I have five digital 'personal assistants' and still can't get anything done - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/01/01/i-have-five-digital-personal-assistants-and-still-cant-get-anything-done/ <comment><USER2> I tried Google for a few days. I admit the notification telling me when to leave work to arrive on time for my next appointment with the best route was impressive when I saw it first (the AI behind at least).

But quickly I stopped using it for these reasons:

1) I had to get ready to let go to much private data

2) I hate talking to a thing and it makes me look ridiculous both in public and in private (the social awkwardness might improve though in time, humans can get used to anything :) ).

3) It impacts the smartphone battery life

4) As stated in the article, it's never perfect so a single frustration in the experience makes it basically useless compared to accomplishing the task the old way. I'm obsessed with productivity.

5) Voice commands are perfectly suited in cars but I don't own any.

6) What about the impact on memory and cognitive skills, it probably won't help improving them.

I might not be the target customer, I can't even see myself using a real world assistant.

<comment><USER3> > I hate talking to a thing and it makes me look ridiculous both in public and > in private (the social awkwardness might improve though in time, humans can > get used to anything).

The answer to this in scifi is a subvocal microphone. Unfortunately, the real- world equivalents [1] haven't progressed beyond the experimental stages yet.

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

<comment><USER4> Also, brain-consumer interfaces.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_consumer_brain%E...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_consumer_brain%E2%80%93computer_interfaces)

<comment><USER5> "Brain-consumer interface" is pretty great even if it was a typo.

<comment><USER4> Whoops! I'm glad you figured out my intent. I think my subconscious was marveling over the surprising number of brain-computer consumer products on that page. O_o

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I feel like something has recently happened to Google's voice recognition. Just in the past few weeks, I've found it to be more accurate than ever, especially in noisy environments. In fact, I'm currently dictating this comment 10 feet away from a busy interstate. I've almost exclusively switched over from typing when I won't embarrass myself. In fact, I just had to switch to typing because I got on the BART.

This is the beginning of Google's voice assistant being worth the trouble to me as a user.

<comment><USER7> And yet they can't seem to parse my monthly boardgame night email and add it to my calendar. Every time I have to manually copy/paste the email into calendar and then fix the failures the parser had (ignoring the time in the email in favour of the word "night" in the title to mean 9pm, for example.

Hopefully they'll point this recognition AI in more directions. Seems like it should be easier since it's already text.

<comment><USER8> Decent AI would recommend boardgames of the same genre - here's a manual recommendation: Risk 2210 is (4 hours of) awesome!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The headline made me roll my eyes (though that seems to be a company wide problem at WaPo imho)...but it seems like the author, while trying to evaluate cutting edge tech and AI networking, has inadvertently stumbled upon an ancient piece of computing wisdom (emphasis added):

> Which is what makes the assistant from x.ai so interesting. All it does is > schedule things: you copy it on emails where you're trying to set up > meetings, and it sends reasonably cheerful emails to your other participants > to find a mutually agreeable time. Mortensen sees his own company's > assistant, Amy Ingram (AI, get it?), as a vertical agent: _she takes care of > one task well, rather than trying to be an all-in-one._

<comment><USER10> x.ai looks very interesting. Still waiting for the invite.

> _Amy Ingram_

Like Nathan Ingram from Person of Interest, the co-creator of the AI that is a sorta-protagonist in the show?

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Get 1 actual assistant (virtual assistant) and don't worry about any of the edge cases that Siri hasn't figured out yet. VA's can proofread docs for you, sit on hold with Lufthansa until they get an agent on the line then conference you in, order your groceries for delivery, make and update medical appointments and in some cases, send thank you letters to friends and family, do research on xyz topic of your liking, and roughly prepare your expenses, receipts and tax paperwork before handing it off to a CPA. There's also the added benefit of interacting with (and financially supporting) an actual human who is much more capable than Siri. And then there's cachet of having your 'assistant' run interference with all the usual time wasters in your day.

<comment><USER12> I assume you have an actual assistant. May I ask what the monthly bill comes out as and how you found them?

<comment><USER13> I could be wrong, but think the OP is talking about virtual assistant services like task rabbit since they listed many of their advertised tasks.

As far as a "real" assistant goes, it can be easy to find one if you live in a city with craigslist. You can find someone to hire hourly once in a while, or bring them on full/part time with a salary if you have the means. The payment range is minimum wage up to whatever you want to pay. Whether you want something official where you run payroll, provide health insurance and everything, or just pay someone under the table - there's pretty much going to be a long list of people who will want you to hire them. I've taken out ads before and gotten over 200 responses (Chicago area). When you become directly responsible for other people's financial livelihood it can really change how you think about employment and life in general.

<comment><USER12> I think Tim Ferris mentioned services that provide virtual assistants for tasks similar to what the OP described. I remember looking into it right after I read the 4 hour work week and back then the services listed in the book were completely overrun. I never looked into it again and also never met anyone who actually used it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Those are not assistants. They're not even organizers. They're glorified notification services. And it's natural that he felt overwhelmed after a while. From personal experience I can say that the longer to-do lists you make, the less tasks you end up completing. If I have four-five tasks to do in a day I get everything completed on time. Anything bigger than that and it never gets completed.

<comment><USER4> I really enjoyed Jason Fried's chapter about this in Rework.

"Long lists don't get done" [https://books.google.com/books?id=U77um_h_dgcC&pg=PA125&lpg=...](https://books.google.com/books?id=U77um_h_dgcC&pg=PA125&lpg=PA125&dq=long+to+do+lists+don't+get+done+jason+fried&source=bl&ots=FZh74kzBPb&sig=tEwbXwiGwiWiG5ULpVGbYTfem6g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjR8ISKlorKAhUS2mMKHdnXDokQ6AEIHTAA)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> "Can't get anything done."

All these personal assistants, from the Pilot, to MS Outlook, to the latest smart phone, have the same problem: they don't actually help you get anything done.

You have to have the work flows and discipline to process your "inbox," schedule your calendar, prioritize your work, and DO it.

I know Franklin-Covey and Getting Things Done are still popular, but where are the new tools for THAT?

<comment><USER4> I'm still waiting [looking] for the software that actually helps you process your inbox ~every day without fail.

<comment><USER15> You know, Duolingo gives you "lingots" (aka fake points) for keeping a streak going every ten days.

If there was a add-on that counted every day your inbox was at zero and gave you a meaningless brag, it would have a similar effect to me. There's nothing like getting a tiny useless award to ensure that I do what I should be doing anyway.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Anybody here having real virtual assistants (people you contact via skype/email)? Is it a good or bad experience? How much do you spend per month?

<comment><USER17> As someone who has been around long enough to have had actual (shared) admins/secretaries, I'm not sure I see the value. For travel, for example, someone really needs to understand your preferences well enough to understand and evaluate all the tradeoffs involved. Or they need to be able to reliably evaluate which of the many requests coming into you are really potentially interesting.

Senior execs certainly get real value from long-term admins but that's a different equation.

[EDIT: Of course, to the degree the assistant can find a venue for an event etc., that's something else entirely. But I'm not sure the degree to which the typical virtual assistant can be trusted to do that.]

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I have an iphone 6 but don't use Siri. I don't drive, and I type quickly. Am I missing anything?

I also work from home. So I don't care about the following: driving directions, traffic, weather, sports, appointments (I have very few). Texts also difficult because half are in French, half English (I live in Montreal).

<comment><USER19> Siri has a few useful shortcuts.

"Remind me tomorrow at 11am to go to the dentist".

The reminders app is kind of a piece of shit interface wise. So Siri works really well. I also like "directions to home". I _wish_ I could say "Share my location with Mom for 1 hour" but I can't and that's stupid.

My biggest Siri complaint is it's one and done. You can't modify commands and have to start over. Which is super frustrating if it gets a text almost entirely correctly but misses one word.

Any other useful shortcuts people like?

<comment><USER20> I don't have an agenda, I remember all my appointments (well, all but one, last year I actually forgot one, I'm still really sorry about that but it's the first time this happened in 3 decades so not a bad score). Before I used a cell phone I knew all the phone numbers of all my associates by heart. Now I only remember my own phone number and the one of my old bookkeeper because his never changed and we worked together for 2 decades.

All these 'assistants' that we use, they relieve us from having to remember these things ourselves. But does it actually relieve us or does it in fact cause us to lose a useful skill?

<comment><USER21> Obligatory reference to Plato's _Phaedrus._

> Socrates: At the Egyptian city of Naucratis, there was a famous old god, > whose name was Theuth; the bird which is called the Ibis is sacred to him, > and he was the inventor of many arts, such as arithmetic and calculation and > geometry and astronomy and draughts and dice, but his great discovery was > the use of letters. Now in those days the god Thamus was the king of the > whole country of Egypt; and he dwelt in that great city of Upper Egypt which > the Hellenes call Egyptian Thebes, and the god himself is called by them > Ammon. To him came Theuth and showed his inventions, desiring that the other > Egyptians might be allowed to have the benefit of them; he enumerated them, > and Thamus enquired about their several uses, and praised some of them and > censured others, as he approved or disapproved of them. It would take a long > time to repeat all that Thamus said to Theuth in praise or blame of the > various arts. But when they came to letters, This, said Theuth, will make > the Egyptians wiser and give them better memories; it is a specific both for > the memory and for the wit. Thamus replied: O most ingenious Theuth, the > parent or inventor of an art is not always the best judge of the utility or > inutility of his own inventions to the users of them. And in this instance, > you who are the father of letters, from a paternal love of your own children > have been led to attribute to them a quality which they cannot have; for > _this discovery of yours will create forgetfulness in the learners ' souls, > because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external > written characters and not remember of themselves._ The specific which you > have discovered is an aid not to memory, but to reminiscence, and you give > your disciples not truth, but only the semblance of truth; they will be > hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be > omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, > having the show of wisdom without the reality.

<comment><USER20> It's not obligatory, and it is a nice way to sidestep looking at the question I asked. Sure there are advantages, and I'm fully aware of those. I am just wondering if there is a dis-advantage that may be less visible.

I'm not versed in this matter so my question put in simpler terms is one of attempting to see the flip side of the coin. That books and 'letters' have a downside is reasonably well documented, cultures that do not rely on writing for passing their information down from generation to generation are richly populated with people that perform feats of memory casually that astound those that rely on the written word. That the advantage lies with the 'books' faction seems to be a foregone conclusion (this is usually the case when you compare a human that is augmented with some tool against one that is not so that's a bit of an open door to kick in) but it is always important that almost everything comes with some kind of price tag and if you can't see the price tag you might make the wrong decision in some of these cases.

Just like calculators cause us to become (much) worse in mental arithmetic (but we can do _much_ more complex math in a short time even without the required skills).

<comment><USER21> I'm not sure how that Plato quote demonstrates any advantages. He's talking about how reliance on the written word can erode one's memory. It's precisely about the disadvantages of using external tools that replace internal faculties. I cited it to show that the founding father (if you will) of Western philosophy broadly agreed with your point about "assistants" causing us to lose useful skills.

<comment><USER20> Interesting. I wonder what percentage of the readers took that one way or the other.

Thank you for the addendum. Below a couple of interesting viewpoints on the 'augmented human', I had not considered those. Trying hard to imagine a modern society without the written word, and whether or not such a thing would even be possible. Imagine somehow leaping to a technological society without having writing in between, what would that society look like?

<comment><USER21> There's some tangentially relevant ideas in a book called "The Spell of the Sensuous," and also in various works by McLuhan. I think the basic idea is attributed to Eric Havelock. This essay seems to be relevant though I just started skimming it:

[http://journal.oraltradition.org/files/articles/1i/6_haveloc...](http://journal.oraltradition.org/files/articles/1i/6_havelock.pdf)

But basically the idea is that alphabetic literacy creates a whole new style of abstraction and detachment. Before the alphabet there were pictorial glyphs which are still not very abstract, but after the alphabetic revolution in Greece, Havelock traces a new style of philosophy and thinking in general, starting around the time of Plato.

Maybe you could compare it to something like the development of algebraic geometry, which allows you to say all kinds of new things in an abstract way, because you move to a level of abstraction that's not limited to what you can represent diagrammatically.

Oh, it's called the "alphabet effect": [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphabet_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphabet_effect)

It's at least something to consider when thinking about an alternate history where we didn't use written words. We would probably still have "external memory," but maybe in a more symbolic/pictorial/diagrammatic/geometric way. Perhaps we would even have symbolic algebra and math, taught by oral instruction... It is pretty hard to imagine!

Abram who wrote "The Spell of the Sensuous" has a different argument than Plato. He also critiques writing and the alphabet, not because it ruins memory but because it allows us to retreat from our sensuous embedding in nature, which ultimately helps create a modern world in which we mostly live in a kind of isolation where we are always surrounded by things of human making.

> _Today we participate almost exclusively with other humans and with our own > human-made technologies. It is a precarious situation, given our age-old > reciprocity with the many-voiced landscape. We still need that which is > other than ourselves and our own creations. The simple premise of this book > is that we are human only in contact, and conviviality, with what is not > human._

To try to steer back towards the original conversation... I'm thinking of things like alarm clocks, which are also technological assistants for doing stuff that we used to do ourselves. They also help maintain a kind of abstraction from our surroundings and "natural" premises: they make us independent of sunrise, circadian rhythms, and so on. And maybe they erode a capacity for waking up at the appropriate time without help. Personally I do avoid using them unless I risk missing a flight or something. If I need to wake up early, I prefer to go to bed early enough to give me a reasonable margin. If I tended to oversleep by hours, I'd consider that a symptom of sleep deprivation or something.

<comment><USER20> Our exchange led to this:

[http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog- static/2016/01/a-world-...](http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog- static/2016/01/a-world-building-puzzler.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Semi related, does anybody know how to tell Google to send an sms message through Hangouts? If I say okay Google hangouts message Alice, it sends an hangouts message instead of sms. But if I say okay Google message Alice, it sends it through the old message all instead of Hangouts and takes forever to propagate the conversation to the unified view in Hangouts.

</comment><comment><USER4> > When I send messages, for example, I'm constantly having to correct some > part of them. In about 90 percent of cases, I was better off typing my own > messages or searches -- and then had just wasted 30 seconds doing something > that I could have done more quickly myself.

This is what happens every time I use Siri to dictate more than a sentence too.

</comment><comment><USER22> Facebook M? Magic?</comment>


Wild Ideas - <AUTHOR> http://hanson.gmu.edu/wildideas.html <comment><USER3> The author is obviously some kind of crazy anarchist. Private law system? You mean that all of a sudden people would become customers of multiple legal firms instead of subjects of one big system and will be able to choose laws they like while at the same time not interfering directly with others who chose different laws? You mean that all of a sudden majority would lose its power to dictate minorities how to live their lives and gay people all over the world can start marrying each other simply because they are customers of a different firm by their voluntary choice? I say impossible! We need government. Anyone who says we don't is an anarchist and we all know anarchists are bad for ya.

<comment><USER4> [Edit: Self-righteous anger caused me to stop reading parent post mid-way through and start replying furiously. Nothing to see here.]

Crazy anarchist.

Because there have been no extremely intelligent, logical, level-headed and productive people who are also anarchists.

Start with this guy and get back to me: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard)

If you said "crazy statist" I could maybe agree, since statism is kind of crazy in my opinion, but I think attacking any ideas by disqualifying with adjectives like crazy is extremely narrow-minded and leads to poor results, even if you're talking about statists.

Just because you've never heard of something, don't be so immature to dismiss it without thinking it through... you expose yourself as ignorant of the hard work of many intelligent people that have come before you.

<comment><USER5> Since we're now on the subject. I notice that there seems to be a very high turnover of young people from the various forms of anarchism as they get older.

Would anybody who fits this description like to elaborate on why that happened? Found a convincing argument? General disillusionment with humanity?

<comment><USER6> I was an anarcho-capitalist for awhile. I thought it was the perfect system. There would be absolutely no incentives to do bad things. Anything a government could do, could in theory be done by a voluntary system if enough people agreed it was a good idea or it was a benefit to them to do so.

But I no longer think it's a _perfect_ system. People don't behave like perfect rational market actors, there are edge cases like natural monopolies where normal market mechanisms don't lead to the best outcome, and then there is just enforcing altruism (like looking out for animal rights or children's rights, who couldn't buy legal services under this system, or redistributing income so you don't end up with people starving to death or in poverty.)

Of course the current system we have is so far from a perfect system it makes these problems seem trivial. But at least it seems ok and generally stable, whereas what would happen in an anarcho-capitalist world is a complete unknown.

There still might be a near-perfect system. Robin Hanson's ideas on prediction markets for making policy decisions might be a huge improvement, at least in some areas, and a semi-private legal system for some things might work. And I think libertarian policies in general are better.

<comment><USER7> > Anything a government could do, could in theory be done by a voluntary > system if enough people agreed it was a good idea or it was a benefit to > them to do so.

And we call that system a government.

Seriously. Every time an anarchist seriously gets down to brass tacks about how their world would work, there's some agency by 'the people' which does things which have to be done, and it's indistinguishable from a government. It's just a Good Government, a Responsible Government, and, really, an Ideal Government.

Either anarchy has never happened or it's the only thing that happens. I don't know which is more damaging to the case of doctrinaire capital-A Anarchists.

> a semi-private legal system for some things might work

This is called contract law.

<comment><USER8> > Seriously. Every time an anarchist seriously gets down to brass tacks about > how their world would work, there's some agency by 'the people' which does > things which have to be done, and it's indistinguishable from a government. > It's just a Good Government, a Responsible Government, and, really, an Ideal > Government.

Which are these "things which have to be done" that only a government could take care of?

Crime prevention? Does our government police prevent crime, or just punish criminals? I can argue that without any state-established law criminals would be punished, in some way or another.

Medical services? I think that some people really enjoy being doctors and nurses, and they would associate even without state-mandated organization.

One thing is for sure, we're not ready yet for anything like that, since many necessary services and resources are "scarse", and scarsity makes people fight for their survival with brutal results. But we're (slowly) solving scarsity through science and technology.

<comment><USER9> > Crime prevention? Does our government police prevent crime, or just punish > criminals?

Both.

> I can argue that without any state-established law criminals would be > punished, in some way or another.

Without any state-established law there would be no criminals, just the much broader category of people that other people don't like. Quite arguably, the whole purpose of state-established law is to _limit_ the scope and severity of punishment compared to what happens in the absence of central authority, and to provide clear rules. This aids in deterrence, since, to the extent that antisocial behavior is rational and deterrable, there needs not merely be an expectation of punishment if you do 'wrong', but a clear idea of what 'wrong' is in the context, and a clear expectation that punishment will not be imposed if you do not do 'wrong'.

Certainly, one can argue that modern states are less than ideal in each aspect of this, but that's very different than arguing that they are worse than the absence of a state would be.

> Medical services? I think that some people really enjoy being doctors and > nurses, and they would associate even without state-mandated organization.

The problem here isn't that there would be no medical practitioners apart from a mandate to provide them (after all, most states that provide medical services don't compel people to become doctors and nurses), but that medical services lack features that make it the kind of service modeled well by econ 101 rational choice assumptions, with (among other things) a very high and uncorrectable cost of bad (or even merely incompetent) suppliers.

> But we're (slowly) solving scarsity through science and technology.

We may be reducing the resource costs of some goods and services, but that doesn't solve scarcity (it reduces the opportunity cost of some while _increasing_ the opportunity cost of others, since it is unequal progress, and opportunity cost is what else you could have gotten for the resources you put into getting what you chose.)

Suggesting that we are "solving scarcity" demonstrates a lack of understanding of what "scarcity" means.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Yes, wild ideas except for the "2100" part. The scientific and engineering breakthroughs have been slowing down dramatically in past 50 years or so. Science fiction from 60s and 70s is embarrassingly filled with predictions such as we would have colonies in space, computers indistinguishable from humans, flying cars on street, humankind without poverty and end of cancer by 2020. How close are we? If we go back in time to meet all these writers from 60s & 70s, the major breakthroughs we would have to show for are likes of Instagram and Angry Birds. Yes, I'm downplaying all these increase in computing power and better algorithms in search etc but guess what? Moors law is dead as we know it and search is still keywords in a textbox. To me it looks like we probably had 10 fold increase in human productivity during past 50 years but major portion of it goes towards "enhancing shareholder value" or wars rather than advancing science and technology. So unless this changes somehow, all the magic that can happen is still pretty far in distant, probably much beyond 2100.

<comment><USER11> You're also downplaying the creation of a global communications infrastructure that is nearly ubiquitous and unprecedented in its capacity.

Other than that, no progress at all. /s

<comment><USER6> But how much did the internet actually improve people's lives or change things? The major changes of our time are nowhere near as major as the ones of the last two centuries. Industrialization and mass production and trains and electricity, and massive population growth, and crazy amounts of scientific progress.

Almost all of the major improvements happened early on in the century, not so much in recent times. All the low hanging fruit has been picked. There is never again going to be a single technology that improves people's lives as much as mass adoption of electricity did (short of a singularity at least.) More efficient or even self driving cars compared to today's cars, will be nothing compared to what cars were for horses and trains. No single medical technology is going to have as big of an impact as antibiotics did. Cell phones are not nearly as big of an improvement as the first phones were.

Did the world really change and improve as much between 1970 and now as it did between 1930 and 1970? Did it change as much then as between 1890 and 1930?

<comment><USER12> Mass use of shipping container in 1970s alone has changed more lives than all those inventions from 1930 to 1970 combined.

<comment><USER10> Seriously? The way I see it, containers made transport of goods more _efficient_. Without containers, it was still possible to have all the goods, may be at higher prices, but possible.

<comment><USER13> > may be at higher prices, but possible.

Because lower prices don't affect anyone's lives?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Try this: we don't get alien visitors because space travel is prohibitively expensive. But communication is cheap. So you'd expect the sky to be filled with messages, maximally compressed and/or encrypted, and so indistinguishable from noise: background radiation.

<comment><USER15> The only catch here is that such messages would be prohibitively costly (power wise) to transmit uniformly in all directions. They would be point to point to reduce the power, required to transmit, and increase privacy.

It's difficult to intercept line of sight communications and it's unlikely we'd fall on the line of sight of two hot spots of intelligent communication in all the vastness of space.

Even if they broadcast, I doubt it would be so completely uniform in all directions through long periods of time so as to appear as background.

<comment><USER14> They are point to point. There's just so many, billions more than the number of stars (imagine cell phones radiating point to point), and even alien technology can't prevent beam-spread over billions of light years (another assumption).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> _By 2100 we should be able to scan this info from a frozen brain. If we scan your brain and then build and run a computer simulation of it, someone who remembers being you would wake up and feel alive._

Let's say we are actually able to do that by 2100. Somebody is scanning in patterns and current state of my neural activity. He copies that into a simulation - more than once. Which of the simulations will be _me_? All of them?

Also, it reminds me a bit of Swampman problem : [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swampman](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swampman)

 _If we keep writing down common sense datums until 2100, we can make computers as smart as people._

Would it make them smart or just filled with hard coded knowledge? I would expect that in this case the goal would be to create a system that is able to acquire common sense knowledge on its own from a given environment and reason from it. What we might consider as _common sense_ in our daily lives might not be fully applicable in different situations.

<comment><USER17> I will be your resident biologist tonight (not working in cognition/memory but I will try to make a more general point).

Putting aside the philosophical problems for a moment, the notion that the only relation between a brain and a mind is the pattern of neuronal connections is pretty naive.

The formation and maintenance of memory is controlled at multiple levels: single atoms (ionic gradients determining the polarization of neurons), small chemicals and hormones (e.g. neurotransmitters in the synapses and signalling peptides), DNA (epigenetic control, mainly methylation), proteins (constant synthesis and degradation in the process of memory consolidation and long-term potentiation) and finally cells (pattern of connections between neurons).

I highlight these different levels because they are formed by compounds that are very different from a biological and chemical point of view. You can't just snap-freeze them all in their place. And freezing is the easy part -- how do you thaw a brain and preserve the state of all these components (all of which have different thermodynamic properties)?

Assuming you don't want to thaw it but, as the article suggests, 'scan it' you would have to be able to determine the conformation and activation state of each involved protein and compound, along with all their density gradients in intracellular spaces... Not by 2100, sorry.

Biology is hard because it's all relations, thresholds, gradients and fuzzy logic. To escape this probabilistic haze into a clean world of ones and zeroes -- I read HN.

<comment><USER18> [http://alcor.org/sciencefaq.htm](http://alcor.org/sciencefaq.htm)

[http://alcor.org/Library/html/MolecularRepairOfTheBrain.htm](http://alcor.org/Library/html/MolecularRepairOfTheBrain.htm)

[http://alcor.org/Library/html/nanotechrepair.html](http://alcor.org/Library/html/nanotechrepair.html)

<comment><USER17> The links that you provide make o lot of bold, unsubstantiated claims (outright dismissing protein shedding as 'trivial' borders on funny) so I am not sure whether you are agreeing with me or disagreeing. They are also from the 90's and the understanding of the physiological complexity of the brain has changed a bit since then.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> #2, about health insurance, overlooks a big part of the RAND HIE's findings: people who were sick and poor in the study _did_ have worse health outcomes.

<comment><USER20> The overall result, namely, that at the margin medicine has net-negative effects (i.e., after a certain point more medicine equals worse health) has been replicated many times. See for example this meta-study from 2008 about what happens when health workers go on strike [1]:

"[..] mortality either stayed the same or decreased during, and in some cases, after the strike. [No study] found that mortality increased during the weeks of the strikes compared to other time periods."

The authors speculate about the reasons: "The paradoxical finding that physician strikes are associated with reduced mortality may be explained by several factors. Most importantly, elective surgeries are curtailed during strikes. Further, hospitals often re-assign scarce staff and emergency care was available during all of the strikes."

[1] [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18849101](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18849101)

EDIT: clarity

<comment><USER7> > emergency care was available during all of the strikes.

Interesting. Have there been strikes which made emergency care unavailable?

<comment><USER20> Not that I am aware of. But it is safe to assume that no one doubts the effectiveness of emergency care or most basic procedures in general. However, everything beyond that is likely on average not helpful and might be even harmful.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I have a "science-fictiony" idea that I haven't seen anywhere else yet. The idea is this: If we can see light from planets thousands of light years away, then we can see the past. Once our telescopes are good enough to basically do a "google maps" zoom-in on other planets, we will be able to watche the past on other planets. But then, if we can ever watch our own Earth from a thousand light years away, then we can see what happened in the past. The missing link is for us to be able to travel faster than the speed of light so we can go far enough to view Earth's past.

While not "obvious", I still feel like others have probably thought of this idea. It could make a cool science fiction story.

<comment><USER22> Here's an even crazier version: we develop a quantum computer the size of Jupiter with seemingly infinite computational capacity, and "scan" and simulate the earth. Similar to how a sufficiently advanced AI application today could probably take an overview picture of a pool table at any point in a game, and deduce the past shots that had to be taken in order for it to result in it's current state, you might be able to develop a virtual time machine.

<comment><USER23> That sounds enticing, but I think you could never rewind the state of the Earth without considering the variables external to it. If you couldn't also simulate anything that could alter the course of events, such as exposure to the Sun, I think you'd end up accumulating enough lossy transitions that the simulation would be rendered (ha) worthless in a deterministic sense.

If we consider that only simulating the atoms contained within the Earth is enough to have a perfect understanding of it's state across time, by logical conclusion simulating a house would be enough to rewind the history of it's structure.

<comment><USER6> If you just make assumptions or guesses about external variables, could this work to get at least close to what the past looked like?

I mean the whole idea is kind of ridiculous but in theory, it might work.

<comment><USER24> Chaos theory [1] will make sure that any minor change will result in drastically different result, so assumptions and guesses won't be sufficient. [1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> On the Great Filter, there was a discussion here about an excellent essay on the matter by Nick Bostrom, which I summarized in a comment[1] and extended the thinking. Still haven't read the one linked this time.

[1]: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4842416](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4842416)

</comment><comment><USER22> _Soul Extraction_ \- Assuming that there is a technological singularity at some point in the future, and assuming that time travel is possible[1], but that we've seen no evidence of it because it must be mostly observational in nature in order to prevent disruptions that would create time paradoxes, humanity adopts the practice of _extracting_ the brain/nervous systems (and then replacing w/ equivalent matter) of every human in history at the moment of their death, to live in a post-singularity utopia.

[1]: Einstein, Hawking, and many others have speculated that time travel should be possible, but were ultimately skeptical of it because of the "Where are all of the time travelers?" argument. Fear of the creation of time paradoxes could be the reason why there's no evidence of time travel.

<comment><USER3> Extracting all info out of the brains would be impractical. A lot of the things humans do we do because we are humans. Our emotions only make sense because they are mechanisms of survival and passing our genes. They would be quite impractical in a singularity (although, some other emotions, specific to the digital world, may be employed). So in a sense, I can only see one force in a post-singularity utopia, driving post-humans: knowledge and understanding the beauty of it.

<comment><USER25> What if the "info" is in the heart... And for those who downvoted, you need to read more about the functions of the heart besides blood pumping. The heart has neurons too and an electromagnetic field far stronger than the brain's.

Update: some links

The little brain on the heart: [http://www.ccjm.org/content/74/Suppl_1/S48.full.pdf](http://www.ccjm.org/content/74/Suppl_1/S48.full.pdf)

Does changing the heart mean changing personality? A retrospective inquiry on 47 heart transplant patients: [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1299456](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1299456)

<comment><USER5> Then exactly what would the brain be doing? Then how come when you poke around the brain it changes peoples behaviors?

How come people who get a heart transplant don't become different people?

<comment><USER26> [https://www.google.com/search?q=heart+transplant+food+cravin...](https://www.google.com/search?q=heart+transplant+food+craving)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Mine:

In fifty years ecology will seem as ridicule as we see the middle age crusades now.

The only allowed porn will be animal documentaries.

Economy will be replaced by something that actually works, the same way alchemy has been replaced with chemistry.

High buildings will be considered as dangerous paper castles and cities will be flat.

Having to sit on a desk at work will be considered as belonging to the lowest end of the social scale.

We will run on highways with special shoes and cars will make us laugh at their utter discomfort.

<comment><USER22> Wow, it's like Ed Wood has been reincarnated as an HNer. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> 1\. _Many times each day, your mind permanently splits into different versions that live in different worlds._ True.

2\. _If medicine were taxed so much that people only bought half as much, they would be just as healthy._ False. The "extra" spending in medicine drives innovations so we have better drugs & procedures etc. than we would otherwise.

3\. _If we keep writing down common sense datums until 2100, we can make computers as smart as people._ False.

4\. _If your head is cryogenically frozen today, you will be alive in 2100._ Maybe.

5\. _By 2100, the vast majority of "people" will be immortal computers running brain simulations._ True.

6\. _There 's a five percent chance I live in a "future" computer simulation as I write this._ False - to run simulate sentient beings with so much suffering would be cruel.

7\. _By 2100, world economic growth rates will have increased by over a factor of a hundred._ Maybe - progress & growth keep happening faster and faster.

8\. _The growth of humanity and its descendants will stop forever within a thousand years or so._ False - see _The Beginning of Infinity_ by David Deutsch.

9\. _Our descendants will colonize millions of star systems within ten thousand years or so._ True, if we don't fuck up - again, see _The Beginning of Infinity_.

10\. _The nearest intelligent aliens are many millions of light-years away._ True.

11\. _Billions of years ago, intelligent aliens had a colony near here, but left in a big hurry._ False. It's a bad explanation.

12\. _If we allowed complete freedom of contract, law could be privatized, to our common benefit._ Maybe - I don't know about "complete freedom of contract" (can you sell yourself into slavery?) but privatizing law might be a good idea, eventually.

13\. _If we switched to "futarchy" as a form of government, we would be richer and just as happy._ Maybe - if we're going to deviate from tradition, better to do it in the direction of more freedom and less government control - <USER2> is known to make people richer.

14\. _If even a few of us honestly sought truth, we would not disagree with each other._ True. For any issue, there is an objective truth of the matter, and if people care enough to find out the truth, they should eventually find a theory/explanation of the issue that no has an issue with, at least for a while. People will keep finding new problems with the latest theory, and they'll have to sort that out, but eventually truth-seeking should lead to plateaus of agreement.

<comment><USER29> > 1\. Many times each day, your mind permanently splits into different > versions that live in different worlds. True.

The many-worlds interpretation is nonsense. It's not even science. It makes no testable predictions that differ from any of the other interpretations. I've never understood the weird fascination with "many-worlds". Quantum mechanics provides a very clear set of postulates that allow the prediction of various phenomena through mathematical equations -- that's as far as I read into it.

<comment><USER30> QM provides a clear set of equations that govern how wavefunctions evolve, but some versions also include the notion that wavefunctions collapse when an observation is made, but there are no equations or even firm rules for when this collapse is supposed to happen. Many-worlds is founded on the observation that the equations governing wavefunctions are sufficient in and of themselves to explain the observations that originally led people to believe that waveforms collapse, and that therefore the collapse postulate ought to be discarded as redundant. And because it's spooky action at a distance.

<comment><USER29> > ... but there are no equations or even firm rules for when this collapse is > supposed to happen

That's why it isn't science ;)

Maybe when QM was being developed "collapse" was a debated concept; I'm not too familiar with its history. Currently though, modern QM predicts that ensembles of identically prepared systems select an eigenstate of the linear operator corresponding to whatever observable it is you're measuring. Each of these eigenstates has a probability that can be calculated for it, and the mean value of these measurements is given by <Ψ|A|Ψ>, where A is the operator. I see no implications of collapse with this -- just probabilities of what values you will obtain in experiment.

<comment><USER31> > I see no implications of collapse with this -- just probabilities of what > values you will obtain in experiment.

Not exactly, your statement is correct for single states, however it breaks down for entangled states. When one wavefunction describes two or more particle a measurement on one particle can be thought of collapsing the two particle wavefunction, which then forces the other particle into a well defined state.

Edit, I am not arguing in favour many worlds theory, only that the 'collapse' of the wavefunction is a well developed and useful idea in quantum physics.

<comment><USER29> I guess I just view the wavefunction as an inherently multiparticle function on a configuration space. The concept of approximating single-particle states seems peculiar to me; it seems simpler just to have one state for an entire system (and the corresponding probabilities of what measurements you'll get on that system, regardless of how the system is distributing spatially). Then again, we're coming from different research backgrounds so we probably have a different way of looking at it ;)

Quantum entanglement doesn't seem to be particularly unusual any more so than the fact that electron-electron correlation must be taken into effect when computing energy levels with some kind of QMC. All particles within a quantum system are correlated, so entanglement just kind of falls naturally out of that; I'm not assuming any kind of locality. I suppose what you're saying is that collapse is defined as the process of "fixing" these correlations?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> The Occulus Rift is basically the beginning of the Simulation

</comment><comment><USER33> _If we keep writing down common sense datums until 2100, we can make computers as smart as people._

 _We learn more about brains and making smart computers, but we seem to have run out of major architectural innovations -- better ones won 't make a huge difference. The big stumbling block seems to be how much "common sense" a system knows, like that things tend to fall down when you bump them. One group has been writing these down for fifteen years with moderate success; a century more effort may be plenty._

This seems like a really inefficient way to go about it.

</comment><comment><USER34> The idea of living within a simulation is an odd one, assuming awareness and control over resources. Being somewhat defined by our limitations and then taking away limitations like memory, ability to learn new concepts ("Whoa, I know kung fu") doesn't actually sound like a lot of fun. And that's from someone who views life as a largely intellectual pursuit; it'd be super depressing for those who are defined by physical ability like athletes.

</comment><comment><USER35> 1\. Human cloning 2\. Giant solar collectors the size of states 3\. Pandemics 4\. Self aware computers 5\. Tailored assassination drugs to induce swift cancer 6\. Colonies on the moon 7\. Genetic alteration and enhancement 8\. Thought control 9\. Man and machine war like the Matrix

1\. and 5. are mostly to occur first.

<comment><USER6> Is there any practical purpose in human cloning short of cloning specific organs for replacement? As for tailored drugs to induce cancer, that is rather specific. There are a lot of ways to kill people, not sure if that would be the most efficient. And if you have that level of technology, there might also be dangers like custom made viruses that are super-contagious and 100% lethal.

Which makes #9 more interesting. A war between man and machines would end very quickly if the AI just designs a super-virus and kills 99% of the population overnight.

<comment><USER35> The sequel is that the machines then fight against each other which makes a lot of sense. Mr Smith and all. There will probably always be a struggle to replicate and for resources. It's not specific to humans.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> why don't we take this discussion over to [http://longbets.org/](http://longbets.org/) (and put some money behind it, so eventually people mean what the say)

</comment><comment><USER37> Some of these comments cannot be falsified: \- You could be a computer. \- There could be a colony on earth millions of years ago.

Oh, and he is an economist too! How appropriate. Yep, Dr Hanson, keep up the good work.

<comment><USER37> Here's another one, I just made up:

\- Aliens from billions of years into the future with an infinite source of energy and computational power have managed to slice the universe and put us into the solar system as a simulation. Everything coming back beyond the solar system is simulated, matter and energy alike.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I was thinking the other day that I have seldom seen the purpose of mankind discussed in public (beyond religious belief).

This list of ideas could be an interesting trigger of such discussion.

</comment><comment><USER39> _If we switched to "futarchy" as a form of government, we would be richer and just as happy._

So, what's the point?

</comment><comment><USER40> Migration to millions of star systems in 10,000 years? Speed of light says NO.

<comment><USER41> You don't seem to get what the speed of light is. The speed of light isn't the problem.

Acceleration, time dilation and deceleration are.

But barring the g-forces and enough of an engine we could travel to Alpha Centauri in less than 4 years, which may surprise you. Although that would be less than 4 spaceship years, not less than 4 Earth years.

<comment><USER42> At 1G acceleration, you can accelerate to a large fraction of the speed of light in about a year. A suitable rocket engine does not yet exist, but g-forces and human lifespans don't prevent travel to nearby stars.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> the scariest part of us living in a simulated environment is what happens when the players get bored and decide to turn us off (that thought might have been controlled by one of the players)

<comment><USER44> Who cares? It's not like we'll notice. The scary part is if their equivalent of 4chan gets a hold of the controls.

<comment><USER45> There is another theory that states that this has already happened...</comment></comment></comment>


Truckers Facing Coronavirus Hurdles in Keeping Supply Chains Moving - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/truckers-facing-coronavirus-hurdles-in-keeping-supply-chains-moving-11584564327 <comment><USER2> Now... we're crossing a line. This is one area of the economy that needs to be facilitated, not hindered.

Yes, truckers can transport the virus from one community to another. Yes, there is risk. But in the case of the supply chain, the downsides of losing cargo transport far overwhelm the potential negatives of that transport.

<comment><USER3> I do think that this is one of the ways that the virus is currently spreading.

Evidence for this is on the Covid-19 map at Reuters website. [0]

I noticed that the counties in Texas with reported cases mostly lie along the I-35 corridor, the I-45 corridor, and the I-10 corridor. Then, if you follow I-35 north into Oklahoma you see cases along the route. In fact you can track it all the way to Minnesota along I-35. The exception in Texas is the recent cases coming out of Lubbock County but those could be spring break travel related or related to cases from people visiting relatives in DFW area since a lot of kids go west to Texas Tech from there.

Then I noticed that the Gulf Coast counties affected are along the I-10 corridor. Florida has a lot of cases along the interstates too. I-20 across northern Louisiana in to Baton Rouge. Travel west out of Denver and all the counties in that direction are reporting cases. I-25 from New Mexico into Wyoming has scattered cases in those counties too.

It almost looks like rest areas, convenience store rest rooms, motels, or other sites commonly used by people who travel by car, truck, SUV, or big rigs are focal points for spreading.

One has to wonder how many people who were already infected but who were still asymptomatic decided to take a car trip instead of flight across the country so that they wouldn't get exposed on a plane, and then unwittingly ended up spreading it everywhere.

I don't have city data for the reported cases nor do I have any information on where the infected people worked or whether they traveled but this sure looks a lot like widespread transmission along normal interstate commerce routes.

[0] [https://www.reuters.com/](https://www.reuters.com/)

<comment><USER2> I wouldn't be surprised if it is spreading this way. If not already, then certainly in future.

Having said that, a steady stream of supplies is what will allow everyone else to stay holed-up.

If you can't get the supplies you need to get through the ordeal then you'll start to see individuals go out on far-and-wide "hunting trips" to find those supplies (at best) or you'll start to see societal breakdowns which will give Covid-19 a run for its money on lives and damages.

That's more than just trucks delivering food. It may be trucks delivering electrical equipment to keep refrigeration running, to keep other trucks, moving, etc. Modern life depends on surprisingly deep connections.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XetplHcM7aQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XetplHcM7aQ)

<comment><USER3> Thanks for that video.

I think we are already seeing the beginning of far-and-wide hunting trips if you believe posts in r/Texas subreddit about small towns in Texas.[0]

See u/OutWestTexas comment from yesterday.

[0][https://old.reddit.com/r/texas/comments/fljp1r/how_are_small...](https://old.reddit.com/r/texas/comments/fljp1r/how_are_small_towns_dealing_with_the_corona_virus/)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Google Duplex might make my design job redundant - <AUTHOR> https://thenextweb.com/podium/2019/06/29/google-duplex-gui-ai-design/ <comment><USER2> > _Duplex is making websites redundant. Designers like me are now faced with > the possibility that we could 'optimize' the experience by simply removing > it altogether and have the AI interact with the server instead._

This was one of the original points of HTML and the original design of the web. The Semantic Web meant that 3rd party and automated assistants would be able to control it. Burners-Lee described it like so:

> _I have a dream for the Web [in which computers] become capable of analyzing > all the data on the Web – the content, links, and transactions between > people and computers. A "Semantic Web", which makes this possible, has yet > to emerge, but when it does, the day-to-day mechanisms of trade, bureaucracy > and our daily lives will be handled by machines talking to machines. The > "intelligent agents" people have touted for ages will finally materialize._

Everything goes full circle, and there is nothing new under the sun.

Where voice assistants are concerned, this is a largely unexplored UX space. Voice assistants in the future are not going to be the same as they are today, because our design trends are going to evolve as we learn more.

If those trends move towards predictable interactions over interpreted ones, and if we decide that there are times we want to use assistants without physically talking to them, will we see a resurgence of text-based assistants? Will we eventually go full circle all the way back to command lines, just under a different name?

<comment><USER3> I think today the technology is different, there are more qualified people, and the futurists and the like will make it stick.

Automation and people trying to have everything 'cloud-based' and 'secure' will probably rely on services not just like this, but like time-saving and squared-away solutions like this.

Businesses had no idea of this back when HTML was invented, and now that we understand how that works and that has become such a task that we would benefit greatly from implementing something to get rid of it, who knows!

I think it's worth a shot to automate something like this, which is already tech focused and surrounded by talent, that automating other things will become closer in scope.

That's what it's all about really, time-saving and automation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> That the author considers the command line an archaic mode of human-computer interaction makes it difficult for me to take his commentary on Google Duplex, let alone AI and HCI design, seriously.

Secondly, I have a hard time thinking design is anywhere close to obsolete. Google Duplex sounds like an adapter that will make reservations for you upon voice command. This will not obsolesce anything except a few forms on most websites. Design encompasses _much_ more than how a form looks or functions.

<comment><USER5> They don't say archaic, they say "learning to code is beyond the reach of most people", which seems like a fair statement.

My kids learned how to use touchscreens as babies. They learned how to manipulate GUIs around the time they entered school. But they still regard my terminal window as black magic, and I'm not sure how to even _start_ explaining what's happening when I punch in commands.

That said, I agree the article is overstating the impact this will have: computers talking to computers has been a thing for a long time, they just use APIs (which are carefully crafted to be as umambiguous as possible) instead attempting to parse ambiguous human speech and pipe it into arbitrary web pages.

<comment><USER6> > and I'm not sure how to even start explaining what's happening when I punch > in commands.

Though perhaps not trivial, it seems easier than, say, explaining what you're doing when you fix/manipulate things on a car engine.

The terminal uses a form of language to give commands, and the result is the execution of the command and/or some sort of printed output.

`ls -lah` could be explained as 'a fast way of inputting' the equivalent of "Alexa, tell me in detail what files are in this directory". (Yes, you would have to explain something basic about files and directories, but that still seems reasonable.)

<comment><USER7> FWIW, I've given this talk to people unfamiliar to the terminal and they've been able to get the gist of how basic things work in under an hour.

<comment><USER8> That's because finding people unfamiliar with the terminal that are willing to spend an entire hour in front of a terminal learning how to use it is the hard part.

<comment><USER6> My original suggestion was envisioned as a 3–5 minute explanation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> "Tony Aube - Design @ Google" This is an advertisement.

</comment><comment><USER10> I absolutely hate to use voice-controlled assistants. Not because they are annoyingly dumb, not because they can only be good in areas their developers prepared them, but because this way of communication is much slower and absolutely not private, at all. Maybe most of the population currently is living lonely, but I have family and I'm not ready to speak out my web surfing to them. Even more stupid it would be to do in office or train, plane. Only good place for voice-controlled assistants is a car, I think. And a spaceship.

<comment><USER11> I'm not sure it's the slowest. In fact according to this chart it could potentially be one of the fastest: [https://www.wired.com/2016/01/phil- kennedy-mind-control-comp...](https://www.wired.com/2016/01/phil-kennedy-mind- control-computer/amp)

(Seems i can't link the actual image but in the article there's a chart that breaks down the speed/information density of different types of communication.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> At each stage, the most expert remaining users are left behind. Many professionals extensively use the CLI. The majority of the remaining professionals use a traditional GUI on a traditional OS. Most people using smart phone UIs are not professionals, but some of them are fairly expert in their interactions. Those using AI UIs are generally just crossing their fingers to avoid pulling their phone out.

Maybe someday AI will be a legitimate user interface, but I don't think we know what that looks like yet.

<comment><USER13> I think we know what we want it to look like - like a conversation with another human, but we don't know how to get there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> This isn't necessarily on-topic, but how is Duplex going to deal with Captchas -- particularly when its doing 100% automated things like remembering to book an appointment in the future?

Are we going to see an industry shift away from the belief that a physical human needs to be at a website in the future? Is there going to be some kind of back-door where Duplex won't need to solve Google Captchas?

It's hard for me to look at Duplex without thinking that it's something of an admission that bots and automated assistants are a legitimate way to interact with the web, and that we should be trying to block behaviors, not agents.

<comment><USER14> Yes, on the last. Captchas are meant to increase revenue by decreasing fraud, not blocking AI from helping customers spend money on your service.

<comment><USER15> Yes, but both AI and fraudsters use bots. How would the site operator know if it's a benign bot or not?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Something seems off here, the google AI was probably trained on these designed forms, to be able to fill them.

If designers then stop creating these forms, then what will the AI use? Seems like some kind of API would be needed, but typical REST API is not detailed enough to support this.

So the API would somehow need to be created (potential job for UX person) or inferred from something.

</comment><comment><USER17> Sensationalist headline. This totally ignores the fact that not all of web traffic is transnational; a sizable percentage of it is—surprise surprise—for leisure, and in those cases there is no substitute for interacting with an interface directly.

</comment><comment><USER18> Wasn't 2016 supposed to be the year of the chatbot? Whatever happened to that?

These things have been around for years. There was a MIT Media Lab demo long ago. It's basically Amazon Echo for services, right? Google might make this work by insisting that services offer an API that they can call to get business from Google users. Of course, Google will want a cut of the revenue.

They'll probably get it going for food delivery and car services, then bail on anything that isn't basically online ordering. Airline reservations, maybe. Doctor appointments, probably not. Appointments with important individuals, unlikely.

</comment><comment><USER19> An interesting article. An 'existence proof' of (reasonably) effective voice UI interactions is the Apple Watch. I find it liberating to leave my phone at home and still stay connected with my watch.

To use the example in the article, I can imagine making the request to Siri on my watch, having Siri read back a reservation, followed by "is this OK?"

</comment><comment><USER20> The "punch card, command line, GUI, touch screen" chart makes no sense in "facilitating HCI". Touch screens are simply an input method for GUIs. Why not include voice input, eye tracking or gestures in that case?

</comment><comment><USER14> This is why watches are a big deal. Being able to talk to your watch and have it order for you, show images.

Too bad I hate wearing watches.

</comment><comment><USER21> "Our proprietary locking product will replace the now common standard and open way of doing it"

No thanks

</comment><comment><USER22> Right. Remember when the radio eliminated the need for books, magazines and newspapers?

</comment><comment><USER23> NLP is the future.</comment>


Eden (YC S15) Launches to Offer On-Demand Electronics Repair and Installation - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2015/05/28/yc-backed-eden-launches-to-offer-on-demand-electronics-repair-and-installation/ <comment><USER2> If I understand well you set up a time with the customer, it's not "a la Uber" right? Minimum 6 hours in advance.

I have read one of the founders had that pain with his family. Does any of the founders work or have worked as IT Technician before? Have you ever experienced the service by yourselves and perform the service before going live to make sure you have a good workflow? There are many right now in this space but, none seems to have the background to really make a difference.

As a "tech pro" myself is there a place to find more information about working with you? How much does the tech earn x service? Is it related to the final rating?

How do you compare yourself against Geekatoo, Techy, HelloTech, Convoy, Boomtown...

Thanks and best of luck!

<comment><USER3> Thanks so much for your question Jordigg. I'm one of the co-founders at Eden. Each of the founders have been serving as tech support for their families for their whole lives. Half of our team is very technical and we have been building computers since middle school. While we have not worked as IT technicians, we know our way around. In addition, Susie, our head of ops was previously at Instacart where she had the experience of managing / coordinating 100's of contractors. We have tech pros in our office on a daily basis and learn more about the how to improve our processes. We very much have the intellectual curiosity, technical skills and operational background to deliver a great experience to both our customers and tech pros.

In terms of employment, we would love to talk to you. We are bringing on the bay area's best tech pros at the moment and it sounds like you have experience! Compensation wise, our tech pros are all earning market rates and increasing their total compensation through a greater volume of jobs. Please email me at firstname.lastname@example.com. I'd be happy to chat more and tell you what makes us different.

<comment><USER2> Thanks for your answer unfortunately I'm not from SF, not even from the US but hope I can move soon. I'll be happy to give Eden a try once it's available close to me. Continue the good work this summer :)

<comment><USER3> Sounds great! Let us know when you arrive!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I hope this succeeds - I'm not fond of geeksquad, and using craigslist has highly variable rates of quality. Joe - how are you sourcing your contractors, and how can I be assured they deliver high quality?

<comment><USER5> Hi late2part. I'm Head of Ops here at Eden. All our Tech Pros have at least 5+ years of experience (no junior techs here) and go through a 4 step vetting process that includes skills assessment, in-person meeting, and background check. We accept less than 5% of Tech Pros who apply and customers rate Tech Pros after every job, which creates accountability. Thanks for asking and I hope you'll think of us when you need 5-Star service :)

<comment><USER6> Customer ratings for the pros doesn't create accountability unless there is an action behind it. What are you doing as a company to enforce accountability?

Anyways, congrats on YC and the launch.

EDIT: wanted to say that your site looks awesome and it's definitely nice to see the language around how you are picking your hires.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hi all -- My name is Joe Du Bey, and I am the co-founder and CEO of Eden (YC S15). I am happy to take any questions that you may have (or feedback, which I'd love). Thanks!

</comment><comment><USER7> Eden Team,

Congratulations on the Launch!! Though I personally cannot utilize your service as I am staying far from where you guys are operating (India), I would love to see such a professional solution available in my city. Any plans of expanding to other countries like India, where the potential is huge (considering the number of Smartphone, Computer and Other electronic gadgets users). Let me know if you have any plans and I'll be happy to assist you. Good Luck!!

</comment><comment><USER8> Direct link to the website: [https://www.edentech.co/](https://www.edentech.co/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, kolev!

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> There is a nagging horizontal scroll bug on your site. I think one of the DIVs is overshooting the width.

<comment><USER3> Thanks for the feedback, flipmonk. What's your OS / Browser / Resolution? Maybe I can repro.

<comment><USER9> OS X, Chrome 43, 1920x1200

<comment><USER3> Thanks! We'll check it out

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Lets say a tech pro comes to my house and he does a repair and the job is well done. Now I tell him that next time I am gonna call him directly so that he doesn't have to lose his commission to Eden. He agrees. How have you tackled this situation?</comment>


8 Surprising Ways to Win Over Tough Customers - <AUTHOR> https://www.nextiva.com/blog/8-surprising-ways-to-win-over-tough-customers.html <comment><USER2> The most important one is of course at the bottom of the list: 8\. Know When to Call it Quits.</comment>


Rate my Startup: Quicklyst, a note-taking application - <AUTHOR>

Hello HN. I'd like to thank you all for the sheer amount of resources and discussions available on this site that are just a search away. They're great for helping make decisions.
I just launched Quicklyst in the spirit of "launch a product you're embarrassed about" and "launch early." Tell me what you think.
http://www.quicklyst.com/
It's a note-taking app that has an outline-style textbox. It has automatic Kindle delivery for notes (yeah, I copied Instapaper on that one), printable study guides, and a DuckDuckGo zero-click info feature. I tried my best to keep the interface simple, but I have explanations of the features at:
http://www.quicklyst.com/guide
And one question: Should I go freemium? I figure it's easy to switch to freemium, but hard to switch back. <comment><USER2> There seems to be a bug...

If I start a new note (the note I started is called "Bananas are great because:"), add a line, then add another line by pressing enter...then press tab to indent, it won't let me do a ( character.

I wanted to make:

Bananas are great because:

They are full of potassium

\---(Thanks, Honey I Shrunk The Kids)

but it wouldn't let me make the ( symbol. Cool though :). As far as charging for something like this...I don't know if I personally would ever pay for it. What benefit am I getting from this that I don't get from emailing notes to myself?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback! I'm fixing that right now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> could you explain the technology behind the scene?

<comment><AUTHOR> It runs on Google App Engine, and I'm using the standard webapp framework on App Engine, using the basic Datastore API. I use jQuery for the basic interactions and jQuery UI for the buttons and icons (as well as some of the CSS-related stuff). I use Jinja2 for templates, and the gae-sessions package for session management. I use the DuckDuckGo JSON API to get the zero-click info. Overall, there's not a whole lot of code to be honest, since I use so many third-party tools.</comment></comment>