The Human Brain Can Create Structures in Up to 11 Dimensions - <AUTHOR> https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-find-evidence-the-human-brain-can-create-structures-in-up-to-11-dimensions <comment><USER2> Key to understanding the thesis:

"They found that groups of neurons connect into 'cliques', and that the number of neurons in a clique would lead to its size as a high-dimensional geometric object (a mathematical dimensional concept, not a space-time one)."

Edit-more to the point;

""Networks are often analysed in terms of groups of nodes that are all-to-all connected, known as cliques. The number of neurons in a clique determines its size, or more formally, its dimension," the researchers explained in the 2017 paper."

<comment><USER3> Right. In other words, it has nothing to do with the human brain creating structures in 11 dimensions. It's a total misreading of the science.

This particular claim has been making the rounds for quite some time. It's total rubbish.

<comment><USER4> > In other words, it has nothing to do with the human brain creating > structures in 11 dimensions.

I think you misread that. It means that the title is technically correct but relies on a different definition of the term 'dimension', not that the title is wrong.

<comment><USER3> I don't agree. The brain does not create structures in up to 11 dimensions, full stop. This is a popular science article. To use that word from standard vocabulary to describe something that just happens to use the same word as some utterly esoteric mathematical definition is misleading at best. And then to imply that the brain creates such structures is just compounding the problem.

What about, "The amazing connectivity of the human brain", or "Researchers unravel the mathematics of connections in the human brain"?

There's absolutely no need to confuse readers by conflating unrelated concepts.

I could make up my own definition of dimension, e.g. the dimension of a manifold needed to embed some bizarre variety with some cleverly defined homological correspondence to slices of brain material I looked at under the microscope, thought of as simplices. I might then get 276 dimensions. Do I then get a press release for this? It's utterly meaningless. "Mathematician discovers that our brains live in a 276 dimensional universe".

<comment><USER5> > _To use that word from standard vocabulary to describe something that just > happens to use the same word as some utterly esoteric mathematical > definition is misleading at best._

So are we trying to raise or lower the quality of public discourse? If a journalist uses a technical term in a headline, and then goes on to explain what the term means in the article, how is that not fine? It sounds like you only want journalists talking at a eighth grade level.

Why don't you try to re-write the findings yourself then? I think you'll find it difficult to say the least. Your first obstacle might be finding a better word to describe the mathematical shape of the structures other than 'dimension'. That's what mathematicians use, why can't journalists use it too?

<comment><USER6> Journalists of all people should understand the connotation of words.

The title was likely picked to be confusing on purpose as click-bait. Misleading headlines lower the quality of public discourse.

<comment><USER4> > Misleading headlines lower the quality of public discourse.

Misleading headlines only affect people who have not read the article. People who have not read the article, or can't bother to read the article, are essentially incapable of giving a proper high-quality response to the article.

I don't see how you can lower the quality of discourse any further than someone commenting on an article that they didn't read.

<comment><USER6> Time is a valuable commodity, it is disingenuous to trick people into reading articles through the use of clickbait headlines.

The article itself also continues to conflate the definitions of dimension by referring to 3-D. When little timmy draws a star on his paper we don't say "congrats on your 5 dimensional drawing".

<comment><USER4> > Time is a valuable commodity,

Right, so don't waste other people's time by commenting on an article that you haven't properly read.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Tangential but I've always thought it may be possible for a human brain to experience higher spatial dimensions, it's just that all it ever experiences is 3. Imagine a video game is designed in 4 spatial dimensions and is fed directly into the brain through a neuralink type interface. The brain is pretty adaptable, would the recipient correctly experience those 4 dimensions?

<comment><USER8> Probably not exactly what you're talking about but you are aware of the indie game "Miegakure"?

<comment><USER9> There's nothing to be aware of; Miegakure has been vaporware for a decade.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Tangential question: What are good ways to visualize multidimensional data? Excel etc can chart 3D data, but even that is hard because stuff overlaps. And years ago, I had some Excel code that generated 3D views of 4D data.

But with five or more dimensions, it's too tedious and unworkable. So I end up guessing a lot about what projections are useful. It's like that story about blind people trying to perceive an elephant.

Anyway, just thought I'd ask.

<comment><USER7> Use non spatial dimensions as well, like color, size, and shape. You can also use clever projections like t-sne to reduce the number of dimensions while retaining some of the structure of the data ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJVL80Gg3lA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJVL80Gg3lA))

<comment><USER11> There's an improvement to T-SNE called UMAP

<comment><USER12> I've used them both recently and couldn't really tell which one is visually better; UMAP is supposed to be a bit faster though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is going to be used by woo woo types for years. Did you know that our brains operate in 11 dimensions? Or, how can we get our brains to operate in all the dimensions it's capable of? Or, brains operate in 11 dimensions...and the soul makes up the other seven. Seven? That's a spiritual number. Etc...

That guy who looks like David Spade with a brain tumor on Ancient Aliens will be all over this.

The article is super interesting. I'm just enjoying imagining how someone will tie this to the great pyramid of Giza.

<comment><USER14> I wonder what is the underlying urge behind the woo purveyors. There is more than a lifetime's worth of weird trippy stuff that is 100% legit. There's no need to muddy the waters; mystery abounds in the real world.

<comment><USER15> It's hard to be an expert in Legit. You're instantly the sole authority on woo you invent.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I remember reading this article few years back.

> A version of this story was first published in June 2017.

It seems like they just reposed it and added "back in..." It would be more honest if they would just have "news from the past years section". Trying to sneak old articles as news in the front page is bad form.

</comment><comment><USER17> I hate these titles, clickbait articles of that magnitude are just unacceptable to science.

</comment><comment><USER18> There is a great video serie by infinite series[1] that goes into detail how the neural network of a brain processes information. The way I understand it is that the more abstract thoughts can are represented as higher dimensional structures of a directed graph.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akgU8nRNIp0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akgU8nRNIp0)

</comment><comment><USER19> Here is a direct link to the paper from 2017: [https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fncom.2017.0004...](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fncom.2017.00048/full) (paper has 102 citations according to google scholar see [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=1164894527853060941...](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=11648945278530609413&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en) )

regarding "dimension" it's used in this sense of dimension of a simplex:

> Following the conventions in algebraic topology, we refer to directed > cliques of n neurons as directed simplices of dimension n-1 (which reflects > their natural geometric representation as (n-1)-dimensional polyhedra) (see > Figure S2; Section 4.1.3). Correspondingly, their sub-cliques are called > sub-simplices.

Figure S2 is in the Supplemental Material (and extra PDF 15 page of bonus materials) [https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fncom.2017.0004...](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fncom.2017.00048/full#supplementary- material)

Also related def'n on wikipedia: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplex#Algebraic_topology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplex#Algebraic_topology)

From what I understand of simplex of dim n-1 == clique of n neurons (in a directed graph) [https://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~daddel/linear_algebra_appl/App...](https://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~daddel/linear_algebra_appl/Applications/GraphTheory/GraphTheory_9_17/node10.html)

</comment><comment><USER20> > _Just to be clear - this isn 't how you'd think of spatial dimensions (our > Universe has three spatial dimensions plus one time dimension), instead it > refers to how the researchers have looked at the neuron cliques to determine > how connected they are._

> _" Networks are often analysed in terms of groups of nodes that are all-to- > all connected, known as cliques. The number of neurons in a clique > determines its size, or more formally, its dimension," the researchers > explained in the 2017 paper._

Can anyone give me a coherent summary of what this (both the quoted paragraphs and the entire article) is _trying_ to say?

</comment><comment><USER21> Personally the best abstraction I've seen for how the brain works is a "pointer and cell machine" similar to how people introduce s-expressions. It works well with how I find myself thinking about lists (like the alphabet) where I have to "cdr" down it to find any of the items.

<comment><USER22> Could you elaborate? I'm not familiar with the terms you use and I don't understand the parallel you're drawing when I look them up.

<comment><USER23> A cell holds some datum (like "Q" and all its associations) and a pointer is something that can reference another cell, for example ("Q", <rest of alphabet after Q>) includes a pointer to the rest of the alphabet after "Q". This (datum <ptr to the rest>) pair is exactly the LISP list, usually written as s-expressions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> 11D tensor? Where would that get us with TensorFlow? To hierarchical attention?

<comment><USER24> Hahaha!

Surely you must be trolling ;)

spoiler alert: in math and physics, the dimension of a tensor is simply the dimension of your space, i.e. the number of basis vectors, and the number of indices is called the order (also degree or rank) while datamonkeys on MatrixBurp or TensorFart call the latter the "dimension" and the former ... the ... euh depth? So just like many here are objecting on the usage of "dimension" in the submitted article, (s)he is trolling the very same practice many ML people do with respect to mathematicians and physicists regarding the "dimension" of a tensor.

so in math or physics terminology an 11-dimensional rank 2 tensor would take up just 11 ^ 2 = 121 values, while a 2-dimensional rank 11 tensor would take up 2 ^ 11 = 2048 values.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Wow what a title to make me feel stupid, a handful of covariants is enough to confound me nevermind 11.

</comment><comment><USER26> I dislike that we can't downvote.

<comment><USER27> FYI downvoting is possible, just have to reach a certain karma threshold(500 I think?)

<comment><USER28> Your parent is likely referring to downvoting on submissions as opposed to comments. Submissions can only be upvoted or flagged, not downvoted.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> It's kind of spooky that M-Theory (a unified consistent version of string theory) has 11 dimensions.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory)

Simulation much?

<comment><USER30> I thought this straight away. It made me think that the brain's structure has evolved in resonance with the fundamental dimensionality of the universe.</comment></comment>


Coffee Cup Egg Hunt - <AUTHOR> http://www.coffeecup.com/egghunt/

<comment><AUTHOR> I did search and this does not appear to have been posted previously. Sorry if it does turn out to be a duplicate.

I am posting this primarily because I found it a fascinating promotional effort. Though it is not over, so you can still participate, but that is not really my reason for posting it. Participating has been valuable experience and food for thought for me. I learned a lot about what they do, used one of thier free trials for something I had no idea existed but is very relevant to my current needs, and combed through a lot more pages than I would have out of mere curiosity or even for shopping/comparison/research purposes. Altogether valuable experience which I think will help me improve my own websites, though (disclaimer): I did win something too. :)</comment>


Gradual typing for Clojure - <AUTHOR> http://frenchy64.github.io/2015/06/19/gradual-typing.html <comment><USER2> I gave $150 and I hope every other Clojure developer does the same. I think this project is very important. Having a clean bridge from dynamic programing to typed programming gives us an important way to document our own learning process.

In my blog post "How ignorant am I, and how do I formally specify that in my code?" I tried to communicate why I think this is important. I am not sure I found the correct words, but the idea is that when I start on a problem, especially a problem I've never dealt with before, I don't want to specify a contract because I consider myself too ignorant to specify a contract. The flip side of that is when you see a contract in my code, you know that you are looking at a bit of code where I feel I have overcome ignorance and learned enough to specify something strict.

"[http://www.smashcompany.com/technology/how-ignorant-am-i- and...](http://www.smashcompany.com/technology/how-ignorant-am-i-and-how-do-i- specify-that")

<comment><USER3> Interesting. I love the notion of specifying (implicitly or explicitly) your level of confidence in code or model.

That said, I find my experience differs around the following:

 _" [W]hen I start on a problem, especially a problem I've never dealt with before, I don't want to specify a contract because I consider myself too ignorant to specify a contract."_

I find that's precisely when I find types the most valuable. I can start to sketch out the properties that I think should hold, and the type checker helps me think ahead and catch inconsistencies before I've coded all the way to them.

It also helps me write not-quite-right code at the outset with confidence, knowing that as I discover _that_ I'm wrong about things I will have assistance in finding _where_ I am wrong about things, and hopefully more quickly get to sufficiently right and sufficiently complete code.

I recognize that much of this is subjective, may well not apply to everyone, and might even be wrong (it's a hard thing to measure)... but I thought I'd share my POV.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> My understanding is that gradual typing, indeed all of the interesting cases considered here, can be well understood through the introduction of an `Any` type to the normal typed language. A contract is then a coercion `Any -> Maybe t` for some subtype of `Any`, `t`, which is being demanded.

The interesting technology thus is the "injection" `t -> Any` which is universally valid but appears to have its own contract attached as well which attempts to prevent a consume of such an `Any` from using the type `t` incorrectly.

<comment><USER5> I don't think the above scheme works, except for primitive cases. Say in your example the type t is Int->Int. The Halting Problem says we cannot determine if a given dynamically typed function matches this type: we must actually run the function and then look at the result. So we cannot do the type checking at the point of "unwrapping" the Maybe.

<comment><USER6> Right, I think when you have a Dyn, you import all untyped code as type Dyn or containing Dyn. Then the idea is, when you unwrap a Dyn function at runtime, to distribute the function checks to the domain and range of the function.

Say you had some untyped function `f` that is Dyn -> Dyn.

(defn f [a :- Dyn] :- Dyn a)

Running

(inc (f 1))

would wrap 1 in Dyn, then a Dyn exits as a return value, so no further wrapping is needed. Now it's `inc`'s responsibility to ensure it's really being passed a number, so it unwraps the Dyn and finds an int inside.

So you're right - it only works with first-order values without this kind of machinery, which end up looking pretty much like what I talk about in the article.</comment></comment></comment>


5G Underwhelms in Its First Big Test - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/5g-underwhelms-in-its-first-big-test-11577788203 <comment><USER2> What did people expect? Unless you have an antenna literally pointing in every window of your apartment, reliable 5G ends at the first external wall. It is borderline line-of-sight. Middle of Time Square? Sure. Inside a stadium watching the Olympics? It will work there too. In the parking structure under that stadium? No.

<comment><USER3> What you are referring to is mmWave part of the 5G. Which is what media hyped about. Reality is 5G is many things, and it will improve once there are more mobile phone supporting it.

On one hand I think most of the public are far too hyped with 5G. On the other hand you have people who dont fully understand 5G saying 5G is absolutely useless.

Sometimes I wonder how should one report these sort of news, if you go into too much details most people dont want to understand, but if you mention all the pros without the cons you will left reader not fully informed.

<comment><USER4> It's easy to report: talk about what stuff is actually being implemented in the next 6 months. The problem is you won't get as many people to read your article because what 5G could do in some places in 5 years if you believe the carrier press releases sounds a lot more fantastic than what it actually means for people now.

The same thing happened with "4G" (which never became the actual 4G standardized in 2009).

<comment><USER3> It is a Chicken and Egg problem. Lots of the basic 5G infrastructure should be in places when they were testing Massive MIMO in 3GPP R13 /14\. As far as I am aware ( not well versed in the US situation ), there were no new Sub 6Ghz Spectrum for 5G, so unless you are T-Mobile which refarm the whole 600Mhz for 5G, you are stuck with Refarming part of your 4G Spectrum at the expenses of current 4G users and capacity.

>The problem is you won't get as many people to read your article

I guess that is the biggest problem of all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's incremental - the idea that there'll be significant new industries because we can now do 4k60fps video over cell is not yet proven. Mostly just that people will continue to stop using cable and land lines for entertainment.

</comment><comment><USER6> 4G was absolute garbage when it first came out. It was VERY spotty and would die randomly. I would reserve judgement for now. I'm hoping that honestly good, wireless home internet will be the result of this though.

<comment><USER2> Glad you have 4G. We are still waiting. Less than half the area of my province/state (BC) has any cell coverage. I live 5km from an international airport, but at this rate 5G won't be at my house for a decade or more.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The main benefit of 5G is for the cell carriers. With more spectrum available and various channels usable in a more efficient way they can provide more total bandwidth if they want to. Seems likely they will just slowly inch up the speeds in a game of chicken with the various carriers. Of course they will whitelist speedtest.net. :)</comment>


The underrated new[] { } in C - <AUTHOR> https://blog.jonstodle.com/the-underrated-new-in-c/ <comment><USER2> Not in C, in C#. It's a vast difference.

</comment><comment><USER3> This also works with dictionaries.

new[] { {"", ""}, {"", ""} }</comment>


Soviet 3D printing is coming: serial numbers of printed objects - <AUTHOR> https://www.nextinpact.com/news/107894-impression-3d-au-ministere-culture-charte-pour-tracer-lensemble-reproductions.htm <comment><USER2> This is a French article behind a paywall!

The idea is to enforce intellectual property rights by pleading a serial number on each reproduction and giving "3D art trust" label to it.

</comment><comment><USER3> This article is in French and is behind a paywall.</comment>


Envelope with deadly poison ricin intercepted at U.S. Capitol's mail facility - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/16/us/tainted-letter-intercepted/index.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Letter was reportedly sent to Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.).

Source: [http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/roger-wicker-letter- ri...](http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/roger-wicker-letter- ricin-90171.html)</comment>


Ask HN: What weekend Project to show off ability to develop in other languages? - <AUTHOR>

My job has me in OO PHP, Javascript, and Actionscript, I used to program in C++, Java, ASP.net, I haven't in 5+ years and I want to apply to jobs that use those languages and perhaps others, what kind of project can I do to show potential employers that I can still program in other languages? Are tutorial projects enough? <comment><AUTHOR> Found a good list of projects [http://www.dreamincode.net/forums/topic/78802-martyr2s-mega-...](http://www.dreamincode.net/forums/topic/78802-martyr2s-mega- project-ideas-list/)

Going to also find open source projects

</comment><comment><USER2> This a list of projects I'd like to implement, a couple of them are there only because I want to learn the specifics about a language/tool: [http://mheroin.com/projects](http://mheroin.com/projects). Some I consider fun:

* Basic HTTP Server in X language (Go in my case)

* Controversipedia: Take a dump of Wikipedia, publish only the controversy/criticism of entries.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, cool ideas, Ya you could also make that eventual tweet for linked in and facebook, I hope you get some time to start chipping away at these.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Knowing a language versus getting creative with it is different. Perhaps start with criteria for a project larger then a todo app. The project would need to deal with databases, session / account management, tracking input/output, maybe some calculations, parsing, multiple forms/screens, and maybe reporting, anything else? But would that all make it a bit much for it's worth to an employer?

</comment><comment><USER3> Maybe try and contribute to an open source project? Find some bugs and create fixes, I'm sure it will look good on your resume and you'll be helping out the community at the same time :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Ya I like that it would be code that would be used and scrutinized.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> RSS readers seem the app-de-jour :)

</comment><comment><USER5> MP3 player.

<comment><AUTHOR> nice though I think it needs more breadth of development involved. but perhaps it could grow to something more complex, perhaps I need to look at final projects found in text books.

<comment><USER6> This could be pretty broad. You could take it all the way from the DSP of working with the MP3 encoded audio to gui design and development. It would also show a great deal of skill in overall application architecture.</comment></comment></comment>


Why all new tech startups have stupid names - <AUTHOR> http://www.canadianbusiness.com/innovation/why-all-new-tech-startups-have-stupid-names/ <comment><AUTHOR> I find this issue to be crazy yet creatively stimulating at the same time... I have spent tons of hours trying to find alternative spellings of my startups in order to find available URLs. I just sit on the GoDaddy app searching. One thing I noticed is it seems that GoDaddy engages in squatting and reselling as "Premium" URLs...</comment>


The Loop - <AUTHOR> http://codex.wordpress.org/The_Loop

<comment><AUTHOR> This is the most bizarre (and confusing) iteration pattern I have ever seen. The documentation for have_posts([http://codex.wordpress.org/Function_Reference/have_posts](http://codex.wordpress.org/Function_Reference/have_posts)) shows a pretty silly fail case as well.</comment>


Chrome's experimenting with URL display again. Truth is, humans can't read URLs - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/jaffathecake/status/1272777814891266049 <comment><USER2> I'm not really in the habit of watching rambling videos, shame the tweet author won't articulate his position in a thread instead of responding to all commentators "did you watch the video????"</comment>


FreeBSD 10.0-RC1 now available - <AUTHOR> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2013-December/076231.html

<comment><USER2> I'll take that as an opportunity to remind you of the FreeBSD Foundation's Year-End-Fundraising campaign (I gave them some money for the first time just last week, to support some of the awesome work they have been doing) [https://www.freebsdfoundation.org/donate/](https://www.freebsdfoundation.org/donate/)

</comment><comment><USER3> They've published a change summary on the wiki:

[https://wiki.freebsd.org/WhatsNew/FreeBSD10](https://wiki.freebsd.org/WhatsNew/FreeBSD10)

<comment><USER4> So... no pkgng? I thought that was going to be the default in FreeBSD 10.

<comment><USER5> Pkgng is indeed the default in FreeBSD 10. That page is a useful collection of notes on changes in the base system, but isn't an official changelog of the release engineering team.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I don't have much experience of FreeBSD, but I'm curious about it: for what purposes is FreeBSD used? Is it common in some work environments?

<comment><USER7> I'm not an expert, but based on my experience I can tell you following:

1\. it is not a Linux, it is a Unix system; 2. it used mostly on servers, stable as centos/red hat/other solid linux; 3. can be used on desktop too; 4.it has a great support for ZFS

I personally used it for a few years, but when I started to develop using java, had to switch to linux...

I'm sure people with more experience can tell you more... but I personally like some parts more on FreeBSD than on Linux (like directory structure, device naming (no eth1,2...)) it just makes sense. IMHO

<comment><USER8> ". it is not a Linux, it is a Unix system;"

I've (often) wondered - what does this mean for practical purposes?

<comment><USER9> It's a tool which is used by engineers, computer scientists and researchers. Focusing on your question for the / _practical_ / meaning of 'it's not linux...' outside what I explained in a previous comment that it's Berkeley UNIX unencumbered, though we do have the "one true awk"; Another diff would be that it's not a pure clean room implementation like the GNU operating system. BSD is over 35 years old and served us all well.

If you haven't had an opportunity to explore FreeBSD it's worthy to explore your options and toolsets if for any reason to be a well rounded hacker and also to understand the freedom and choices you have to make your own educated decision on the tools which you find practical for your own purposes.

<comment><USER8> I'm very familiar with OpenBSD, the BSDs in general, and Linux. I'm really interested in the statement, "It's not a linux, it's Unix" \- and I'm wondering if that statement really has any meaning.

I completely agree with you that understanding the licensing, the freedoms you chose, the wonderful documentation and great integration you get from the BSDs are all important - but that's really a question of "What is the practical difference between choosing an OpenBSD versus a Linux System" \- which is somewhat different than making the blanket statement, "It's not a Linux, it's Unix."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Looking at the schedule, we can expect the full release to be out the day after New Years.

<comment><USER11> The published schedules are always "best-case" scenarios, since FreeBSD developers look at these to know how long they have to get work into the tree. There is always the anticipation that schedules will slip as issues arise, so I'd guess January 9th for the announcement rather than the 2nd.

(But that's fine -- we do .0 releases somewhere in the November-February time period, and early January falls right in the middle of the range.)

<comment><USER12> I'm still waiting for the Nakatomi Socrated BSD release (9.2).

Are we expecting to take the 10.0 series all the way through to .4?

<comment> X-Istence 9.2 was already released ... it is the latest production release.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The linux kernel basically already does this, right?

[http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.g...](http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/char/random.c#n1075)

<comment><USER13> Oops, I somehow commented on the wrong thread.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> FreeBSD X?</comment>


Ask HN: Suggested OS for teaching programming - <AUTHOR>

I don't like the term webapp, because it diminishes the nature of the work. When I say programming, I mean writing database-backed multi-user network applications with a web interface. So yes, a webapp, but there's more to it than that.
Anyway, I have the opportunity to set up a learning environment to teach a bunch of bright, aspiring developers everything I know about my craft in a very short time, and I've reached the point where I have to choose the machines I'm going to use. Now, because I'm crotchety and apparently just stepped out of a time capsule, I want to teach debian-flavored linux: that's what I develop in and deploy to.
On the other hand, a colleague of mine extols the virtues of OSX and indeed, I can't deny the increasing ubiquity of macs in the silicon valley. He's pushing heavily for a mac environment and makes good points in favor of it. I even carry a macbook air when I don't feel like burdening my shoulders with my usual laptop, so I can't argue too much against it.
Now, without devolving into a "mac is better than XYZ" discussion, my question to HN is this: does it make sense to teach new developers linux directly as part of their education, or should I let them accrete knowledge of deploy environments and system configuration over time? <comment><USER2> I have been teaching high school math and science for a while, and I am starting to teach programming within my math and science classes. I am using linux (ubuntu) for programming work for a number of reasons:

\- It's what web apps are deployed to in the real world, so any student who will go on in the field will need to know linux.

\- Students love linux. I have had very few students who knew anything about linux before they came to my school, but everyone enjoys using it when they have the opportunity.

\- It's easy to get a programming environment up and running.

\- Students get open source. They love that it's free as in price and free as in freedom.

\- Using linux avoids adding to the education gap between classes. To really learn programming, you must program on your own time. You can not expect people to program well if they don't have their own computer. You must be free to have an idea after dinner, and follow up on your idea that evening. Not everyone can afford a mac; it is very easy to set someone up with a cheap or donated laptop running linux.

I'm happy to hear you are sharing your expertise with students. Many students don't find anyone in their schools that really get programming. That first contact with a real programmer can easily be life-changing.

</comment><comment><USER3> I recommend Debian for many reasons, but the primary reason to choose Debian over OS X is package management. Installing the development platform, a database server, an HTTP server (if required), a decent text editor, and any other necessary tools is very easy in Debian. Doing so in OS X, on the other hand, is often problematic.

I taught a Haskell course last year, where participants brought their own laptops running Linux, OS X, and Windows. Linux was the least problematic. If I do a similar course in the future, I am thinking about providing a Debian virtual machine image for anybody who runs OS X or Windows.

</comment><comment><USER4>
        I mean writing database-backed multi-user network
        applications with a web interface. So yes, a webapp, but
        there's more to it than that.

Webapps are exactly that. Database-backed multi-user network applications with a web interface. However, I can understand why you want to explicitly state the context (the phrase lost credibility.)

However, an index.php with `<?php phpinfo() ?>` in it is not a webapp imho, but still useful for teaching the network stack.

I'd go with Linux, certainly. If they are really bright and aspiring, they'll recognize the power of open platforms anyways. Just my two cents.

</comment><comment><USER5> One thing for consideration is what system each student has access to. If they are Window users, you can have them install Linux. The same could not be said for a Mac (albeit I'm a Mac user myself). It should really depend on your students and whether or not they have access to a Mac and more importantly Mac tools you aim to use for teaching purposes as they'll most likely go off what you're using to teach them even if the tools in the end are different for different people.

</comment><comment><USER6> Linux comes with every programming language under the sun an apt- get/yum/pacman away, it is by far the easiest os to teach/learn programming on.

</comment><comment><USER7> OSX doesn't readily scale to the web.

Linux and Windows do.

</comment><comment><USER8> If there's a way to poll the students before hand, I'd recommend that. Let the majority decide. You want to teach them how to do things that presumably are not "learn how to use an Operating System". Don't get in the way of that. Another factor is what operating system they're already using. If they can't take your lesson home and replicate it on their own hardware, what's the point?

Also depends on your technology stack. What's the burden for getting the tools you need onto OSX? If it's higher than installing .dmgs, or using Homebrew, then compare and contrast with that same level of effort on a Linux platform.

It might be that the argument isn't even Linux vs OSX, but which flavor of Linux. Debian is great, and has tons of packages, but if you're wanting to support newer packages, Ubuntu might be the way to go, for example.

A point in favor of OSX might be that Linux developers are likely going to be able to grok OSX greater than the other way around. But in the other column, Linux is going to work on a much greater variety of hardware.</comment>


What a Year at a Mechanic Shop Taught Me About Process (2016) - <AUTHOR> https://spin.atomicobject.com/2019/11/16/getting-work-done-process/#.XdAJau45PZc.hackernews <comment><USER2> Software development sure would be a lot simpler to manage if it were like auto repair, where every bit of work is well scoped, short, with absolute boundaries and near complete independence from any other work happening.

Perhaps I'll think lessons from an auto repair shop can apply to software development after they've spent 2 years rebuilding a vehicle from the inside out while it continuously journeys across the interstates.

[https://i.imgur.com/cD8Y7fh.mp4](https://i.imgur.com/cD8Y7fh.mp4)

<comment><USER3> I think you're over simplifying auto repair work. Sure, sometimes it's an oil change, which is short, well scoped, etc... But a lot of times it's "Sometimes, when I'm turning left, the car makes this noise... you know, like a whining grinding popping noise. It's not doing it today though." And you don't know if it's a 5 minute fix or a 5 day investigation and replacement of major drivetrain parts...

<comment><USER4> Auto repair is 90% diagnostics and 10% wrench turning. A lot of newer vehicles have symptom matrixes with a process for repair. Lowering the skill floor for mechanics.

What's interesting to me about auto repair is how techs are paid. A lot of shops do book rate. Example let's say you have to replace a front half shaft. Book rate pays you for 30min. If you take an hour to do it - you lose money.

<comment><USER5> HVAC repair starts getting into black magic territory. Giant, incredibly dynamic systems with hard physics, positive/negative feedback loops, control theory operating with very few inputs and very uncomfortable humans dripping sweat on the back of your neck while they watch you work.

I feel like everyone that frequents HN would have a good time spending a year working in that industry.

<comment><USER6> I've had a tangential interest in the physics / mechanics of air-conditioning since working in an office with two people on opposite ends of the "comfortable temperature" scale, and noticing that one of them opens their window in order to "solve the problem". I've since noticed various other people open windows to try to "fix" the air-conditioning temperature.

My assumption is that opening the window fucks it up for the whole system, but very few people are aware of this, and the office folks aren't made aware of it by the air-con techs.

Am I way off? Am I overstating the effect that an open window has on the system?

<comment><USER4> It will upset the building balance at a minimum. Air balancing techs are typically a different discipline from HVAC in large commercial spaces.

Leaving the window open and AC on in high humidity areas can freeze up the coil generating a service call, trick zone sensors, etc. If there is a large temperature difference the sharp gradient will not be comfortable.

<comment><USER5> I never worked on very large systems, mostly small commercial and residential. A buddy of mine supervises HVAC for a large commercial facility and we were talking about their makeup air. Basically it sounded like the building is effectively hermetically sealed until the makeup air vents open because of interior pressure or O2/CO2 levels. Seemed kind of creepy that there was some active system in charge of that. How do you know when it's not working?

<comment><USER4> The same CO2 sensors that call for make up air are hopefully monitored. Sick building syndrome.

Buildings are poorly sealed in my experience. In California code requires economizers on RTUs and they are almost always broken / stuck partially open. In the Inland Empire for example the actuators bind up from sand and often seize. Nobody wants to pay to fix just that, if they even know it's busted.

I stay under 10 tons. Things are different in bigger buildings!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I was surprised by "It was really interesting to work in an industry that was completely different from technology."

Cars aren't technology? When did the term get redefined to mean software?

<comment><USER8> You are of course technically correct, but it's pretty well established at this point in time that the "tech sector" refers to IT and Internet companies. Taken to the extreme, you can technically call pretty much all human endeavors "technology", so you need to follow current conventions in order to have a productive discussion.

<comment><USER9> Words often go through phases where they stop meaning what they mean to groups of people. Sometimes large groups. "Feminism" is the classic example in my head.

You don't have to bend to that. People often try to destroy words for political reasons, but in then end, I think, the words often stand resilient.

Our languages are really impressive structures that define real spaces. There is power to learning them and knowing how to use them well.

That power does diminish when words are abused, but it doesn't disappear.

Personally, I am happy to have words be refined, but when people try to redefine them to the point where they are useless... I listen, and parse their words as intended, but I keep using those words correctly with others.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm a developer but have built a side gig renovating 100 year old homes. My partners in the effort are a carpenter who can do pretty much anything and a former machinist who can take anything apart and put it back together (whether that's a motor or a house). He recently completed a vr6 engine swap on a gen- ii golf. What the article mentions about the parallels with the auto body shop and agile are true. We don't intentionally run it this way it just organically works like this. Over two years of doing this we've had numerous conversations about how the mind of a carpenter or fabricator is very much like the mind of a developer. You have to visualize the problem, evaluate multiple approaches and then ultimately work uninterrupted to create the solution.

<comment><USER11> Do you have a blog or an instagram? I'd love to read more about your work; I imagine many others here would too.

<comment><USER10> I never thought of that.. you know another way Reno's are like software... you often have to debug other people's work. Simple example, in one house there were wide door jams that met in the middle of the top of the door frame. Why would anyone do that. Turns out, you take the two long pieces and the two short pieces and you get two 96" pieces... answer, they didn't want to buy a third piece of lumber. Now to tell you how really stupid this is, you buy lumber at Home Depot by the foot and they even have a saw station in the store for you to trim pieces and even if you didn't trim there you can bring the unused portion back and get a credit. Now... I would bet most software devs on here have seen code equivalents at least as dumb as that. It's been fun doing this but it's been cool to see just how many parallels there are.. don't get me started on the 1x, 10x, 100x analogues!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Read the 12 Agile principles and replace software with cars, development with mechanic. It all makes a lot of sense because they're general business principles.

Comparing it to Scrum is pretty inaccurate, though. Scrum is designed to deliver a unit of shippable work over weeks; auto mechanics ship every day. Mechanics work much closer to an Agile kanban-based tech desk, where you have a pool of random requests to execute as efficiently as you can, and you pull new work from backlog as you go. None of this "oh I can't pull in / take out that work, it would throw off the sprint". Every day is a sprint. And most every job that has coordinated high-paced work has a morning meeting.

<comment><USER13> Good points, I think the author of this article draw parallels to closely. That auto shop had good routines that's all. A bunch of them don't have good routines but instead have good enough ones and they can still manage and get by if there are not too many competing car services around. In software development it would often mean that the business won't succeed because you are competing at almost a global scale and location means little or nothing to your customers unless of course you're in SV.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I used to be a biomedical engineering technician before becoming a software dev, and I have to say I somewhat miss the immediate positive feedback from actual users when you solve a problem. If anyone feels similar after moving into software -- what do you do to keep your motivation up?

<comment><USER15> 1\. Find a metric you care about 2\. Graph that metric 3\. Be happy when you deploy something that makes the graph better

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Would love if anyone could elaborate on the difference between a manager and a coordinator within the shop.

</comment><comment><USER17> I've been looking for similar dev relevant discussions of traditional manufacturing or ops processes - any other favorite articles?

</comment><comment><USER18> That's a very well run auto shop.

</comment><comment><USER19> tl;dr: healthy organizations act humanely.</comment>


Draw Something CEO badmouths team member who turned down Zynga's offer - <AUTHOR> http://twitpic.com/9406y0

<comment><USER2> The tweets are real. Porter hasn't taken them down yet. <http://twitter.com/#!/tfadp>

To add some context, OMGPOP dev Shay Pierce wrote a column[1] in Gamasutra, saying that he wasn't going to join Zynga because the company "views players as weak-minded cash cows". Business Insider than was contacted by an inside source saying he was a poor worker, which Shay disputed. [2]

1: [http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/167244/Turning_down_Zynga...](http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/167244/Turning_down_Zynga_Why_I_opted_out_of_the_210M_Omgpop_buy.php)

2: [http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-03-29/tech/31252887...](http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-03-29/tech/31252887_1_zynga- gdc-facebook-game)

</comment><comment><USER3> The validity of those tweets aside, why would a CEO even bother engaging this? He's the head of an incredibly successful company and made millions with the help of some very talented staff.

<comment><USER4> Successful or not, why would anybody engage in this type of behavior? It's childish and I'm surprised he's not backing down from it on his twitter account. (Maybe I'm not surprised, per se. People can be asshats. I'm surprised nobody at Zynga has told him to cut the crap and enjoy his weekend.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Originals + replies <http://twitter.com/#!/tfadp/status/185901238477537281> <http://twitter.com/#!/tfadp/status/185901564131688448></comment>


Ask HN: What's a programmable display which is not a screen? - <AUTHOR> I'm a software dev who's interested in a programmable display for my kitchen. Something to show train schedules, to do items, calendar events, etc.
Since screens are already so abundant, I'd like to use something which does not have a screen.
After much thought the only thing I could come up with is a Split Flap Board. There is a company making them but it's cost prohibitive (smallest ones are over 5K).
What are some programmable displays which are not screens?
Split flap boards
https://www.oatfoundry.com <comment><USER2> Does e-paper fit your description? (nice because it only takes power to change, not display) There are LED light arrays. I don't think this is what you want, but it came to mind: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refreshable_braille_display](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refreshable_braille_display)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, ePaper, while still being a scream looks to be relatively cost-effective and certain programmable

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Check out the Mui wood display ([https://mui.jp/#en](https://mui.jp/#en)). It seems as though it would fit a kitchen display quite nicely. When not in use it doesn't even resemble a display of any kind, it is a little pricey though.

<comment><AUTHOR> This looks really cool, definitely fits my definition of a programmable non- screen display. Thanks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> What about a projector?</comment>


John Gruber on the "Auteur Theory of Design" from Macworld 2009 - <AUTHOR> http://www.edibleapple.com/john-gruber-on-the-auteur-theory-of-design-from-macworld-2009/

<comment><USER2> So, then the question becomes... how do you develop good taste?

Is it even something that's developable at all? And, also there's a gap between having good taste and being able to make products that reflect it.

Ira Glass touches upon it here: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hidvElQ0xE>

And so does _why, <http://favstar.fm/users/_why/status/881768089>

So, perhaps the answer (translated to web products) is, just keep releasing a bunch of work, keep trying to understand your market and keep learning from the work you're putting out to make future work better. Not quite sure this is the right answer, though.

</comment><comment><USER3> Ack. All real content is in a 16-minute video from MacWorld 2009, and no transcription. I don't typically want to wade through that much time to get to the meat of what's said.

Anyone know of a transcript?

<comment><USER4> Watched it - it was ok. Nice relaxing tone/pace.

He basically argues that if one person is in charge (has final cut), the product will be as good as their taste. If no one is in charge and decisions are made by consensus / bureaucracy, then the result will be as bad as the worst persons taste. The test for whether you really have final cut is whether you'd get to release something that is crazy and no one else agrees with. Ex. the ending of the Sopranos. His advice is that if you don't have official final cut, but you know that you're right about something, you can "take" final cut by making your way the only viable option. Ex. Hitchcock planned meticulously and only filmed enough footage to make exactly the movie he wanted, with nothing extra that the studio could use to edit it and make it worse.</comment></comment>


Paul Graham - <AUTHOR> http://web.archive.org/web/20070102025129/http://paulgraham.infogami.com/blog/

<comment> mark-t Here's a familiar looking idea from 18 Apr 06:

I find every ambitious town sends you a message. New York tells you "you should make more money." LA tells you "you should be better looking." Rome tells you "you should dress better." London tells you "you should be hipper." The Bay Area tells you "you should live better." And Cambridge tells you "you should read some of those books you've been meaning to."

</comment><comment> daniel-cussen YC hopefuls: _If anyone wants to start a startup that will somehow yield reliable traffic numbers, we'd love to fund that one._

<comment><USER2> There are a number out there already. Compete.com is the one installed on my browser.

<comment> daniel-cussen True. This was posted a while back.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> He absolutely creams Donald Knuth!

[http://www.ycombinator.search.xirium.com/cgi- bin/fight.cgi?q...](http://www.ycombinator.search.xirium.com/cgi- bin/fight.cgi?q0=%22Paul+Graham%22&q1=%22Donald+Knuth%22)

This calls to question the legitimacy of this. Also, it should be Knuth > Iron Man!</comment>


Walrus.js - Mustache on steroids - <AUTHOR> http://documentup.com/jeremyruppel/walrus/

<comment><USER2> This is so wrong headed I don't even know where to begin. You couldn't even begin to localize templates like this without rewriting them. Good luck modularizing the code as well. Stick with mustache[1]. There are very good reasons to not use something like walrus.js that you don't understand when you are starting your app that will become very much apparent when you are trying to finish it.

[1] I am the creator of mustache.java

<comment><USER3> Conversely, my experience is that there are very good reasons _not_ to use Mustache (and instead use Handlebars etc.) — there are just too many limitations that force you to push commonly required functionality into an awkward place within the application stack.

Plus there's the whole thing that 'logic-less' is a big white elephant: templates need logic, or they quickly become unmanageably bloated and un-DRY. Being able to iterate and conditionally branch are fundamentals essential to templating languages, and so whilst Mustache is an interesting starting point, it's usually not the best solution.

Of course, the one benefit Mustache _does_ have is parsers in lots of languages, allowing you to share templates across client and server-side — it'd be great if somebody were to invest time in producing (say) a Ruby version of Walrus, as it looks like a very useful tool from reading through the docs.

<comment><USER4> "templates need logic, or they quickly become unmanageably bloated and un-DRY"

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this, but you can do some fancy stuff with handlebars.js. You can 'foreach' through a json collection right in the template, 'if' 'else' statements and a whole whack of other cool little logic statements. So far I've not found anything I can't do in handlebars that I could do generating the page server side. Maybe I'm missing some more advanced cases or misunderstanding the term 'logic-less'?

<comment><USER3> I think maybe you got the wrong end of the stick; I'd always rather go with Handlebars.js over Mustache. Plus you get nice things like helpers. Walrus looks to take it to a whole new level though, so I'm itching to try it out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I like mustache a lot. Particularly because it just works for every language I use, and a huge number of the languages I might use. But it does have pain points (lots of little templates, weird include behavior, some uneccessary repetition, etc).

I don't think that adding logic, filters, etc explicitly to the templates is the right answer. Such things tend to accelerate and encourage big ball of mud apps (in my experience ymmv). It also makes it harder to have a consistent cross-platform experience. I really think a better solution might be to have a simple callback mechanism. So for instance, a tag:

       {{*foo}}

Would result in the renderer looking in the context dictionary for a key "foo". If the value for that key is callable, it calls the function (with the context dictionary as an argument), and replaces the tag with the return string of the function.

That's it. This can mitigate many of the pain points of the templates, while still making consistent implementations across languages easy.

It is still a bit tricky in the "templates are the same on client and server" case, because then you need to implement a function twice (potentially), but I think I would rather do that than descend into some of the templates with logic horrors I've seen (and written myself sadly).

</comment><comment><USER6> I don't understand why logic in client-side templates is so anathema. I can branch based on a value in a server-side view, why not client-side?

I'm currently using jQuery Templates (which is obviously sub-optimal) just because I would like some basic logic in my templates. This looks exactly like what I need.

<comment><USER7> Templates should be about how things look like. You'll need some minor capabilities to style things dependent on values, but it's a slippery slope: You start out with branch on "exists", then later see that you need to style every even row in a table. Next project you need to style every third row and decide "oh, I can generalize that". And then you end up with a full math implementation. And wouldn't it be awesome if we could branch depending on the length of a value? You start hacking and the next thing you know when you wake up in the morning is that your template language is Turing complete. Now you have another language to learn.

It's far easier to make a cut at "no logic apart from boolean checks" and then use a proper client-side framework such as backbone if you need full view logic on the client. It separates concerns and makes clear where logic is supposed to reside. I love separation of concerns!

<comment><USER8> > It's far easier to make a cut at "no logic apart from boolean checks" and > then use a proper client-side framework such as backbone (...)

That works if you are fine with offsetting all (or most) of your presentation logic to client side. But not every web application is the glorified single- page web app, or has significant amount of on-page interaction that would warrant employing a full stack MVC framework on the client side.

> Templates should be about how things look like.

But also what elements are those things built from. Despite attempts at logic- less templates, the presentation layer still must contain some logic and I see no reason to not apply normal coding principles - most notably DRY - to that logic. That's why I consider it very important for a templating engine to allow for reusing things, and splitting things into parts. Here's where some engines really shine (Jinja immediately comes to mind, followed by Underscore or jQuery templates) and others... not so much.

<comment><USER7> On-page interaction does not require a templating language with logic. You can just as easily calculate the required values in your javascript and then pass the objects on to Mustache. That's a tangential point.

I fully agree with you that having some logic in a template language has its appeal. At first glance it sounds like a good idea (oh, I don't have to go back to the code to calculate that value, nice!) However, as I said, it's a slippery slope and depending on where you and your project end up, you may pay a dire price for that. In the end, inevitable, some part of your logic ends up in the template. (Been there, done that, been burnt)

Mustache/Handlebars allows for most of what you want - reuse things, split things into parts (templates can include other template) without including logic and thus creates a barrier that you cannot cross. It forces you to adhere to best practices.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Interesting stuff. Definitely a fan of these Collections helpers at the very least: [http://documentup.com/jeremyruppel/walrus/#walrus- collection...](http://documentup.com/jeremyruppel/walrus/#walrus-collections)

<comment><USER10> I wish handlebars had this. I have to usually resort to having a property tell me if it's the last item in the collection =/

Regardless, I wouldn't even consider Walrus until there was server-side support.

<comment><AUTHOR> Walrus has no dependencies, not even on the DOM. While it was built for client-side use specifically, there should be no reason it couldn't work in a server-side environment. I'd be glad to whip up a sample node app if people needed some proof-of-concept.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I like this. Clearly not everyone is agreed on the cutoff point for logic in templates so having a solution with more options can only be a good thing.

</comment><comment><USER12> Claims to be Mustache on steroids but misses one of Mustache's most important feature - support for most server side languages.</comment>


52 Years and $750 Million Prove Einstein Was Right - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/05/science/space/05gravity.html

<comment><USER2> Here's the wikipedia page on it: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_B>

One point about it is that the probe had a lot of noise, so much noise that it swamped the signal. It was only by developing computer models of the source of the noise, and then subtracting it from the signal that the result was found.

But I find such "adjustments" distasteful. I mean everyone expects a certain answer, and voilà you get that answer. Is there a bug in your code? Or course not - you got the expected answer didn't you?

(See the section called "NASA review" in the wikipedia article.)

Anyway, now that they learned so much about such probes they should launch another one and get much cleaner data.

<comment><USER3> _But I find such "adjustments" distasteful._

Well, you have to deal with it somehow. If you know the source of the noise, there's no excuse for not modelling it.

<comment><USER4> Sure, but the point is that if there's something wrong with your model of the noise, the result could be completely invalid.

Look at the history of Milliken's oil-drop experiment: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment#Millikan.27...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment#Millikan.27s_experiment_and_cargo_cult_science)

He got the wrong answer, but subsequent researchers who got different results kind of smoothed their own results to match the "correct" (actually wrong) expected result.

I'm not saying that happened here, but it's always a possibility.

Essentially, how do you know when you've modelled the noise accurately enough? When you get the expected right answer? Why not continue to refine the noise model, or consider other ones?

<comment><USER5> The role that psychology and social dynamics plays in science ought to be more studied. To ignore it is foolish. One person I knew in commutative algebra said that he always adds references to the famous people in the field in his papers for ass kissing purposes. It's just one anecdote but this sort of stuff, I suspect, is much more common than it is thought.

<comment><USER6> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> _For Dr. Everitt, who joined the Gravity Probe experiment in 1962 as a young postdoctoral fellow and has worked on nothing else since, the announcement on Wednesday capped a career-long journey._

There's something so profound about that.

To think of how many jobs I've held in my comparatively short life, how many minor career changes I've had here and there, how many massive shifts in interest and passion I've had over the years, and to hold these up beside someone who has _been wholly dedicated to the same singular goal since before I was even born_ \--that's just mind-boggling.

And it was selfless! This one singular goal to which he's dedicated himself, every one of the fifty years of work that went into it, ultimately ended up becoming--at least when boiled down to a headline--a footnote to someone else's greatness.

 _Five decades._ I can't even begin to fathom what sort of drive and passion and commitment that must require.

Bravo.

<comment><USER8> _And it was selfless! This one singular goal to which he's dedicated himself, every one of the fifty years of work that went into it, ultimately ended up becoming--at least when boiled down to a headline--a footnote to someone else's greatness._

Don't forget that we do science because we don't know the answer, not because we do. The best-case scenario would have been that after forty years you prove that relativity is _wrong_.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> According to the article below, everything measured by the probe has long since been measured in other ways with greater precision. Based on that, I'd have to say, this probe didn't really prove anything...

[http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20444-beleaguered- miss...](http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20444-beleaguered-mission- measures-swirling-spacetime-at-last.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news)

<comment><USER10> I thought this had been proven long ago by measuring the gravitation pull the sun had on light from stars as it passed by.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> [ugh] NYT headline writers again.

Falsifiable scientific experiment -- the gold standard for physics -- cannot prove that something is _right_. It can only fail to demonstrate that something is _wrong_.

</comment><comment><USER12> it's not necessarily a tl;dr i'm requestion, so much as a physic geek deciphering.

<comment><USER13> RobotRollCall gave an explanation of the thing in the relevant /r/science thread: [http://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/h45c8/nasa_announced_...](http://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/h45c8/nasa_announced_the_results_of_an_epic_physics/c1sgv0p?context=3)

(side note: RRC is one of the best commenters to ever happen to /r/science, or more generally Reddit)

<comment><USER14> Wow. If he/she has any spare time, or interest, at all he should teach mini science courses online to the public. He has a gift.

<comment><USER13> RRC is an absolutely excellent teacher and explainer of science. I strongly recommend browsing her comments list: <http://www.reddit.com/user/RobotRollCall?sort=top>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> And for just three-quarters of a billion dollars.

It took me a second look to realized, but in today's dollars, quite the bargain!

</comment><comment><USER16> Does this mean that it is no longer the Theory of Relativity, but now the Law of Relativity?

<comment><USER17> That's not how theories work. A scientific theory is more like a framework and not really the same meaning as what people usually mean by theory (which is closer to hypothesis). Also nothing in science can ever be 100% definite; the term law shouldn't really ever be used.

<comment><USER18> As an aside to your comment, misuse of the word theory is a big pet peeve of mine.

In day to day conversation, people use it interchangeably with the word opinion (or as you mentioned hypothesis).

"My theory is the government should such and such." This is bogus! So later, when someone hears about the "theory" of evolution, it strikes them as something with which they can disagree.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Is there an arXiv paper on that?

</comment><comment><USER20> Anyone who's feeling like they can't handle the physics here should probably just leave now ...

<comment><USER20> ... its a joke people. relax. <http://xkcd.com/849/></comment></comment>


Venous Insufficiency in Multiple Sclerosis - <AUTHOR> http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=6465

<comment><USER2> A friend of mine suffers from MS about 20 years and currently is in the later stages of the disease. She heard about this last year, she was indeed diagnosed with a venous insufficiency, and actually had the "liberation procedure" done by dr. Zamboni himself. She hasn't seen a single improvement since the operation (5 months ago).

<comment><USER3> Just to provide an anecdotal counterpoint... Ceci Ervin gave a presentation at Ignite Boulder about her experience with the treatment, and her subsequent improvements:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaTL_z2IakQ>

It's hard to imagine that her progress could be purely psychosomatic, but the procedure is also obviously not a cure-all. We understand so very little about the human body.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's really unfortunate that this hypothesis has become publicized and hyped. It's important that science be able to progress, and sometimes progress involves significant backpedaling.

In this case, we have a slight epidemiologic association:

P(VI|MS)>0 The probability of venous insufficiency given that you have MS is nonzero.

But we're left without most of the remainder of Bayes' formula - at least to my recollection. Therefore, I can't even comment on the strength of this epidemiological association.

This is ignoring the other more critical concerns that could be resolved by prospective cohort analyses. Randomized clinical trials with sham as a control could also be done, if you were pretty convinced that VI were really causing MS.

I'd like to see more data, to be sure - but I really would have liked more data before people submitted to remarkably invasive procedures such as this.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Submitted as a follow-up to a link pg posted a while ago.

<comment><USER5> Thank you for posting this. The whole MS/CCSVI controversy has really enraged me.

Whether or not there turns out to be some benefit for some percentage of MS sufferers, the hype, conspiracy theories, and two-bit clinics all over the place offering this procedure have done real harm. People have stopped taking medicine that has been proven clinically to help, in order to have unproven surgery.

It's easy to see why. None of the current medications cure the disease, or even stop its progression. They only slow down its progress. And they all have unpleasant side effects, and require injection (though an oral drug is becoming available soon). And even though five or ten thousand dollars (the surgery cost, when I looked it up awhile ago) may seem like a lot, the drugs seem to all cost (very) roughly twenty-five thousand dollars per year.

But that just means that there's a ready population of desperate people to exploit.

And that makes me angry.</comment></comment>


Intel's Exascale Dataflow Engine Drops X86 and Von Neuman - <AUTHOR> https://www.nextplatform.com/2018/08/30/intels-exascale-dataflow-engine-drops-x86-and-von-neuman/ <comment><USER2> Link to the referenced patent. Keep scrolling the first half is diagrams.

[https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/cc/a9/26/4dfcc1e...](https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/cc/a9/26/4dfcc1e06c4773/US20180189231A1.pdf)</comment>


"The Origins of Totalitarianism" is out of stock on Amazon - <AUTHOR> https://qz.com/897517/the-origins-of-totalitarianism-hannah-arendts-defining-work-on-tyranny-is-out-of-stock-on-amazon/ <comment><USER2> Since we are talking books - You could give The Mass Psychology of Fascism by Wilhelm Reich a read: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mass_Psychology_of_Fascism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mass_Psychology_of_Fascism)

It was banned and burnt by the Nazi's in the 1930's but significantly it was one of several books of the authors which was burnt by the US Govt. in 1956!

<comment><USER3> Poor Wilhelm Reich.

Whatever you think about the validity of his research, it must have been agonizing for him to watch so much of his work literally go up in flames. It's hard to imagine how such destruction of knowledge could ever be justified.

If you are, or plan to be, in the New England area, I highly recommend visiting 'Orgonon', Reich's former home and current museum in Rangeley, Maine. It's fascinating and tragic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I really wish Manufacturing Consent was as well. Of all the talks of "fake news", I've not seen anyone even mention this institutional analysis of the media.

</comment><comment><USER5> What disturbs me most in recent years, is the lack of self-awareness concerning groupthink among fellow members of the left in the US. I keep seeing thinking and behavior along these lines: Because the other side are so horrible in their views/morals we are justified in doing bad things to them. People seem to think that being "on the side of justice" means they can emotionally wound, attack the livelihood, shout down, or physically/bureaucratically exclude people whose views they do not like. Gandhi had a phrase for this: "An eye for an eye, making the whole world blind." Just because "the other side" is so horrible, doesn't mean you are justified in going not quite as far.

Being on the side of justice means according all of your fellow human beings the same rights and respect, even your opponents and even your "enemies." A democratic society whose leaders no longer stand up for principles is a society that is breaking down. A movement that claims it is about "justice" but which doesn't stand up for principles -- even when it comes to calling its "own side" into account -- is philosophically and ethically bankrupt.

<comment><USER6> It will all become clear to you when you accept that it was the American Left who inspired the Fascists, Bolsheviks, and Nazis in Europe. All of them were leftist/socialist ideological movements. All of them copied policies that the American Progressives had put in place years before.

You are not fighting them. You are them.

<comment><USER7> > It will all become clear to you when you accept that it was the American > Left who inspired the Fascists, Bolsheviks, and Nazis in Europe. All of them > were leftist/socialist ideological movements.

That's simply factually false; the Bolsheviks were at least plausibly a left- wing movement by the usual standards (though even with them there is an argument that they were a right-authoritarian movement with left-wing rhetoric), but not in any substantive way inspired either by the American Left (which at that point was pretty much just the early labor movement) or American Progressives (which, while the label has been adopted by the modern left, were not at that time a left-wing movement). There inspirations were almost entirely European, not American.

The Fascists and Nazis were both right-wing movements, both substantively and, largely, rhetorically, though it's true that both adopted similar, though somewhat different, syntheses of the rhetoric of the European Right with that of certain elements (largely, fron different non-Marxist socialist traditions) elements of the European Left. Neither was inspired by American Leftist or Progressive movements in any substantive way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I remember a lot of people buying _The Road to Serfdom_ eight years ago. Then, as now, I wonder how many bothered to read it.

<comment><USER9> > I remember a lot of people buying The Road to Serfdom eight years ago.

Not sure how that's relevant.

<comment><USER10> Because the same panic was happening when Obama came into office. It was just the other side that was doing the panicking.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I believe Eric Hoffer is a worthy and relevant addition to this thread. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer)

</comment><comment><USER12> Meh, you're better off reading this.

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

<comment><USER13> Simone Weil's work is fascinating and enlightening, certainly worth exploring if you've never been exposed to it before.

That said, if you're looking for concrete political understanding, probably don't read the work of a French mystic who starved herself to death.

<comment><USER9> > That said, if you're looking for concrete political understanding, probably > don't read the work of a French mystic who starved herself to death.

That's like saying 'probably don't concern yourself with Godel's mathematics because he was mentally ill and starved himself to death'. Such a stupid reason to look down on someone's work for.

<comment><USER10> Well, "mystic" and "concrete political understanding" don't coexist very comfortably. "Starved herself to death" may still be irrelevant, though...

<comment><USER9> Not really, there is nothing about being labeled a 'mystic' that means the person is less politically informed. The Catholic Popes are arguably in the same bucket but were and are some of the most politically informed and influential people on the planet. Simone Weil was very politically active and quite well informed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The Kindle version is $1.99, though.</comment>


Ask HN: Project Feedback - equipping written stories with an awareness. - <AUTHOR>

Hi HN,
I made this webpage-story and was looking for feedback.
http://inthehandsofothers.com
It reads similar to a choose-your-own-adventure, but there is more to it than that. It is supposed to be about improving upon the book medium by combining a written story with computing/music/etc. I haven't got much support outside of people I directly know, so I was wondering if you could tell me what you think, and if you like the idea. <comment><USER2> I would put a link in the bottom of the page that gives a short explanation about what the site is all about. That way, people can easily find that information.

</comment><comment><USER3> You should change the title to a Show HN: a descriptive title :)

Edit: but it looks very cool, I liked the running part!

</comment><comment><USER4> I think you it is better if you put a short tip for beginners. The introduction that you show after entering number 2 is long. I prefer to learn how to use a service fast and simple.</comment>


Agatha Christie's life rivaled the mysteries she created - <AUTHOR> https://www.theintelligencer.com/entertainment/article/Book-World-Agatha-Christie-s-life-rivaled-the-12735983.php <comment><USER2> For fans of film, essentially all of Agatha Christie's mysteries featuring the Belgian detective character Hercule Poirot have been adapted by ITV into a fantastic TV series: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agatha_Christie's_Poirot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agatha_Christie's_Poirot)

I find it fascinating that they did this series over a span of over 24 years, with the same lead actor (David Suchet, CBE) as Hercule Poirot throughout!

There is a behind the scenes interview with David Suchet reflecting upon the 24 year experience: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FX3ITew9Mpw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FX3ITew9Mpw)

"And Then There Were None", which is one of Christie's most famous works not featuring Poirot, has been adapted by the BBC recently: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_Then_There_Were_None_(mini...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_Then_There_Were_None_\(miniseries\)).

<comment><USER3> I think the Poirot series is superb, but some of them suffer from stretching the runtime -- the best ones are about 51 minutes long, whereas the longer ones (which includes all of the last few seasons) click in at 1 hour and 29 minutes, some of which are based on _short stories_ , not novels. As delightful as Poirot and his mysteries are, these are also admittedly somewhat shallow, implausible puzzles that rely on acting and cozy English nostalgia to entertain, not deep characterization or touching character arcs. Stretched to two hours, there's often not enough meat to hold one's attention.

David Suchet is a national treasure, though. I wish he would be in more movies and shows.

<comment><USER4> > the longer ones (which includes all of the last few seasons) click in at 1 > hour and 29 minutes, some of which are based on _short stories_ , not > novels.

What matters is how much content there is in the episode. People have gotten the idea from Peter Jackson's awful, awful Hobbit movies that pages of source material are a restriction on how much movie you can make. But the problem there was that the movies were terrible, not that _The Hobbit_ was shorter than a three-book series. _Shrek_ is a 90 minute movie based off of a children's book of just 1,150 words. Nobody ever complained about the quality of _Shrek_.

<comment><USER5> A personal question to you: Why and in what particular ways do you consider Peter Jackson's renditions of the The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit to be so awful, awful?

I have enjoyed by stories since I first came across them 40 years ago. I thought that Peter Jackson did an excellent job on retelling the story. In point of fact, retelling it in a way that keeps the essence but is a new variation.

When I first obtained my copy of Lord of the Rings (which I still have), I read it 11 times in 8 months. I still read it when I get the urge. I have found that Peter Jackson has quite a different imaging of the story of the story compared to my own imagining and no less entertaining.

I have had people complain about the "licence" he took in the retelling, about not being true to the original writing. However, a good story teller will add to and change a story to make it more effective for his telling. That is the essence of good story telling - how you choose to emphasise various elements.

<comment><USER6> Don't get me started... Ah, too late!

The Fellowship of the Ring is an excellent film, pretty consistently following the story while removing confusing elements like Tom Bombadil (some scenes, like the Moria stone troll fight, could have been a bit shorter, but overall it was really amazing).

The Two Towers started showing the early signs os Jackson's "interventionist" approach (which later culminated in the Hobbit films) with adding numerous elements like Aragorn's side trek and Gimli's and Legolas' banter -- but again, it overall added to the story without removing too much of it.

However, with The Return of the King he completely blew it, changing some important elements like Ents' motivations and, above all, the role of the Dead Men of Dunharrow. In the books, they're a formidable but reluctant force which has a strong but limited impact on the story -- they aid Aragorn's attack on the ships, scaring most of the Umbar's forces into drowning and allowing him to increase his army with the captives on the ships, but then he releases them and they never reach Pelennor.

In the film, they are turned to a deus ex machina which sweeps the battlefield and the streets of Minas Tirith, killing all the enemies and not touching the "good guys" (the book shows that the Dead Men scare everyone equally; the "good guys" survive because they are captive and chained to the ships, which probably needed a lot of cleaning afterwards). That scene reminded me of those commercials where a green goo destroys all the toilet bacteria in one powerful sweep -- in my opinion, that change totally destroyed the premise of the book and turned it from "The Return of the King" to "The Return of some Guy with Toilet Cleaner".

/rant

<comment><USER7> The return of the King is one of the best movies of the last 20+ years. Whine about the Hobbit all you want, but LOTR is the greatest trilogy ever made and Peter Jackson is a legend.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Love seeing this stuff on here. Maybe this reflects poorly on my schooling but I've learned more about literature and philosophy from HN than from anywhere else.

</comment><comment><USER9> I first discovered Agatha Christie in middle school at a book fair. "The Alphabet Murders". The story twisted in such a way I had never experienced before. I was used to being "smarter than the author" and being able to guess where a story was headed. That experience prompted me to at least 30 of her other books and several collections of short stories. Highly Recommended!

</comment><comment><USER10> What a terribly written, yet interesting article. Have a look at this torture mascarading as a paragraph:

"But derivative works and adaptations can't fully explain why Christie's work endures. A splendid biography by Laura Thompson, however, does. "Agatha Christie: A Mysterious Life" was published in Britain over a decade ago and took an inexplicable amount of time to cross the pond. Yet the timing is perfect because Thompson's thorough yet readable treatment of Christie's life, in combination with artful critical context on her work, arrives at the reason for her endurance.."

For a writer writing about a writer, in the Washington Post no less, one might expect quality beyond that of a high school essay. It's just ironic because Christie was a great writer. I have yet to find literary criticism that's actually well written. Perhaps it's a theory, but it always seems that literary critics are really just failed real writers.

<comment><USER11> I'm glad I wasn't the only person who thought this. The worst bit for me was "Christie, as Thompson details, came by such understanding through the traditional means of early hardship"... but the "hardship" then isn't explained for another three paragraphs!

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> The essential Agatha (IMHO):

The Murder of Roger Ackroyd

Murder on the Orient Express

Curtain

Can't tell you why without spoiling it though. You have to read them.

<comment><USER9> I would add "And Then There Were None"

Haven't actually read Curtain, I will now immediately go buy it!

<comment><USER13> Actually, original title by Agatha Christie was "Ten Little Niggers" [1]. I didn't read the book, but I really liked the movie [2] (there is eng subs). People in reviews say it's closest and probably best adaptation. IMO, it's excellent.

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

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

<comment><USER14> Why the downvotes? Is this an automated flagging system for the n-word?

<comment><USER15> No. Please don't break the site guidelines by commenting about downvotes. If you feel like a comment has been unfairly downvoted, give it a corrective upvote and move on. That's what others did in this case, and the comment now has a positive score.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I highly recommend Agatha Christie's autobiography. Reading in was a happy experience for me. The descriptions of the Middle East in the early 20th century are also interesting.

[https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=9dQq- oVJFaUC](https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=9dQq-oVJFaUC)

</comment><comment><USER17> NYT did an article last year summarizing what's been adapted to screen and where to find it:

[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/10/watching/agatha- christie-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/10/watching/agatha-christie- adaptations-where-to-stream.html)

</comment><comment><USER18> I do wish though that there was greater space in public imagination for works of Hammett and Chandler, and writers of their ilk. I find hardly any new adaptations of their works being made these days.

<comment><USER10> Read the Yiddish Policeman's Union by Michael Chabon; heavily influenced by Chandler and one of the most spectacular detective stories ever.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I grew up with Poirot books (thanks dad!), and have always been delighted with the movies and series featuring David Suchet. He is such a great actor, there is no one else that can impersonate Poirot like he does.

The new movie is just.... meh. Poirot(the character) has been holywood-ized for the masses... lost all the charm for me.

</comment><comment><USER20> unpaywalled [https://www.theintelligencer.com/entertainment/article/Book-...](https://www.theintelligencer.com/entertainment/article/Book- World-Agatha-Christie-s-life-rivaled-the-12735983.php)

<comment><USER15> Thanks! We've changed to that from [https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/the- great...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/the-greatest- mystery-that-agatha-christie-ever-created-was-her-own- life/2018/03/07/c856a07a-01fd-11e8-bb03-722769454f82_story.html).</comment></comment>


JooJoo tablet website updated, opens "pre-orders" - <AUTHOR> https://thejoojoo.com/?

<comment><USER2> The backlash is understandable, considering how people in the valley worship arrington and TC's influence, but after arrington's post yesterday, I really fail to see what's wrong with the device other then the fact that arrington is whining about it. He's pissed that they moved forward with the IP that they rightfully deserve, and everyone rushes to his defense? I'm pretty sick of listening to gossip.

I hear no discussion about the specs of the device. Let's discuss the merits of the device and other tablets like it. What can be improved? What can apple do better?

<comment><USER3> _everyone rushes to his defense_

That's definitely not the feeling I got reading the comments on HN.

<comment><USER4> I would think it's to be expected from the the dwellers of a technology- startup oriented community to have a higher immunity to Arrington's charm than the average netizen.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The truth is probably that, had they not squandered their relationship with Arrington, and TC had announced, joyously, that pre-orders were available today. It would have been a land-slide victory - possibly even with the price change.

Classic geek-in-business mistake. You can create the greatest product in the world, but without top-notch marketing, it's nothing.

They underestimated the relationship between TC readers and this product. They will learn how much Arrington really did do for the "Crunchpad".

</comment><comment><USER6> The JooJoo looks amazing but I'm not going to gamble by being an early adoption. When a company already has one lawsuit and their product is not shipping yet, I don't want to chance my $499. I could care less if the JooJoo makes Arrington cry nor do I want to chance my money on a pre-order on a product that may never see the light of day..

I'm going to wait for them to ship in 8 to 10 weeks and see what people say once they actually own the tablet. If it's as amazing as it looks, then I might have to buy one. If Chrome OS will run on the tablet then I'm even more apt to buy one because I trust that Google will keep their OS more up to date. For now, I'm going to not be an early adopter and take the safe road.

<comment><USER7> You _couldn't_ care less. Or, is it that you do care?

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> All of the product shots look like Photoshop mockups. Note the shadows and highlights and the pixelated edges around the simulated pictures on the device. When "real" vendors do this, there is always a disclaimer that says that the images are simulated.

<comment><USER9> Many of apple's product shots look like photoshop too. I never saw an "all images are simulated" disclaimer..

<comment><USER8> Perhaps that's something that is only done in advertising, I've never skeptically reviewed Apple's website.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It actually looks pretty nice. It's a shame this didn't come to market in a cleaner way.

<comment><USER11> Wow, yes it's a shame. Possibly a very beautiful machine but there is no way I would give them my money.

<comment><USER12> Why not?

<comment><USER13> on the 5% chance that Arrington's right about their financial situation, they're practically out of cash. And now they have to hire a legal defense.

If the tablet's software isn't 100% open-source and hackable, I'd be worried on the long-term support from Fusion Garage.

<comment><USER14> In addition to that you don't really know what the market it going to look like 2 to 3 months from now when this ships. Apple, Asus, Dell and others could very well have a tablet in the market by then. So even if you were willing to chance losing your money entirely it wouldn't make sense to buy one of these.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The events surrounding this device are unfortunate. It's pretty cool to me that a small company was able to build something that consumers seem to want but none of the big players have provided (yet). However, I'm still on the sideline till Apple releases their tablet. My main requirement is a modest level of synergy at the OS level because I don't live on web-apps. Certainly not everyone requires this but I do if I'm spending upwards of $500+. Had the joojoo launched at $200, I probably wouldn't be as picky about it.

<comment><USER16> For $200 you can't even buy a device that _only_ does Twitter. I'm guessing the Apple tablet is going to be around $1K minimum, which will make this $500 (soon to be $400) tablet look like a bargain.

<comment><USER15> yeah, when TC announced $200 price for the crunchpad I thought it was a bit out of control considering AT&T covers about half the retail price of the iPhone.

i'm expecting to pay about 1-1.5k for the Apple tablet and i think i'll be fine with that if it delivers a great tablet experience, hopefully unlike Apple TV for the TV.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I found the website a bit lacking in terms of information. It feels hastily done. 1\. I think most early adopters will be technical people, and so they need to put up more technical specs. They need more real photos and/or video of the device. They have no track record, so asking users to buy their device based on a few photoshop pics is asking for too much. 2\. Although Paypal is the de facto payment method these days, having Paypal only payment makes it look like they haven't taken the time out to set up a credit card payment system. 3\. Besides a feedback email, there's no customer service telephone line or contact of any sort. Seeing as they are selling a consumer product it would make their customers feel at ease about their purchase if they knew there was someone within easy reach is something goes wrong.

That being said, it looks like a nice device. I can't wait to see it in action.

</comment><comment><USER18> Hmm, surprisingly a nice final product for such a messy inception. I'm definitely not going to be an early adopter of this, though. I still have more questions than answers about the product.

</comment><comment><USER19> From the images it looks great; I wouldn't pre-order it though from them directly, only if it came via Amazon or if I can check it out in a store.

I would assume if you can pre-order via Amazon, they have "vetted" the product.

</comment><comment><USER20> i updated the <http://crunchpad.com> page with a few extra reasons why I wouldn't buy:

#1. The only way to pre-order is with PayPal, and since PayPal Buyer Protection only lasts 45 days, and the JooJoo says "Pre-orders will ship in 8 to 10 weeks." that means if they "forget" to ship, you are out of luck.

#2: Every single image seems to be a rendering, not a single actual photo.

#3: They only sell to United States, yet they only use kilograms for weights, talk about amateur hour.

<comment><USER21> Yeah I found that strange about the kg. too. But as an FYI:

joojoo : 1.1kg, 2.43lb.

Kindle DX: 0.54kg, 1.2lb.

MacBook Air: 1.36kg, 3.0lb.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> juju is on African word an it's normally associated with 'black' magic, hexes and stuff. It actually has a negative connotation in most African circles. So marketing it with the association to 'juju' in Africa would not be a good idea.

</comment><comment><USER22> I think the website is Beautiful, at least.</comment>