than the New York Times throwing 80 links to local news websites into a csv file on GitHub and then linking to it like it's an actual source.

<comment><USER5> My main question is why we should not react speedily. The desire to not act speedily seems be a desire that is an emotional one, not a logical one. There is a clear logical need to act quickly to prevent future abuses of power.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Enforcing the GPL - Kernel hackers get involved - <AUTHOR> http://www.h-online.com/open/features/Enforcing-the-GPL-Kernel-hackers-join-the-fight-1586483.html

<comment><USER2> Linux source tree contains COPYING file which says that GPL viral nature does not extend beyond kernel/userspace boundary: <http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v3.4/COPYING>

So, Linux kernel is basically under LGPL: it's OK to take it, bundle with some proprietary closed-source userspace code, and include it in binary form to some TV set top box, router, or other hardware appliance. As long as source code for the kernel is provided for free download on hardware vendor's website, GPL is not violated, Linus' exception for GPL works and viral nature of GPL does not extend to userspace subsystem, which can be kept close- sourced.

Do I understand it right? Any opposing opinions?

<comment><USER3> The Linux COPYING file merely repeats what the GPL already says. The GPL is not viral, and cannot be viral because it is a copyright license.

The Linux kernel is not LGPL, because you may not statically link it to proprietary code and then distribute the result.

There is no requirement for a work that merely links to a GPL'd work to itself be open-source, except under very particular conditions where the linking is obviously being used to try to evade the law.

<comment><USER2> For LGPL code, you may not statically link it to proprietary code and then distribute the result too. Only dynamic linking is OK (DLL, libFOO.so, some other form of combining which permits enduser to upgrade/modify free part).

And GPL adds more to this basic "do not close the source" LGPL level.

<comment><USER3> That's not true; the LGPL explicitly supports static linking to proprietary code. That's the whole point, that's the reason LGPL exists.

<comment><USER2> You are plainly wrong. Go reread LGPL.

LGPL exists to have lesser GPL without viral nature. They both forbid static linking with proprietary code and distributing solely resulting binary file.

<comment><USER3> I have read both the GPL and LGPL extensively. Since you apparently have not, please see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html> before continuing your windmill-tilting.

The LGPL permits static linking of an LGPL'd work into a proprietary binary, as long as there is some way for the user to modify the LGPL'd portion and re- link. As I said, that is why the LGPL exists. The objective of the LGPL is to simplify the process of distributing proprietary applications, as a statically-linked binary is much easier to distribute than a binary which dynamically links against system libraries.

Both the GPL and LGPL permit proprietary applications to dynamically link against system libraries. The GPL takes great pains to state this, to try to reduce misunderstandings propagated by people like you.

Neither the GPL nor LGPL are viral.

<comment><USER4> Your comments about the LGPL are correct, but on the GPL you are mistaken: a GPL "system library" would infect a proprietary application that linked against it, whether statically or dynamically. A GPL application can link against a proprietary system library, but that is quite the opposite situation.

<comment><USER3> If a proprietary application dynamically links against a GPL'd library, and does not distribute that library, then it is not a derived work of the library and does not require the permission of the GPL to distribute.

Consider that if copyright could transit over a dynamic linking boundary, that every single application would need to include copyright clauses for every BSD/MIT library it dynamically linked with.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> one thing the article does not make clear is that there has been much enforcement by kernel hackers. but only in another jurisdiction (germany) by harald welte. see <http://www.gpl-violations.org/> for (sparse) details.

the news is, that now the software freedom conservancy has some kernel and samba copyright holders, so it can enforce the gpl even when busybox is replaced for infringing devices.</comment>


How Toby Spribille Overturned 150 Years of Biology about Lichens - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/07/how-a-guy-from-a-montana-trailer-park-upturned-150-years-of-biology/491702/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> The main revolution 150 years ago was that lichen was not a single organism. I'm not sure if refining that number from 2 to 3 is legitimately "overturning"; I was reading the article expecting them to say that the two organisms were in fact sharing the same DNA and were in fact sexual dimorphs all this time.

On the other hand, figuring out why we've been failing to grow lichen by merging the two species manually for the past century and a half is definitely a job well done. :)

<comment><USER3> This is as huge as the discovery of the neutron was for the atomic model. Wasn't that merely redefining the number of elementary particles from two (electron, proton) to three?

If you actually read the article you'll find out that the properties of the lichen could not be explained by the two known elements alone, that there was some other factor that nobody could describe. The careful work done here uncovered a third element that was the important difference, that there's a three way symbiosis. Now they have a complete model of what's going on after an initial hypothesis put forward 150 years ago.

Considering someone's finally explained how these types of organisms work, and it's a large branch of life, this is a pretty major breakthrough.

<comment> semi-extrinsic Well, saying this is as huge as the discovery of the neutron for the atomic model is stretching it, IMO. Atoms make up everything, understanding how atomic nuclei are made up has paved the road for huge breakthroughs in not just nuclear physics but also in medicine, energy production, materials physics, etc. Lichen, on the other hand, are, well lichen. If we'd been throwing money on lichen research like we have on nuclear physics, we would have known this a century ago.

<comment><USER4> > Atoms make up everything

And that's why you can't trust them. (cue rimshot SFX)

But lichen... You know, now that we have a functional understanding of their biology, I'm quite excited to see what this new knowledge will yield when applied. Pharmacology, materials, food production/processing — "We don't know what we don't know," but having more data helps us to learn what questions we can ask.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I lived in Montana for years. The only population of folks that speak German that I'm aware of are Hutterites (German variation of the Amish or Mennonites). If he comes from that group, it makes the story all the more amazing.

<comment><USER3> They don't name it, but they do strongly hint at it. I bet he got some strange looks when using his arcane German in a modern setting.

<comment><USER5> Wow, I hadn't thought of that. It would be really interesting to hear about his experiences in his own words.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is not only cool scientifically but inspiring because of the discoverer's life story.

</comment><comment><USER7> The Science paper is here: [http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2016/07/20/scien...](http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2016/07/20/science.aaf8287)

</comment><comment><USER8> Why couldn't he go get a GED? Most colleges accept those, and lots of homeschoolers go to college.

<comment><USER9> It sounded like he got no support from his family and "ran away" as soon as he was able. But, he probably could have earned a GED. But, that takes time - perhaps it was faster/easier to move to Germany?

The home-schooled teens that go on to college may lack formal paperwork form a school, but they generally do have some test results, paperwork filed with the county/state, and other items they can put on a transcript in lieu of actual grades.

It sounded like the scientist didn't have the benefit of a structured home education.

<comment><USER10> Exactly. It's not just that he was home-schooled. It's that he was apparently home-schooled by people who were apparently particularly incompetent at home- schooling.

<comment><USER3> Yes, the singular goal of all Hutterite parents is to raise their children to be Ph.D scientists. They utterly failed here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The headline makes it seem as though some guy overturned a fundamental precept of modern biology, while living in a Trailer in Montana.

None of the above is true.

1) He happened to grow up in a trailer in Montana, but eventually moved on to attend a good German university, and was no longer living in a "Montana trailer park" while making this discovery.

2) The guy corrected a misunderstanding that people had, regarding one very specific phenomenon found in nature; something that most biologists don't work with, depend on, or care about. The replication crisis around Ego Depletion, for example, can credibly be claimed to have overturned decades of psychological thought. The specific makeup of Lichens though, is an extremely niche field, that doesn't affect the broader field of Biology in any significant way.

<comment><USER10> Of course, the guy's life story is still an inspirational tale of creating opportunities for yourself where none seem to exist. And his discovery -- although probably not rocking the foundation of the (sub)field -- is still impressive and pretty interesting. And the article is written well enough.

So you should still read the article. Just pretend the link-baity title doesn't exist and don't go in with pre-conceptions :-)

<comment><USER11> I agree. The article was a cool read and props to the guy for successfully building a career in science, despite his shitty upbringing. I just wish the headline didn't wildly exaggerate his admirable accomplishments.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The link between lichen and basidiomycetes was known before this paper, but it was mainly thought that most lichens had none of the basidiomycetes spores, e.g. : [https://www.anbg.gov.au/lichen/basidiolichens.html](https://www.anbg.gov.au/lichen/basidiolichens.html)

</comment><comment><USER13> So they have Wal-Mart in Germany, or did he get his degree in Germany and then return to the U.S. and do his research there?

<comment><USER14> From the article:

> The path to this discovery began in 2011, when Spribille, now armed with a > doctorate, returned to Montana. He joined the lab of symbiosis specialist > John McCutcheon...

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Nicely told feel-good story!

</comment><comment> xkcd-sucks Could we change the title to something a little less clickbaity/classist? Even though it's the title of the actual article, trailer parks have nothing to do do with the actual content.

<comment><USER16> Not going to touch on whether it is relevant to the rest of the article but acknowledging classism is the opposite of being classist.

<comment><USER17> Considering that the classism in question _is_ considering it strange and amazing that someone who grew up poor (and in a _gasp!_ trailer park) could go on to do science? There's no "acknowledging" classism in this article, there's just straight-out engaging in it and perpetuating it.

<comment><USER18> Is the classism in question really about being poor?

From my perspective, it is about perpetuating the stereotype that rural people are 'slack jawed yokels'. If this guy was from a vertical trailer park (i.e. a high rise condo unit), we wouldn't think twice about it because, despite being potentially just as poor, he is an 'enlightened city dweller'.

<comment><USER17> There's a rural vs urban component, but yes, it's about being poor. If he were poor and urban, a similar article would have talked about him growing up in the "mean streets" of some poor neighborhood. It's the same reaction.

<comment><USER18> Perhaps it's a regional thing then, because where I come from, trailer parks are essentially cottages for the middle class. The poor connotation isn't there, but the lack of population density certainly is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Did he create opportunities for himself, or did he live in a country where other taxpayers covered the cost of his college education?

He's an impressive person, but "poor guy pulled himself up by the bootstraps using sheer force of will" narratives usually fall apart when you look more closely.

<comment><USER10> An American without a high school diploma or GED convinced a seriously good German university to admit him. That's pretty impressive.

If I were in his situation, there's no way I would have had the gull to try that route. Probably would've just stayed in the forest service. Maybe gone for a GED then community college then a local land grant. By which time I'd be too burnt out on it all (and too old) to even think about a doctorate.

There's no doubting that the German people helped this guy achieve what he achieved. There's also no doubting that he was truly exceptionally resourceful (and maybe a bit lucky, too).

<comment><USER6> This shows that the Göttingen science faculty is maintaining its centuries- long tradition of taking chances and nurturing scientific talent, without regard to sex, race, or class, often in defiance of the surrounding culture. The most famous example is Emmy Noether:

[http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/05/the-female- mathematic...](http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/05/the-female- mathematician-who-changed-the-course-of-physics-but-couldnt-get-a-job/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> How one click-baity title overturned 158 years of publishing integrity

<comment><USER21> Please don't make the threads even worse by posting comments like this.

If you want to complain about a title, the valuable way to do it is to suggest a better title, i.e. an accurate and neutral one.</comment></comment>


Sergey Brin: 'We screwed up' on Street View Wi-Fi grab - <AUTHOR> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/19/sergey_brin_on_street_view_wifi_data_gathering/

<comment><USER2> Nice to see Sergey taking the credit on this. In reality, I think it speaks to geek think: "Why not collect all of the wifi data out there since you are trolling the streets anyways? Who cares what the application is for this, but more data is good."

At some point, you need to hire some paranoid guy to run everything by and then take his word with a grain of salt. A quick check with anyone running a 64-bit encryption key on his DD-WRT hacked router would be able to tell you that a lot of people are going to freak when you tell them your network has been logged by the largest info aggregater this side of the NSA.</comment>


Equations True Computer Science Geeks Should (at Least Pretend to) Know - <AUTHOR> http://www.elegantcoding.com/2011/11/eleven-equations-true-computer-science.html <comment><USER2> Well, after 6 years of professional software engineering after finishing my BS in CS, the only things on that list that I've came anywhere close to using are the natural join and Demorgan's laws.

I think this is a pretty silly post, to be honest. CS covers so much, and everytime I see a list of "things you should know", I have to resist the urge to roll my eyes and ignore it. But then I read it, and inevitably roll my eyes anyway.

<comment><USER3> At two jobs now I've had a conversation with talented comp sci grads and we all agreed 99% of programming is drudgery and the 1% that requires you to turn off your music and sit in dead silence is rare and still not as challenging as comp sci syllabuses (syllabi?) would suggest.

An unfortunate side-effect is that many people who could have become highly productive mid-level programmers are scared off because they don't know advanced math.

<comment><USER2> I disagree. Programming _is_ math. Highly advanced math, in fact. It's just a different type of math. And the 11 equations in the OP's article just barely touches on what CS is about. There is far more to it than that.

<comment><USER4> No. Programming is _logic_ , and logic is a superset of math. What you need to make good programs isn't some obscure, arcane language that the few who actually understand it (mathematicians) assert to be the universal answer to everything, yet refuse to make it more accessible (when it could be), what you need is logical thinking and the ability to think in abstractions.

Yes, studying math will teach you this, because - as mentioned - math is a subset of logic. But studying math by far is not the only way to gain these abilities, or to obtain a deeper understanding of CS problems.

This opinion alone will get (and has got) me branded as a heretic amongst many people, and that alone proves how deeply we are stuck in this tar-pit. If we want to get more people to be interested in and eventually deeply understand CS, we need to get rid of the math barrier. Math is a tool used by computer scientists, and not the fundamental basis of our field. Limiting yourself to a single tool is bad, and you don't need abstract algebra or calculus to understand this.

<comment><USER5> _This opinion alone will get (and has got) me branded as a heretic amongst many people, and that alone proves how deeply we are stuck in this tar-pit._

Caution is advised when interpreting opposition to a position as justification for the position. This kind of tenuous logic is frequently used to justify continued oppression in e.g. obscure religious communities ("They all hate us, so we must be right!"). I'm not saying your position is invalid (nor as a non- mathematician am I qualified to do so), just that it could be better supported.

<comment><USER4> True, I shouldn't argue like this. Thanks for pointing out that fallacy.

What I've been trying to convey is that I've come with what I think is a sensible position, and often got responses that ranged from fervent opposition to (very occasionally) verbally violent backlash. Maybe it was just me incorrectly stating my point, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Since it seems like the multicore thing is here to stay, may I suggest that if you are doing anything parallel you should know about Amdahl's law: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_computing#Amdahl.27s_l...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_computing#Amdahl.27s_law_and_Gustafson.27s_law)

<comment><USER7> Huh, that's interesting. I never considered the similarities between parallel processing and people management until today.

<comment><USER8> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queueing_theory>

<comment><USER9> Relevant to Amdahl's Law (it being a more general form) and Queueing Theory is : [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Gunther#Universal_Law_of_C...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Gunther#Universal_Law_of_Computational_Scalability)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I would take issue with the pumping lemma for regular languages here. The formal statement of the lemma is outrageously complicated, which makes it really difficult to understand and use. The only good justification I've heard for including this result in a CS curriculum is that it's a good warm-up for the pumping lemma for context-free languages, which is more useful.

If you actually ever find yourself needing to show that a particular language is non-regular, it's almost always clearer to use an ad hoc argument or appeal to the Myhill-Nerode theorem. Actually the latter is much better, because Myhill-Nerode completely characterises the regular languages, whereas there are non-regular languages that pass the pumping lemma test.[1]

1\. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumping_lemma_for_regular_langu...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumping_lemma_for_regular_languages#Lemma_not_sufficient)

<comment><USER11> >there are non-regular languages that pass the pumping lemma test

Can you give an example of that? You may be right, but I'm having a hard time coming up with a language that is not regular but fulfils the pumping lemma.

<comment><USER10> Sure, there's an example in the Wikipedia article linked from the footnote in my comment above: the language consisting of all strings over the alphabet {0,1,2,3} with a substring of length 3 including a duplicate character, as well as all strings over this alphabet where precisely 1/7 of the string's characters are 3's.

As you can see, this example is a little complicated – and I don't know a simpler one, so I'm not surprised you struggled to just come up with an example off the top of your head.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It'd be nice if the author actually stated why these algorithms are important to know. Give a use case, rather than "this comes up sometimes."

<comment><USER13> Agreed, this article was a very poor read from the perspective of a programmer (yours truly) having a working familiarity with only two or three of these concepts.

Given the article's slapdash, loosely-coherent English and tendency to pad out each equation's section with references to even more equations--and not explanation of usefulness--I wish I hadn't tried to read it, for it was very frustrating. I suppose the article might provoke interesting discussion among the mathy set, the same way that a list of "top patterns" might start a discussion among OO fans.

<comment><USER14> I had to actually double check if the author was from the US or not, since in some places it was just so incomprehensible.

I agree the applications were glossed over or skipped, but that is probably the most interesting aspect of the equations as well.

Without practical information, the article is sorely missing true sustenance.

<comment><USER15> This effect is often true for people whose native language is math :-) But to be fair most disciplines have their own jargon, math happens to have its own keyboard too.

<comment><USER4> Most other disciplines don't try to force their jargon onto other fields though. Math often does.

Also, I'd generally say that almost all jargon is _bad_. A quote that's frequently attributed to Einstein says that "If you cannot explain something in simple terms, you do not have adequately understood it". Math and science in general should take this to heart, because I feel that many people have forgotten this or never really understood it in the first place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I really wish my brain didn't gloss over the first time I see a math symbol. All of this stuff seems intriguing but it's almost as if I'm hardwired to translate all those symbols into mush. I'd be much more interested in seeing the equivalent code snippets these ideas express.

<comment><USER17> For several of the equations presented, there's not really a "code equivalent". And for most of the others, presenting it in code form would make it much more verbose and complex than it needs to be. In a way, it's already written in code – it's just been written by mathematicians :)

It can be a bit daunting at first, but I find mathematical concepts and notation extremely useful tools for programmers, especially when designing algorithms. It allows you to express powerful, abstract ideas in a few lines whereas the same reasoning in pseudo-code would take much more time and effort.

I'm glad my undergraduate program was heavy on the math (although I hated it at the time)– it made graduate CS courses easier to understand, and programming easier for me in the long term. I actually miss my pure math courses now.

<comment><USER18> That's because mathematical notation is context-bound and telegraphic. Gerry Sussman has gone so far as to call it "Impressionistic". Beyond basic arithmetic and elementary algebra, it is much more _concise_ than it is _precise_ \-- it is often inconsistent (the "power" in _cos^2 x_ doesn't mean the same thing as it does in _cos^-1 x_ , for instance), and there's a lot of hand-waviness (and sometimes some outright lies) in order to make the notation concise. It's a useful jargon for the initiated, but it is hardly self- explanatory even if you know what the individual symbols are supposed to mean.

A code-like representation may have the disadvantage of being more verbose, but it has the advantage of being unambiguous. It gives up conciseness in favour of precision. And no, it is not impossible to represent mathematical concepts in a code-like manner -- it just forces you to actually say all of what you mean rather than using an ambiguous and incomplete shorthand.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I should think the Master Theorem would be included:

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

or better,

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akra%E2%80%93Bazzi_method>.

</comment><comment><USER20> More fundamental than Bayes's theorem is the probabilistic counterpart of modus ponens: P(A/\B) = P(B|A) P(A). This corresponds to the logical rule of inference A, A->B |- A/\B. Note that modus ponens is usually stated in the form A, A->B |- B. But this throws away useful information, namely that proposition A is true, so it's a weaker form.

Bayes's theorem is a direct consequence of this axiom and the commutativity of conjunction.

<comment><USER21> In other words, modus ponens is: P(A=true)=1, P(B=true|A=true)=1 |- P(B=true) = 1

Let P'(A) be the distribution on A when we know nothing about B (in a world with only A and B). Plausible reasoning is possible through Bayes/joint- conditional probability rule and yields: P(B=true|A=true)=1, P(B=true)=1 |- P(A=true) > P'(A=true) where logic alone can't conclude (A->B, B |- ?) Also: P(B=true|A=true)=1, P(A=false)=1 |- P(B=true) < P'(B=true)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Although they're not really "equations", I'd have liked to see some results from computation theory in this list, because they're often deep and beautiful without necessarily being difficult to formulate or understand. They also tend to be informative in a useful way rather than feeling too abstract to be relevant.

For example: the halting problem. Isn't it interesting that you can't write a computer program which can decide (in general) whether another program terminates? The proof is simple and it gives you a real tool to help you avoid trying to solve impossible problems. It's good to know the limits of your craft.

</comment><comment><USER23> The Y Combinator and the pumping lemma seem a bit contrived on that list, especially the former. I would add the maximum margin separation equation, which underlies many modern machine learning methods like SVMs and MMMF, and the P=NP equality question.

<comment><USER24> Understanding the pumping lemma is essential to really understanding why regular languages are limited. Which in the real world is important for quickly assessing the question of "can I hack this solution together with some clever regexps or do I need a real parser?"

I'll agree that the y-combinator is less essential, however if you even have a sense of what's going on it means that you have an understanding of the basic framework of functional programming and a minimal grasp of the lambda calculus

<comment><USER25> Not really. You can understand why regular languages are limited with a simple counting argument; the pumping lemma follows on from that relatively easily, but it doesn't really add much understanding IMO.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Shannon's Information Theory, Eigenvector, DeMorgan's Laws, etc. None of those names are meaningful or descriptive. And then the greek letters and made up symbols. Math could learn something from Computer Science:

<https://www.google.com/search?q=readable+code>

<comment><USER27> Eigenvector isn't that bad, it's just not english:

"The prefix eigen- is adopted from the German word "eigen" for "own"[1] in the sense of a characteristic description" (from wikipedia)

I think Shannon's Information Theory is pretty fair too. It's about how much information is in a message.

Plus, Computer Science has it's own grievous names: A* search, B* search, B tree, B+ tree, B* tree. That always drove me nuts.

<comment><USER28> And lots of algorithms named after people. Which is fine (we have lots of things named after people in math, too), but not descriptive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I was hoping Fitts's Law would make the list, considering a lot of people here are doing UI/UX whether they realize it or not.

</comment><comment><USER30> I'm sorry for being somewhat off topic, but is it too hard to try and write coherently? The author's run-on, stream-of-consciousness style, together with the random use of punctuation marks, was tiring to read.

<comment><USER31> Writing skills are always relevant. The lack of them in this article made me stop reading before getting to any actual content.

<comment><USER30> Indeed, and I'm not demanding that people be novelists or anything, you just have to master basic punctuation and spelling to make the reader's life easier.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> P(Poster is less than 30 years old) = .9999999999999

</comment><comment><USER33> There's a small error in the formula for O(N): the way he's written it it looks like for all n, there is a k such that kg(n) >= f(n), ie k depends on n so take k = f(n)/g(n) and all nonzero functions trivially satisfy it. It should be there exists a k such that for all n kg(n) >= f(n). Pedantic I know, but on the other hand I wouldn't call these "beautiful equations" associated with O(N), I'd instead call them the definition of O(N).

There's also o(f(n)), g(n) is a member of o(f(n)) if the limit as n goes to infinity of g(n)/f(n) is zero. Finally, there is asymptotic equality: f(n) ~ g(n) if the limit as n goes to infinite of g(n)/f(n) = 1. O,o and ~ are all subtly different, but if you're just trying to prove upper bounds then O(f(n)) is the one that comes up most frequently, which is why it's probably the only sort of asymptotic analysis most CS grads know.

</comment><comment><USER34> Here's a real simple and practical equation: 1+2+3+4 . . . N = N(N+1)/2

This equation represents the number of edges on a complete graph with N+1 vertices or the number of possible pairings given N+1 objects. Useful when estimating O(N) for certain algorithms that involve comparing an item to every other item in a set.

<comment><USER35> It's more useful if you know how to prove it: just add the series to itself written backwards, then divide by two.

One of my math professors said that this and multiplying by things equal to one were among the tricks he used most often.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> So, I take it I shouldn't even consider getting a CS degree since I really suck at math?

<comment><USER36> (Damn it, I wish I could edit old posts...)

Thanks everyone for the words of encouragement, but when I was going to school it would take me 4 hours to complete 15 simple homework math equations, even with the ritalin. 'Hard work' in the form of 4 years of that stuff would make me commit suicide.

Moreover, I just don't care to understand complex math. I do want to know how to design compilers and write embedded kernel drivers. If advanced math is required to be able to do these things, CS isn't for me.

<comment><USER37> The not caring is kind of crucial, beyond anything else. If you don't care, it's not interesting to you, and if it's not interesting to you it's probably not worth dedicating your time to. Life is short - do what you love.

THAT SAID I totally agree with what people have said, and the amount of "maths" you need beyond basic arithmetic in CS depends very much on your chosen field of interest, which, given that you don't care about complex maths, probably won't be too mathematically heavy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Little's Law is probably CS folks should know too. It is relatively simple, but useful

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little%27s_law>

</comment><comment><USER39> Amusing how the original wired article calls the greek lambda "the triangle thing with no bottom"

</comment><comment><USER40> Oddly enough I never really used any of these while studying CS. Now that I'm in bioinformatics, some of the stuff is commonly used, particularly Bayes' theorem and information theory.

</comment><comment><USER41> Bayes Theorem isn't totally at the heart of Bayesian v non-Bayesian statistics. Bayes Theorem can still be true if you're in a strictly frequentist framework.

<comment><USER42> _Bayes Theorem can still be true if you're in a strictly frequentist framework._

Can?? When is it not true? It's a theorem, after all.

<comment><USER41> Nitpick much?

I meant more along the lines of when the assumptions aren't met, e.g. P(B) == 0.

Or, where unitarity in physics isn't met:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarity_(physics)>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I would prefer to see the Cook-Levin theorem in place of the pumping lemma.

</comment><comment><USER44> I know all those. ish. thanks for morning ego boost!

</comment><comment><USER45> Nope.</comment>


Friendster sold for $100M - <AUTHOR> http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20091210/friendsters-cautionary-tale-ends-in-100-million-sale/

<comment><USER2> According to the article, they have 100 million users, most of them in Asia. Why is that not a success story?

Sure, they knocked back GOOG's $30m offer in 2003. Perhaps they didn't sell as they didn't want to be holding stock they couldn't sell if they wanted to (GOOG didn't float until August 2004). They managed to get an offer for more than three times as much, six years later.

Many of us would be happy with that kind of failure.

<comment><USER3> Yes but the $30M Google stock would be worth over a billion right now if my quick (shitty) calculations aren't off, at least it should be that much once Google's stock gets around $700 again (can anyone verify this?)

And well there was $50M capital put in already so $100M is really like the least they could've gotten without the buy out being considered a complete failure. Then again I had no idea Friendster was worth anything really since I assumed it was dead.</comment></comment>


CSS Spinners and Loaders – Modular, Customizable and Single HTML Element Code - <AUTHOR> https://webkul.github.io/csspin/ <comment><AUTHOR> Speed of the loader can be customised from _globals.less or use the predefined variables for the speed. Check Doc for more - [http://bit.ly/csspin- doc](http://bit.ly/csspin-doc)

</comment><comment><USER2> nice can i customise speed of loader?</comment>


Animal-like embryos came before animals - <AUTHOR> https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2019/11/28/Animal-like-embryos-came-before-animals/6231574879420/ <comment><USER2> So it's settled. The egg DID come before the chicken.

<comment><USER3> It was settled already. Eggs existed many millions of years before chickens appeared.

<comment> noman-land I think the intent of the original question/thought experiment was which came first, the chicken or the chicken egg? Not just any old egg.

The answer is still the egg, of course, because the animal that laid the egg was just genetically shy of being what we think of today as a chicken, and it laid an egg with a new mutation that is The Chicken.

So a non-chicken laid a chicken egg and a chicken was hatched from it.

<comment><USER4> I think this is the premise for the next Alien movie

<comment><USER5> Prometheus already corned the market on characters with chicken brains.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> In other news, evolution by accumulation of variation.

<comment><USER7> Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny?

<comment><USER8> Pfft. Everyone knows that.

Actually, the only reason I know what that means is a course I took at [https://www.complexityexplorer.org](https://www.complexityexplorer.org) which was presented by Santa Fe Institute. Anyone interested in the origins of life should check it out. The courses are free, btw.

The final exam for the Origins course could be pretty much summarized by what you said. Hopefully they'll re-run it.</comment></comment></comment>


Historical speed of light measurements in southern California (2014) - <AUTHOR> https://www.otherhand.org/home-page/physics/historical-speed-of-light-measurements-in-southern-california/ <comment><USER2> > _The proper terminology is of course "velocity of light", but most non- > physics people conventionally use "speed of light", which I shall do so from > this point forward._

That's not right, velocity is a vector (a magnitude and a direction) and speed is a scalar (just a magnitude). The speed of light, _c_ , is a scalar: in fact, one of the biggest things that Michelson showed is that it is the same in every direction! (If the speed of light was anisotropic then I think _c_ would be a tensor).

I don't think I've ever heard anybody say "the velocity of light." I wonder where that came from.

<comment><USER3> Fun fact: The speed of light is only constant by convention. There's a nice creationist paper where they try to twist physics into a pretzel in order to make it fit the biblical narrative, using a convention where the speed of infalling light rays is infinite, but the speed of outgoing ones only c/2.

Of course, any such attempt will eventually fail due to invariants that are independent of convention, such as the age of the universe as measured by an observer following the Hubble flow.

One can't help but be impressed at least a little bit by the ingenuity of it all, though...

 _edit:_ cf [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One- way_speed_of_light](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light)

<comment><USER4> "Fun fact: The speed of light is only constant by convention."

Well, the speed of light through a non-vacuum isn't the same as any medium will slow it to some extent, but the speed of light in a vacuum is the definition of "c" and as such, that IS a constant and invariant.

<comment><USER3> Because we define the speed of light in terms of spatially homogeneous and isotropic inertial coordinates.

We do that because we want "the statements of the natural laws [to be] as simple as possible" (Poincaré), but it's not the only way to do it...

<comment><USER5> Sure the speed is a function of the metric you use, but physics also tells us what metric is useful.

<comment><USER3> It's less about the metric but the choice of space/time decomposition.

<comment><USER5> I'm not talking about a metric over space, but rather a metric over spacetime, if that's what you mean. I would consider that to encode the space/time decomposition. My differential geometry sucks, but I thought you could write general relativity in a coordinate free manner that specifically doesn't rely on strong coordinate choices like you're talking about.

<comment><USER3> _I thought you could write general relativity in a coordinate free manner that specifically doesn 't rely on strong coordinate choices_

Indeed. But even before you start messing with the formalism, the metric alone cannot be used to define a speed as 4-velocities are normalized. You need to decompose your tangent space into timelike and spacelike subspaces so you can have a _dx_ and a _dt_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've been to the top of Santiago Peak, one of the mountains mentioned in the article. Its got a handful of big line of site radio towers with microwave tx/rx on it [1]. These peaks would probably be a good candidate for laser- based radio transmission one day. I find that kind of ironic given the fact that Michelson tested with light between 1922 to 1931!

[1] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santiago_Peak#Radio_communic...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santiago_Peak#Radio_communication_facilities)

<comment><USER7> FWIW, Facebook has gotten permits to construct some laser comm facilities on Mt Wilson

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> There is currently a post on the front page of HN about Michelson, for those interested: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20962592](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20962592)

</comment><comment><USER9> > Que

Cue

<comment><USER10> Queue?</comment></comment>


In Silicon Valley, some men say cosmetic procedures are essential to a career - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/01/09/silicon-valley-some-men-say-cosmetic-procedures-are-essential-career/ <comment><USER2> Other commenters may be dismissing this article as obvious, but silicon valley does have a problem, particularly in young, hip startups. These companies want to hire young, hip people, and when products being produced are very vague with no clear market, then things like image matter a lot. Juicero, comes to mind. That's fine, you don't have to work there.

However, as you get older, develop wrinkles and grey hair, that appearance of being older far outweighs your experience in initial impressions that you make. I've personally been a software engineer since 1995, quite a while now. My hair is grey, my face has wrinkles, and I'm an expert in several domains. When I go interview for a new job, it's typically by people younger and less experienced than me, since I'm definitely past the median age in this industry. I get asked questions like, "do you feel you still have relevant knowledge", or "we do things differently than in your day", or "do you think you can work in a fast paced environment", etc.

Tech is arrogant and judgmental and image matters a lot. I can understand how people might resort to plastic surgery to buy themselves a few non-judgmental years.

<comment><USER3> I think this cuts both ways. I'm getting older, but I get along really well with the fresh meat.

What works for me is to come across as an OG hacker and stay up to date on whatever the hot tech is. I'm also as immature as ever and have a pretty good command of dank memes, which I think helps more than people want to admit. I'll follow the culture wherever it goes, the same as I have since I was a teenager.

I just always try to expose myself to everything so I know what's going on, from 4chan to reddit to HN to NPR to Fox News. IMO cultural awareness is the key to appearing "young", even if your physical appearance is older.

<comment><USER2> The other way experience helps is that you don't really need to interview at unknown places if you want to work somewhere. Over time, you've built up a professional network, and you can generally switch jobs via that network, instead of walking in the front door. Having a deep specialty in something allows you to work with other such specialists.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > Only the previous week, he says, he returned from a 10-day trip to Italy's > Amalfi Coast. Before that, he boasts, he journeyed to a yoga retreat and > juice cleanse in Bali, the perfect setting to unload the stress he absorbs > working at a well-known tech company in Silicon Valley. After ending a five- > year marriage and shedding 10 pounds of subcutaneous fat several years back > — his sun-kissed body now carb- and toxin-free — Daniel has reemerged a new, > seemingly younger man.

This must be fake. This does not describe any software developer I've ever met. (Maybe because I'm on the east coast but engineering culture can't be that different, can it?)

<comment><USER5> One theory is that good looking software engineers aren't software engineers for very long.

Why would you get paid shit wages when you can be a VP of telling people what to do?

Call it the "jock-ification" of the tech world. It was bad enough when they were in high school, now they've infiltrated the tech world.

<comment><USER6> > _" Call it the "jock-ification" of the tech world. It was bad enough when > they were in high school, now they've infiltrated the tech world."_

The "jock/nerd dichotomy" is a dumb harmful stereotype used by lazy hollywood and television writers. Many of the smartest people I've ever known were also the most athletic. There is NO inverse relationship between physical fitness and intelligence. If anything, there is a positive correlation between the two, as being healthy and well nourished makes you more likely to realize both your physical and intellectual potential.

<comment><USER7> It was obvious to the ancient Greeks, we're still getting there today. The Hollywood stereotype perpetuates the split, which definitely exists today, but also the advantages of economic specialization kind of limits you to one or the other these days.

<comment><USER6> It exists only insofar as naive children internalize and ape what they see on TV. There is no reason whatsoever that a bright child shouldn't enjoy sports, except the Disney channel tells him he must choose between reading books or exercise, when there is plenty of time in the day for both. And insofar as it discourages smart kids from exercising, it's a clearly harmful stereotype which you should refrain from reinforcing.

Real life is not a 1980s teen comedy movie, no matter how comforting out of shape engineers may find the notion.

<comment><USER8> Hollywood is a reflection on culture, not the other way around. They just make what people want to see (it's a business, after all).

Anything else is mindless conspiracy theories. There is no secret cabal pushing culture to the masses.

It's so bizarre to observe normal humans and businesses (and how organizations _completely_ fail at any meaningful scale), and then to turn around and assume there is a hyper-intelligent, hyper-powerful secret society running things.

Instead of blaming Satan, now we have boogeymen from conspiracy theories to fulfill his role.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This just in: there's bias based on appearance. Outside of SV, being the wrong skin tone, wrong gender, not pretty enough, too pretty, not tall enough, etc are all attributes that have been unfairly affecting workers, since, well, forever.

<comment><USER10> You would have thought when you're engineer you'd only be judged based on your technical skills, your work output, performance, efficiency, ideas, design etc. Most of my team is remote so for all I know they're just those things I listed above, and a voice and a pixelated set of images Google hangouts show me. It's devastating that people still need to be discriminated in this industry.

<comment><USER11> Your list has one glaring exclusion: social skills.

If you're a brilliant programmer, but an asshole and proud of it (or unaware of it), then yes, you will not get far on your skills alone.

Whether we like it or not, we are all part of a society, and those who choose to rebel against that, well, that's thier choice and accept the consequences. (Follow up: you can't really hide behind remote work if you lack social skills. Possibly, but not very likely.)

EDIT: Snark removal.

<comment><USER3> Remote work probably makes social skills _more_ important, because your coworkers lose the benefit of non-verbal cues. I work remotely and I try to convey a lot of personality and availability to stay integrated with the team.

<comment><USER11> Good point!

Email especially. I work with 10 different countries, and programmers from England respond differently to my word choices than programmers from China, Japan, Holland, or India.

I find I have to be painfully concise and free from humor, idiom or analogy. It's tough!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> 80% of male attractiveness comes down having a good haircut and clothes that fit you.

Assuming you're in SF and have a high-paying software job. Find a hair stylist in a mid-range salon who you can actually talk to, show them some pictures of haircuts you like, and let them find something that works. If you find a professional and are OK paying them a bit extra, you'll get good results.

As for "clothes that fit", I have a terrible eye for that, so when I go shopping I just ask a more stylish friend to come with me, or I just ask the shop assistants a lot of questions. Again, they're professionals. They know what works.

<comment><USER13> This advice is throttled around here. There is an implication to this: if you're bald, you're fucking screwed as a man. Attractiveness would not be achievable.

<comment><USER14> So ..

The Rock? Jason Statham? Oscar de la Renta? Tom Ford's receding hairline?

I mean, your point is just not taken. Plenty of men wear baldness well, and plenty of men with hair do not.

<comment><USER13> I never said bald men cannot be handsome. I was saying "get a nice haircut" implies that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> When I lived and worked in SF it was hilarious to me how rapidly the culture shifted. In only 6 years, it went from a lot of competent, interesting, varied personalities, to an army of chrome backpacks, folding bikes, and brown leather boots.

Due to the vast wealth flooding there from VC coffers, people drank the Koolaid and drank it fast. I've watched people change their whole personality over night as if they constantly have their finger on the changing winds of cult personality.

Needless to say I ran for the hills. Best of luck Bay Area, you'll always have a place in my heart.

<comment><USER16> That sucks. I grew up in the bay area and haven't been around much in.. almost a decade. DANG WTF?!

Did it really change that much? lol.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Attractiveness has always affected opportunities afforded to people and other people's perceptions of you. This is not just in tech. Hell, it influences elections! This is just human nature and has been studied extensively. It's just trendy to bash Silicon Valley for this, because, you know, everyone on Wall Street is wearing suits for the comfort factor...

However, I think there's an upper bounds on where that matters, and I think it mostly matters when climbing the corporate ladder. If you look at the richest men in the world, most are not supermodels.

The moral of the story - if you want to play the game you have to play by the game's rules. Otherwise, play a different game.

<comment><USER6> Of course conformity is the reason for the suits, but I'd like to point out that if you're wearing suits 5 days a week it would be foolish to not buy a comfortable one. Good materials and a good fit can make for a _very_ comfortable suit.

More comfortable, I dare say, than the casual attire I must wear when working for west coast tech companies, lest I not conform to west coast tech company expectations. T-shirts and hoodies lose their charm when they start to feel like a requirement. Nice silk suit trousers feel nicer than blue-jeans, if they fit well they feel as nice as pajamas, but the looks you get in a west coast tech offices when you wear such clothing are withering.

<comment><USER18> The (somewhat) new stretch denim (with 1-3% elastane) makes for amazingly comfortable jeans. If you haven't tried a pair, give them a shot.

<comment><USER6> Fully agree, that's what I wear now. It's a lot more comfortable than traditional denim, but still not quite as comfortable as the silk slacks with elastic wastes that I wear to weddings and whatnot.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I am very pro-body modification. And it's affordable to the masses now and safer with non invasive medtech.

One day...I hope in my lifetime..we will be able to have implants to download our thoughts, memories and feelings..dare I say..consciousness..or soul..into a chip.

Looking at the physical body as a vessel and getting used to the idea that it is merely necessary hardware to our mind is important.

I don't want to create children for immortality. I want to be immortal as myself.

It's not about hacking biology. It's about hacking immortality. This is the first step. Tiny one. But crucial one.

<comment><USER20> Count me in! I don't want to squander my resources on anyone but myself.

As I often say, give me death or give me immortality!

I am hopeful some crypto billionaires will share the same mindset, and pour resources into anti aging research at the cellular level.

<comment><USER21> I've got bad news for both of you: you're going to die, and you won't be resurrected. So better live your lives as if every day matters.

<comment><USER20> Not bad news- I accept that by default, I'm going to lose the game. That's the "give me death" part.

Still that don't mean I won't try the other part, removing everything that could stand between me and my objective.

No kids = no college fund = more money to spend on life extending treatments if they become available

I trust the human creativity will hack death someday. The only question is whether I will be alive to see that day. If I'm not, at least I will have contributed my money to the good fight.

<comment><USER21> The question you will need to answer is what you are living for. I do have children and their college fund is a rounding error on a lifetime of expenses, if I had to live life again and could choose to add another 100 years to the life I have or have children I would definitely have children again.

<comment><USER19> I don't have children. DNA is too random. I might if I can design my own progeny.

Or clone myself. It is also 'technically' ..theoretically possible to clone oneself. That's a different discussion.

Ideally I would like different 'skins' that I can step in and out of ..and keep all my memories and thoughts and 'self'.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I will provide a bit of anecdata. I went from not really fat, but kinda just mushy to my high school weight when I was ~30 and started working out and did a lot of running. The way I was treated be everyone was drastically different(better). I then had a severe foot fracture that required surgery and 12-18 month recovery. Running has proven difficult even 5 years later. I am regaining some pudge, and notice that royal treatment I used to get is not there anymore. I will also say that my mind is nowhere near as sharp. 2020 is the year I get back in shape, and will see if that makes a difference again...

<comment><USER23> Can you swim instead?

<comment><USER22> I can- but I generally dislike it. Running was a meditation for me, and I loved how I would 1) count my steps for a while until I got in the zone and then 2) time and problems would fall away.

Ive not experienced that while swimming...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I'm older than the person mentioned at the top of this article, and I've made no efforts to hide it.

I've been in the tech industry for about 27 years now, and silicon valley for the last 11. In silicon valley, I've worked at multiple startups, as well as two 'FAANG' companies.

My comp has always been very good, and I've not detected even one little hint of 'ageism' at work. In fact, my career and current work environment has never been better.

> "In Silicon Valley, it's commonly believed that if you're over the age of > 35, you're seen as over the hill," said Fan, who touts himself as an expert > in penile enhancement and Botox injections. "People here value the young for > their passion and their ability to look at things in new ways."

These sentences cause my jaw to drop for several different reasons. Penile injections? Really?

I will say that keeping myself mentally 'fresh' in perspective and outlook takes real work, but that's just part of necessary continuing education.

In my career, I've generally targeted a 45 (on average) work week. A lot more is fine, from time to time. And I will say that I've seen quite a few of my co-workers who seemed to enjoy working way more hours than that. Some of them young, some of them older than me.

What matters at work is results.

What also matters to web sites is clicks and emotionally driven attention.

<comment><USER19> Are you saying penile enhancement and size and performance doesn't have an affect on males? Curious female minds want to know..

I have always wanted to objectify men. I struggle to choose between their looks or bank balance or penis size. That's why men in the past wore cod pieces. I would like it back please..

<comment><USER18> If my penis ever makes an appearance in the workplace, something has gone terrifically wrong.

<comment><USER19> I notice that you said 'terrifically' and not 'terrribly'.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> > "Daniel, who spoke on the condition that only his first name be published > for fear of being outed as old.."

Daniel, I am no genius but if you are reading this, WashingtonPost story with your details hardly makes you anonymous.

\- Daniel

\- in his late 30s, but he's 48 years old

\- returned from a 10-day trip to Italy's Amalfi Coast

\- journeyed to a yoga retreat and juice cleanse in Bali

\- ending a five-year marriage

\- shedding 10 pounds of subcutaneous fat several years back

</comment><comment><USER26> I wonder if this depends on what language you develop in. I've been working on C++ teams for the past few years, and I don't witness any age bias. If there is an age bias, it's against younger engineers, because usually older engineers are much better at C++. The classical image of a programmer is still highly respected on every team I've worked on.

Also, I am an ex division 1 wrestler, and pretty muscular, and I always felt my physique actually worked to my detriment in interviews; I take a lot of steps to not come off as a jock/meathead. I wear glasses to make myself look more like a programmer, than an athlete. Maybe there is a difference though between being in shape, and being a division 1 wrestler.

Or maybe this is mostly a west coast/silicon valley thing. I've been working out of NYC mostly. Regardless though, this article really does not resonate with my experience as a software engineer.

</comment><comment><USER27> Maybe some 15 years ago I had a job interview. It went well and I was asked to meet the co-founders at a downtown bar. Being dressed rather casually I asked if it was appropriate attire for the bar. I was told "Actually, one of the reasons I want to hire you is because you look like what I would expect a computer geek to look like." (I'm paraphrasing, it was a long time...)

</comment><comment><USER28> Really tired of the lazy trend in journalism where you find 2-3 "eccentric" software developers and label their lifestyle as a SV trend.

</comment><comment><USER29> I'm being a bit hyperbolic I'm sure, but this seems to go hand in hand with the "culture fit" obsession with most interview processes. It's really just a gauge of how "cool" and "likable" the person seems. Speaking from witnessing it on both sides of the table.

</comment><comment><USER30> I'm 57 years old and work about 8 months/year in Silicon Valley (the rest in Tel Aviv) I dye my beard (my head is shaved) and I've had work done on my face. I'm careful to stay in shape, and not be overweight. It makes a big difference in how I'm perceived.

<comment><USER31> Is your username accurate or have you moved on from Fortran?

<comment><USER30> We do CUDA/C++ mostly

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> So SV is slowly becoming like other large industries - you win less in value created than on internal politics - on impressing a VC instead of amazing a customer, on impressing the boss not actually managing a SLA.

Perhaps it is how SV eventually fizzles out- it must happen sometime.

<comment><USER33> SV has already fizzled out. The two biggest SV successes of recent times (Google and FB) sell advertisements and surveillance services under the guise of "connecting people" or "information discovery".

Its hot new bets are in food delivery and e-bike sharing. And even after sinking in billions there, they can't figure out how to turn a profit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Really? I'm ugly as hell and I'm doing great. I also wouldn't say my colleagues are unusually attractive or anything. Silicon Valley feels like a place where appearance matters _less_ than many places to me. Am I out of touch?

</comment><comment><USER35> Really? I moved to the Bay area from LA and all I see are out of shape, badly dressed tech workers. Blame it on all the free food and high-stress lifestyle.

</comment><comment><USER36> I'm going to call bull shit. Im old by sv standards (38) and the only things I worry about is the quality of my code and quality of my ideas.

</comment><comment><USER37> Be tall and attractive is _literally_ the advice people are giving in this thread, and it doesn't even seem that tongue-in-cheek.

<comment><USER38> It's not tougue-in-cheek. Data shows that attractive people have better careers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Appearing fit and healthy, _especially_ for your age, is like activating easy mode for life in general.

I've yet to see a down side, other than losing the short-lived pleasures of eating garbage food constantly. But the novelty of that wore off long ago, it pales in comparison to an active and healthy lifestyle.

\- Formerly overweight/borderline obese person enjoying an ideal BMI for over a decade now.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm pretty convinced that the most important thing you can do for your career after achieving basic technical competence is to be more attractive, both physically and socially.

The reality is that you're going to have an easier time making connections and getting access to opportunities if you're well-mannered, sociable, and attractive.

<comment><USER40> Also, be tall, that doesn't hurt.

<comment><USER5> Interesting story about China and leg lengthening procedures.

[https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&obj...](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10409409)

<comment><USER20> Not interesting, just light on facts. It says the procedure is now banned for cosmetic reasons after a few patients were "disfigured".

How where they disfigured, since the legs are as far apart as can be from the face?

If it's the leg that looks ugly afterwards, can't the leg be fixed? Was there a bone problem? An infection ??

I don't think I would go that fact personally, but if there was something possible for the chest, I would seriously consider it.

Pumping iron can only take you so far. The bones underneath set the actual limit.

<comment><USER5> No offense, but one of the weird things about HN in general is that commenters can't find apparently relatively easily google-able facts.

[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/dec/15/gender.uk](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/dec/15/gender.uk)

<comment><USER20> I read articles, but I don't google. Thanks for the link.

> Each leg now bears eight circular scars, each half an inch in diameter, from > the screws that were removed. But now, three inches taller than before, > Susan says she would not hesitate to recommend the procedure to her friends.

That is all I need to know. Patient satisfied, and would recommend the procedure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> What a weasel-worded title!

Better title: "In some places, some people say some things"

<comment><USER42> That's not what a weasel word is. Weasel words are things like "potentially" and "possibly" that you can put into otherwise declaratory statements so that when you're shown to be wrong you can fall back on "well I said possibly!" or similar.

<comment><USER43> Saying "some men" is a pretty weasely phrasing. "Some" could mean 2. It could mean millions!

I bet "some men in Silicon Valley" are doing all kinds of things. Some men in Silicon Valley enjoy eating Durian. Some men in Silicon Valley enjoy being punched in the testicles. That doesn't mean anything, though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Nothing new here? It's just a basic human factor? Not only essential for the career, even interviews go a lot smoother if you are a pleasant to look at, deal with. It's the first impression that gets you ahead. If you are competent enough not to ruin it by talking, you are golden!

Still, surgeries is kind of extreme, but lets be honest, even some basic things like a shower and deodorant can help a lot of devs.

</comment><comment><USER45> I find it interesting we know your name matters but we don't hear much about changing it.

I know people from overseas for instance will pick a local name, but often it's not optimised, just something picked slightly at random.

It's also fully reversible.

</comment><comment><USER46> > Only the previous week, he says, he returned from a 10-day trip to Italy's > Amalfi Coast

We really need to start CO2 emissions from flying / day of vacation, because 10 days to Italy is really ridiculous.

<comment><USER47> assuming you plan to return does it matter if the trip is 1 day, 10 days, 100 days? you still have two flights.

<comment><USER48> They were making a joke about the phrasing because it sounds like it was 10 days of travel to reach Italy.

<comment><USER49> Perfect example of a Dad joke, however.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Based on my experience, the headline is right. The money I spent was dwarfed by the extra money I made afterwards. It is just my own experience, but I think it is a cool hack: look the part to get more money.

To give more details, after having studied skin care a bit with the help of google scholar and reddit, I came to the conclusion that wrinkles are multifactorial and due to: \- facial fat depletion : [https://www.patelplasticsurgery.com/uploads/5/2/8/8/52880409...](https://www.patelplasticsurgery.com/uploads/5/2/8/8/52880409/12-anatomy- aging-face-ppt-5-638_orig.jpg) \- change in the collagen structure, with less elasticity, likely purely due to sun damage \- gravity pulling the damaged tissue down

For facial fat depletion, there is fat transfer. For the effect of gravity, there is facelifts. Both work wonder.

For changes in the skin structure however, I have tried non fractional CO2 resurfacing, which is said to be much more effective than fraxel. But it did not give drastic results unlike the 2 others.

The article talks about RF microneedling. I wonder if someone here on HN tried, and could comment about the procedure.

I'm thinking about doing that myself next time I travel. Other alternatives are "vampire microneedling", where basically PRP is put on the skin then microneedling is done in the hope that some growth factors will seep though.

The reddit skincare community is wonderful - lots of crazy smart people digging article and testing on themselves, a genuine hacker spirit. I tried one of their suggestions that seemed crazy at the time: acetylsalycilic acid to reduce skin oilyness. It was so simple, so cheap, yet so efficient!

Now I am going to test a skin routine to fix my skin texture: niacin serum in the morning, then sunscreen, and retinol at night, then moisturizer.

It's fun to consider the body has a computer than you can upgrad with surgeries or hack with chemicals applied on the skin!

<comment><USER19> PRP has good reviews. A friend tried it recently and said it actually started baby hair growth near hairline..so I guess it basically increases blood flow.. If I had some spare change laying around, I would invest in cosmetic start ups. Especially those that are non invasive. Ways to determine which procedure is best suited for each person. AI to customize treatments. Etc. Phone apps too esp with the really nifty cameras that come with smart phones these days.

Deceim ..a Canadian cosmetic company has affordable products and I am a fan of many their basic products altho some are pretty hard core. I won't use anything with retinol for example. I work in the farm and under the sun. So I have to be careful. Maybe when I retire from farming.

I agree. Body hacking is true hacker spirit. I encourage people to experiment and hack away.</comment></comment>


Mixing crowdsourcing and security to help hack for good: Bugcrowd - <AUTHOR> http://www.zdnet.com/mixing-crowdsourcing-and-security-to-help-hack-for-good-bugcrowd-7000010242/

<comment><USER2> Love it. Bounties are a great motivator.</comment>