A computational linguistic farce in three acts - <AUTHOR> http://www.earningmyturns.org/2017/06/a-computational-linguistic-farce-in.html <comment><USER2> So, I understand this blog post is about something else completely (the internet argument started by Yoav Goldberg on Medium, reportedly) but for me the really interesting part is the historical information in it. I wish Fernando Pereira could find the time to expound a bit on all those parenthetical notes in his blog post, perhaps even write a short book on the history of AI.

AI is kind of a strange beast like that: it's gone through a few very different phases and it's difficult for one person to understand all of them equally well. Which of course makes it even harder to avoid reinventing wheels and repeating mistakes. A bit of history would do us all a world of good.

Btw, I'm getting the feeling most people here will probably hear of Fernando Pereira for the fist time but he has a very long career in AI and NLP. He was a prominent symbolicist, with some important contributions to logic programming (he was one of the co-founders of Quintus, the company that sold the first commercial Prolog, along with Warren, Byrd and others). Then he turned to statistical AI and now he's a VP at Google (a.k.a. the den of the connectionists, if I may be so bold). He's probably one of the few computer scientists around who understands both symbolic and statistical AI in equal measures. If anyone is qualified to talk about their relative merits, that's him.

(and if I sound like a bit of a fangirl- that is because I basically am. Pereira is one of my logic programming heroes and a great teacher to me, albeit unbeknownst to him :)

</comment><comment><USER3> This relates to the big Twitter uproar over this blog post:

[https://firstname.lastname@example.com/an-adversarial-review- of-a...](https://email@example.com/an-adversarial-review-of- adversarial-generation-of-natural-language-409ac3378bd7)

And here's the meat of his response:

> Idea! Let's go back to toy problems where we can create the test conditions > easily, like the rationalists did back then (even if we don't realize we are > imitating them). After all, Atari is not real life, but it still > demonstrates remarkable RL progress. Let's make the Ataris of natural > language!

> But now the rationalists converted to empiricism (with the extra enthusiasm > of the convert) complain bitterly. Not fair, Atari is not real life!

> Of course it is not. But neither is PTB, nor any of the standard empiricist > tasks, which try strenuously to imitate wild language

<comment><USER2> My reading is that Pereira doesn't think that deep learning has quite conquered language, and in this he's in complete disagreement both with Goldberg and Le Cunn's side (who both champion deep learning for NLP and claim that it has led to great advances in the field).

For me the problem with NLP and deep learning, or indeeed any empirical method, is that the evaluation metrics we have are imperfect. Take BLEU scores, from Goldberg's post, for instance. Those basically compare generated text to some arbitrary target. Originally, they were proposed as metrics of machine translation quality, so the target was some existing translation and the machine-generated translation was examined for coverage of this human-made translation. But of course, there is no principled way that we know of to choose one translation over another- or even say whether a translation is a good or bad translation, on its own. And that's true for translations by humans also. You give the same text to 10 professional translators, they'll give you 10 different translations. Then you give each of their translations to 10 readers and ask them for their opinion, and you get back 100 different opinions.

The translation task itself is not even particularly well defined, exactly because there may be any number of valid translations (possibly, infinitely many) of a piece of text in another language. So, with translation, we have an ill-defined task with an arbitrary metric. And that metric of course is lifted from its original task and used to evaluate language generation and so on. Then someone comes along who knows how to train a deep net but has no idea what the purpose of their chosen metric is, or what it does and has no understanding of the task itself- and claims to have solved it because they got good results on that metric.

It's a bit of a methodological mess that's not going to lead to much progress. People can keep piling on these "results" for as long as they like and pretend that they're "solving" this or that problem- but in real-world terms, nothing is really being solved at all.

<comment><USER3> Google translate is now based on a neural network and you can be sure they have solid metrics. By analogy Google search has a large panel of humans whose subjective feedback is used to test the quality of search algorithm variations.

<comment><USER2> This is something that needs to be repeated until everyone internalises it: for language pairs other than the "easy" ones Google translate sucks.

I am Greek and translations from and to my language are utterly ridiculous, on the level of Bozo the clown doing the translation with his underpants on his head back to front.

Typical example: I put in the Greek word for "swallow", the bird, and ask for the French translation. I get back the word "avaler" \- the French word for "to swallow", the verb.

That's my little benchmark there, useful because Google translate has been doing this consistently, for a good few years, before it used neural networks, before it started claiming its setup essentially constitutes an "interlingua" etc etc.

Note that the bird and the verb sound nothing like each other in Greek, or French. They sound the same only in English, so GT goes from Greek to French through English. Because it doesn't have enough parallel texts to go directly to French. And so it sucks, because it doesn't have enough data. You can ask native users of other languages-that-are not-English or have few ish speakers, perhaps Turkish or Hungarian etc. I'm pretty sure you'll find out they have similar experiences.

So I don't know what metric they use to evaluate their results, it doesn't seem to be a particularly good metric of translation quality. Maybe they just care more about how many people use their system and try to optimise for that, rather than going for the much harder to know quality.

<comment><USER4> I'm Polish. I google translate even from Slavic languages that are very close to Polish (Ukrainian, Slovak - it's like 50% understandable without translation) to English not to Polish, because X -> Polish google translation sucks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I kind of disagree with some of the premises in the article. I've seen an HPSG for German in the late 90s that was able to parse almost any sentence I could throw at it correctly from a syntactic perspective.

The main problem for natural language _understanding_ is not parsing and not even the semantic and pragmatic representations per se, it has always been the understanding. This requires an adequate knowledge representation and the drawing of inferences from it, and I don't believe that any substantial advances have been made in that field. Computational ontologies have grown larger and there are more "frameworks" than you can count, but none of them offer much knew and promising approaches like geometric meaning theories are in their infancy. Knowledge representation and, generally speaking, the problem of how to integrate different information sources in useful ways are essentially unsolved problems.

Just my 2 cents. Note that I'm talking about the principal problems, not about specific practical applications for which you can use the statistical sledgehammer to some extent.

<comment><USER6> Recently Coecke comments on Gärdenfors geometric meaning in the context of his categorical semantics that I'm finding interesting, in arXiv:1608.01402. What I would welcome is a computational link relating that semantics and oldie semantic-network based ideas. For instance in arXiv:1706.00526 description logic based knowledge representation is cast in string diagrammatic, categorical terms, and that at least puts the meaning realm in the same mathy foot.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I have to wonder if English is really the best language for NLP research. Things like the Winograd schemas which have attracted a lot of attention simply aren't possibilities in other languages.

Why not start working with more structured agglutinative * languages like Japanese/Korean and Indic family (Sanskrit esp.) _.

How about other European languages ? Are they better structured empirically ? I hear German is very grammatical, and that Hungarian is ... erm odd ?

(_ Note: I know occidental tradition likes to split Indic tongues, and Indo in Indo-European is not considered agglutinative. I don't subscribe to this view. I use _agglutinative_ in the sense of Panini: "particles" sticking to stems/roots/words - phonetic modifications are irrelevant for grammar.)

<comment><USER8> > I hear German is very grammatical, and that Hungarian is ... erm odd ?

Just want to point out that "grammatical" probably isn't the word you want here. Every language is grammatical by definition in the sense that there are rules that govern its sound system, word formation system, syntax, etc.

The concept you're getting at, though--that some languages are easier for computer programs and/or speakers of Indo-European languages to understand--is sound.

<comment><USER9> do you think analytic would be a good term here? i heard mandarin is very analytic language, maybe that could be a good choice

<comment><USER10> "Regular" would be the classic linguistics term, would it not? Although computer science limits the term to the use of regular languages in the Chomsky hierarchy sense (that is, more specifically to regular expressions and the languages they describe), I am under the impression linguistics as a whole treats regularity as a multivariate spectrum. Some languages have more regularity in terms of grammar productions or morphology than English.

<comment><USER9> i meant analytic in this sense of the word [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_language](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_language)

I don't know too much about computational linguistics but it seems highly analytic languages could be easier to work with, but I'm not sure.

<comment><USER10> That points to Isolating [1] and I think highly isolating may be the more useful distinction to this specific example. (Modern English is rather analytic, having dropped most, but not all, inflections in the Middle English era. Mandarin Chinese is much more isolating than Modern English.)

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> throwaway-1209 The whole field of NLP and computational linguistics reminds me of that joke where a drunk is looking for his keys under a street lamp instead of where he actually lost them.

This is true in particular of anything that pertains to reasoning and knowledge representation. People still are trying to "infer rules" and do logical, rather than probabilistic reasoning. I get why that is. To me though, the kind of real life reasoning that humans do seems heavily probabilistic and contextual, Bayesian almost. And there's next to no notable work going on in that direction.

<comment><USER11> I don't think these two things are mutually exclusive.

As far as I'm aware there is work underway to take logical constructions and integrate them with probablistic machine learning to do things like force zero probabilities in impossible input cases. That is encoding domain knowledge into the model directly in the form of symbolic reasoning.

I mean even Bayesian nets require some encoding of causality right? Maybe I'm reading to much of "blah symbolic reasoning is worthless" in your comment?

<comment> throwaway-1209 It's not worthless, per se, it's just not a precursor to AGI in any shape or form, no matter how much the researchers pretend otherwise.

<comment><USER11> Worth reading maybe?

[http://reasoning.cs.ucla.edu/fetch.php?id=136&type=pdf](http://reasoning.cs.ucla.edu/fetch.php?id=136&type=pdf)

Abstract:

> We propose the Probabilistic Sentential Decision Diagram (PSDD): A complete > and canonical representation of probability distributions defined over the > models of a given propositional theory. Each parameter of a PSDD can be > viewed as the (conditional) probability of making a decision in a > corresponding Sentential Decision Diagram (SDD). The SDD itself is a > recently proposed complete and canonical representation of propositional > theories. We explore a number of interesting properties of PSDDs, including > the independencies that underlie them. We show that the PSDD is a tractable > representation. We further show how the parameters of a PSDD can be > efficiently estimated, in closed form, from complete data. We empirically > evaluate the quality of PSDDs learned from data, when we have knowledge, a > priori, of the domain logical constraints.

Still working on my understanding but Professor Darwiche gave a lecture on the material in one of my classes. Salient bit:

> The problem we tackle here is that of developing a representation of > probability distributions in the presence of massive, logical constraints. > That is, given a propositional logic theory which represents domain > constraints, our goal is to develop a representation that induces a unique > probability distribution over the models of the given theory.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> When he talks about the "computational models of language" that ruled in the 80s, is he referring perhaps to stuff like Montague semantics? [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/montague- semantics/](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/montague-semantics/) Or is Montague semantics merely a descriptive framework without practical applications?

What were the main "practical" approaches for natural language understanding back then?

</comment><comment><USER13> What is the Atari referred to here?

Does it have somethi g to do with the game playing AI from openAI? And if so, how is that even related to NLP?</comment>


11 Companies launched tonight at Atlanta Startup Weekend - <AUTHOR> http://blog.weatherby.net/2009/11/atlanta-startup-weekend-3-projects.html

<comment><USER2> Social map of the #asw3 hashtag: <http://seadragon.com/view/fvf></comment>


Uber slapped with suit by Philadelphia taxi companies - <AUTHOR> http://www.philly.com/philly/business/20141225_Uber_slapped_with_suit_by_45_city_taxi_companies.html

<comment><USER2> I recently took a cab home in philly, and throughout the ride home the cab driver was telling me about uber and the impact its had on him. He works 2 shifts and makes $70 but the cab itself is $80/day. He used to own a gas station and other real estate but the economy screwed him and he resorted to driving a cab to try and support his kids, which he was barely able to do.

equally, there was a time I had to take my cat to the vet and could _not_ get a cab home. I called every company I could find, tried the apps for the ones that required it, but nothing. One of the people that worked at the clinic drove me about 2 blocks and there was a cab of one of the companies I had tried, sitting in the parking lot of a gas station. That was frustrating.

So I think its unfair what cab drivers are going through. I think Uber and other services bring innovation to the market and consumers have expressed an interest in this. While its true advances in technology often leave a given workforce obsolete, this is more subtle and "technical" in a legal sense; and not nearly as dramatic as self-driving cars will be.

I think philly should give these cab companies a break, or tighten their grip on Uber. Both should be allowed to compete, and do so fairly. Its not in the consumers interests for one or the other to go away.

Also, I think the "uber is just an app" is BS, because they're setting the rates and getting a commission from the ride (someone correct me if I'm wrong on this) so in reality they're operating an automated dispatch service. But I think their entire business model revolves around that talking point, and doubt they would be able to compete with taxi's if forced to play by those rules.

<comment><USER3> Sounds like that guy might make more money driving with Uber than having to pay $80/day to play.

<comment><USER4> Uber does not provide vehicles for free either.

<comment><USER5> But you can use your own vehicle, unlike in the taxi industry.

<comment><USER6> Not really a good thing, as they depreciate in value

<comment><USER7> Hence taxi companies charging drivers $80 a day to rent them?

$80/day * 20 days per month = $1600 / month, which is like 10x the cost of a lease for, say, a Prius. Meanwhile, Uber drivers can use their own car for any other purpose. Even factoring in gas and insurance it's hard to believe taxi drivers are getting a better deal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It's a little unfair. Uber drivers get screwed over by wages, but taxis are a miserable affair. Every company has their own hailing app; even though drivers are required by law to offer credit card charges, I've been forced multiple times to get cash out of a machine because the machine doesn't work. One time it was even blatantly unplugged.

Both sides are fucked, in their own way; the taxi companies will need to come together and figure out something aside from a lawsuit to survive uber (and uber's successors).

<comment><USER9> I have been told by multiple cabbies in different cities that most personal revenue ("salary") they make is eliminated by absurd cc processing fees.

A recent driver in a SoCal city told me that his processing rates were 20-30%, and he was only allowed to use that service by the terms of his cab lease from the medallion owner. (They obviously operated the cc processing service as well.)

Shouldn't blunt your frustration, but I wanted to repeat what I've heard from traditional taxi drivers -- they're sometimes better off not driving you than driving you and collecting payment by cc.

<comment><USER10> I would like a source please

<comment><USER9> Sorry, don't have one. Wasn't trying to convince you of my perspective, or change your mind. If you're genuinely curious, I'd encourage you to talk with the next few taxi drivers you interact with, and ask them about it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I use and enjoy the services that uber offers. That said, it uses dubious loopholes to evade the (misguided, anti-competitive) regulations taxi companies operate under.

Letting uber evade the bad regulations instead of fixing them is a poor solution (same with tesla and dealerships).

<comment><USER12> Whenever a market gets too distorted or even shut down, shady things (either illegal or in legal gray areas) start popping up that allow people to evade the distorted market. Alcohol prohibition, printer cartridges, keurig and nespresso capsules, taxis, even the war on drugs, you can all boil it down to this simple principle. At the end this is how change happens when at some point the attempts to crack down on it are either given up or it leads to such a severe police state that at some point a revolution happens. So I'd say don't blame the player, blame the game - but still hold up the player to the moral standards you'd like to see yourself (e.g. try to give your money to a better organization than Uber).

When it comes down to these things I like to go back to Immanuel Kant: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction.". I care much more about this than about the law, especially laws that clearly don't have an actual democratic process at their basis. Laws that come into place because of lobbies pressuring or influencing politicians through money or other means, where there is no real possibility for the people to overturn it, are in my opinion not morally just. Unfortunately this means that there are almost no laws I find just, other than those in my home country, Switzerland.

<comment><USER13> Well said. I find it absurd how much local governments interfere with local markets, like with taxis. I see no good reason (that will survive scrutiny with Kant's Categorical Imperative) to legislate the number of taxis in a certain area, like with medallions, or charge a high price for them. It's effectively corruption and regulatory capture. It's anti-competitive and has, by my analysis, no redeeming qualities that could not be accomplished better another way.

I don't see a reasonable avenue for a company like Uber to change the laws ahead of time. They only have the traction and resources that they do because of their bias for action. A no-name startup petitioning the city to drop their taxi legislation because the model is "wrong" will get nowhere. I don't see how Uber could ever have come about with that approach.

Additionally, I am also not convinced that Uber's model falls under taxi legislation by writing or intent. I do not believe that taxi legislation is attempting to control for the same problems. Taxis pick up random people on the streets, with effectively zero relationship ahead of time, and lots of opportunity for individual consumer ripoff. People who use Uber have established a relationship with the company ahead of time, before they need a ride. They have chosen to use Uber _specifically_. The same choice and discrimination is not part of hailing a cab on the street. Uber offers a consistent price to people in an area, and its well-known brand has a reputation to which people can associate bad or good experiences: for the company as a whole, through their speech, and for specific drivers, with the ratings system.

That said, I do also have concerns about Uber's attitude and their intimidating and disruptive tactics toward the press, competitors, etc. They have not comported themselves well enough to deserve the moral high ground, though I will tend to side with them anyway on these legislative issues because taxis are so dysfunctional.

<comment><USER12> That's a good point - if Uber should fall under Taxi law, so should SuperShuttle and various other airport shuttle services. Once there is already a consumer relationship in place, there is no need to protect consumers more than with the normal anti fraud protection.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> As a Philly native whenever I head up to NYC one of the things that always strikes me is how much better the cab experience is - which should tell you something.

The setup we have now is just bad all around. It's not good for the drivers, and it's not good for the passenger. One of the last times I took a cab here, the driver spent the whole time on the phone talking to another driver about how to cheat at inspections, disable the CC machine, etc.

</comment><comment><USER15> Edit: Nevermind. I was confused when the article said, "Pennsylvania's Public Utility Commission recently allowed UberX to operate in the state, but not Philadelphia." I took that to mean they were not operating UberX in Philadelphia. But maybe it means they are? Illegally?

<comment><USER16> There is UberX in Philly now, although as far as I know there were no regulatory changes (and Black still operates legally). The PPA actually did a handful of "sting" operations against UberX drivers when the service started, calling an Uber and then impounding the vehicle ([http://www.phillymag.com/news/2014/10/26/uber- philadelphia-u...](http://www.phillymag.com/news/2014/10/26/uber-philadelphia- uberx-ppa-sting-impounds/)).

<comment><USER8> As far as I am aware (I use uber quite a bit), Uber X is only available in the suburbs. In the city, it's not available; I've only ever gotten the Uber black sedans.

EDIT: This is no longer true, apparently my statement about using uber quite a bit is also no longer true.

<comment><USER16> UberX recently became available: [https://www.uber.com/cities/philadelphia](https://www.uber.com/cities/philadelphia)

I've taken several in center city! (unsurprisingly, a much better experience than CC cabs...)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Seems like Uber cannot catch a break!

</comment><comment><USER18> goes to show that the only ones upset by Uber are those in competition with them

<comment><USER19> I'm pretty sure there are a lot of people upset with them. I use uber pretty regularly, and there is no way in hell I agree with the government sponsored monopoly that taxis enjoy, but I don't like them. They're a shady company with shady legal practices.

<comment><USER20> Use Lyft?

<comment><USER19> In Seattle, there are probably 50 uberx drivers for every lyft driver. I don't know why they haven't caught on more, but they aren't much of an option.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


On Lisp: Happy 20th Birthday - <AUTHOR> According to Amazon: <i>On Lisp</i> was published September 9, 1993. <comment><USER2> Earlier this year, I was working for a small software company whose products were mainly PHP and Perl programs held together with duct tape. Our manager was doing some spring cleaning by removing old programming books from our shelf, shouting the titles out, and tossing them in a trash bag.

After a dozen obsolete books on Windows, Visual Basic, and so on, he shouted out "On Lisp". I was already using Clojure at home, and I recognized the author, so I lunged for it. None of the other programmers had even heard of Lisp, and had no idea why we had the book, so they let me keep it. I wonder how many other old, crusty software shops have gems like that just collecting dust.

<comment><USER3> >"None of the other programmers had even heard of Lisp..."

To the HN crowd, this is almost unbelievable, but it is not the worst I've heard. This summer, going on a vacation, I sat next to a working programmer who's knowledge of programming and the programming languages begins and ends with C#. He had no knowledge of Ruby, Perl, Python, open source, git, ...

<comment><USER4> that may be due to where they learned, I am doing a HND in computer science and we are learning C# and nothing else...

before i began i knew (well enough to make use of) C, vala and a small amount of lisp and PHP

<comment><USER3> Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. The guy didn't know that such things such as open source, git, Ruby, Python, Perl,... even existed. I find it impossible to browse the web and not to run into them, but it seems to be quite possible.

<comment><USER4> most people on my course are like that. at the start about 90% didnt know what a programming language is and about 50% didnt know what WYSIWYG stands for...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> You can download it for free[1], as it went out of print some years ago.

[1] [http://www.paulgraham.com/onlisptext.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/onlisptext.html)

</comment><comment><USER6> There are Clojure versions of the examples from the book by Stuart Halloway [1] and Michael Fogus [2]

[1] [http://thinkrelevance.com/blog/2008/12/12/on-lisp- clojure](http://thinkrelevance.com/blog/2008/12/12/on-lisp-clojure)

[2] [http://blog.fogus.me/tag/onlisp/](http://blog.fogus.me/tag/onlisp/)

</comment><comment><USER7> This book helped me fall in love with Lisp.

</comment><comment><USER8> Am I a bad person for using Common Lisp for a short time (a few years) and then giving up on it completely?

<comment><USER9> No this does not make you a bad person.

I took the better part of a year to feel quite comfortable with Lisp. A few years later, I am still learning things.

It does take you in a different direction than all of the most popular languages. Personally, it has been worth the effort.

<comment><USER8> In 2004 I was comfortable enough to release some open source code in Common Lisp. Around 2008 I stopped using it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Thanks!

<comment><USER11> How has the book aged?

<comment><USER12> About as well as anything related to Common Lisp. It's abstract enough that some of the macro patterns are reusable in Clojure, but we don't often use them in Clojure.

Anybody that wants a deeper understanding of Lisp should read, but with the understanding that it's not a shake-n-bake recipe book.

The last time I wrote an anaphoric macro (let alone the scope-capturing one), the Clojure IRC channel had a heart-attack.

<comment><USER11> I read it about ten years ago. Do not remember anything, because I was never able to find work as a Common Lisp programmer. Would have been fun. I know that things in the lisp community change very slowly, and wanted to know if the book was still relevant. Might give it a second go.

Is Clojure "lighter" (for a lack of a better term) than lisp?

<comment><USER12> Clojure is more pliable, yet more robust.

Easier to learn in some respects, yet deeper if you look for it.

I've found it easier to teach Clojure than I had Common Lisp in the past, yet Clojure has helped me to grow more as a programmer.

There's very little that you can do in CL, that you cannot in Clojure. That which you can't is often very limited and unimportant ultimately.

There are many things that are either impossible or hopelessly painful in Common Lisp that are commonplace in Clojure.

It is shocking how much code I write in Clojure is either:

1\. Stateless

2\. Stateful and multi-threaded, yet thread-safe.

<comment><USER11> May you tell what type of systems do you work with? i.e., Web, server, enterprise intranet, etc.

<comment><USER12> Web (frontend and backend), SOA, data warehousing, scale-out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Looking forward to time tourism. Would be great fun to go back to 1993 and chat about On Lisp, get in touch with Chris Carter about his upcoming series, and catch the In Utero tour. (Among other things.)

<comment><USER14> Sorry to be boringly practical but if you go remember :

winner 1993 world baseball series - Toronto Blue Jays. Now take the winnings and buy Netscape stock:-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Happy birthday !

Discussion 2 weeks ago: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6273692](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6273692)

In the discussion was mentioned this link (thanks @nonrecursive!) with instructions to print your own copy on lulu :

[http://www.lurklurk.org/onlisp/onlisp.html](http://www.lurklurk.org/onlisp/onlisp.html)

</comment><comment><USER16> Congratulations, PG!

</comment><comment><USER17> Goodness, that makes me feel old. I remember On Lisp very fondly.

</comment><comment><USER18> Price at Amazon starts at $100 and goes up to $1900.

Insane.

But shows how much a classic it is.

<comment><USER14> Fascinating - 1900 bucks for a book that has a free PDF download must be a bot pricing war. Amazed to hear those are still up and running,

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> happy birthday</comment>


Encounters with the Posthuman - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/issue/1/what-makes-you-so-special/encounters-with-the-posthuman

<comment><USER2> This reminds me of the practice of implanting a very small, very powerful magnet into the tip of your finger - which then allows you to feel magnetic fields.

[http://discuss.biohack.me/discussion/278/so-you-want-to- put-...](http://discuss.biohack.me/discussion/278/so-you-want-to-put-a-magnet- in-your-finger/p1)

[http://io9.com/what-you-need-to-know-about-getting- magnetic-...](http://io9.com/what-you-need-to-know-about-getting-magnetic- finger-imp-813537993)

<comment><USER3> Reminds you? The author writes about that in the article, interviewing someone who has had the procedure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > _how can we define aliveness without necessarily referring to the human?_

Is there another way to progress in this area, besides gaining a better understanding of how human brains work?

<comment><USER5> Gaining a better understanding of how a bacteria works? They are kind of alive yet much simpler than brain.

<comment><USER4> Once you go there anything is alive.. :P

But yeah I was referring to consciousness mainly.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Do you still listen to mp3? - <AUTHOR>

It feels most people today use services like Grooveshark & Spotify to listen to music. I'm not one of them, because I have accumulated so many mp3 over the years, that I'm very attached and satisfied by my existing library.<p>So I'm curious, how many of you still use mp3? and how (e.g. phone, CD, online)? <comment><USER2> I use mp3. I have a large library, and I'm not going to transcode it to something else.

The things I buy are usually mp3 too.

Currently on Snow Leopard I use Clementine. I'd like something else. I'd prefer something that was a bit more stable with a large library; that was really easy to "vote" a track up or down (I have a lot of tracks that I won't listen too. I need a way to mark and delete them. Really delete, not just remove from a playlist.)

I'm thinking of someway to improve the naming and tagging of the files.

Really, it's a mess.

Portable use I have an old Sansa Fuze which I really like. Except the scroll wheel has a well known "getting stuck" problem.

</comment><comment><USER3> I still primarily listen to mp3s via my own cloud based music player that lets you share your library with your friends. It looks like iTunes before they started to add extra bells and whistles (ping buttons) that in my opinion make it less useful. It's not perfect, but it allows me to listen to 320kbps audio files without having to worry about audio filters being applied by specific applications.

I have a couple albums on my iPhone (only need the 16 gig as the rest of my library is accessible when online).

</comment><comment><USER4> MP3 files or MP3 streams, yes, at least 6-7 hours a day. I've never bothered to put any of this stuff on my phone since I'm always working with a computer anyway.

</comment><comment><USER5> I stopped downloading years ago. I use things like grooveshark and pandora.</comment>


Google authorship feature deactivated (rather silently, half a year ago) - <AUTHOR>

Web content could be related/linked to a Google+ profile, with markup that became known as "rel=author markup". That was an important SEO feature offered by Google. You might be surprised -- like me -- that this feature is no more. The markup can be removed from your website:
http://gehrcke.de/2015/02/google-authorship-feature-deactivated/
TL;DR: the removal of the feature was communicated through Google+, half a year ago. I came across this accidentally today and figured that it's worth sharing, because clearly the ecosystem adjusted to the feature, and now requires active cleanup. The worthless/distracting remains will exist for years, probably. <comment><USER2> I noticed this back in January when working with a Jekyll theme I got from GitHub and was looking into how to set it up. I was also surprised, as you'd think that this is something that Google would want to allow. I actually kind of liked it, as post from familiar faces were easier to spot in the search results, but I can see how it could be distracting to people who couldn't care less who the author is.

</comment><comment><USER3> Yes this was pretty big news in the inbound marketing community. I was pretty shocked about this news as well, because it seemed to be moving in the dirction Google was going in, esp with their recent patents.

</comment><comment><USER4> previous discussion : [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8240288](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8240288)</comment>


Archive.org donations are currently matched by a generous supporter 2-to-1 - <AUTHOR> https://archive.org/donate/ <comment><USER2> I like archive.org. I've mirrored thousands and thousands of their math/science ebooks into my apocalypse drive right next to the copy of wikipedia/wiktionary/wikispecies/etc and every binary/src package for the two distros I enjoy the most.

<comment><USER3> >> _into my apocalypse drive_

I've often thought of what humanity would due given an apocalyptic scenario, and individually what I would do. I've never thought about creating an apocalypse drive, but am now considering making one! I'd be curious to see/ compare peoples full apocalypse drive.

<comment><USER2> Mine so far is the ebooks/wikis/distros/every console video game + emulators. And I'm barely at like 750 gigs.

In theory I'm sitting on most of humanities basic hard knowledge and every significant piece of Linux source code. If for example a solar flare took down the grid for a couple years I could help setup local communication networks with solar and low power computers with long range wifi with web/ftp/irc/etc servers pretty easily.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Can anyone explain to me how Archive.org is exempt from DMCA? For example you can download a lot of copyrighted old console ROMs from them. Not abandonware. How come no one goes after Archive.org? I mean TPB founders went to jail even tho they don't even host anything. How is Archive.org different?

<comment><USER5> I'm not a lawyer or an expert, but looking at the Wikipedia page for the DMCA [0] there appears to be protection for retro games:

"An exemption was made for 'Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and which require the original media or hardware as a condition of access.'"

EDIT: Actually archive.org posted an article about exactly this [1]

[0]: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act)

[1]: [https://archive.org/about/dmca.php](https://archive.org/about/dmca.php)

<comment><USER6> The thing about DMCA anticircumvention exemptions is that they don't last: they have to be constantly renewed, and the one you mention has in fact lapsed.

Plus, they only get you out of the "anticircumvention" provisions, not regular old copyright law or the more familiar DMCA notice-and-takedown procedure. In other words an exemption may allow you to legally remove or break DRM or other copy protection, but it doesn't give you any rights to make copies or display works.

As best I can tell, they seem to be operating on a "see what we can get away with" model, which appears to be working out pretty well for them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I just wish they wouldn't partner with orgs who restrict the downloading of material, it doesn't feel like the spirit of archive.org there are other places for content providers who want to be neurotic.

<comment><USER8> can you elaborate on those orgs? any story to read?

<comment><USER9> I am not the op, but maybe s/he is referring to the fact that you can rent drm'd ebooks. It was quite jarring when I discovered this, but I was able to get hold of a rare out of print book.

<comment><USER10> Apparently it's about these: [https://archive.org/details/last20](https://archive.org/details/last20) (only 60 books)

Article with rationale: [https://blog.archive.org/2018/01/24/digital-books-on- archive...](https://blog.archive.org/2018/01/24/digital-books-on-archive-org/)

<comment><USER11> That sound pretty awesome to be honest.

> The digital protection allows books to be lent via downloads that disappear > (or become inaccessible) when the loan period ends (e.g. two weeks). For > users who prefer to read their ebooks directly in a browser, the same thing > happens. The book becomes inaccessible at the end of the loan period, and > the next reader in line has a chance to borrow it.

That's just how it works in a "normal" library so why would it be any different? Sure, DRM is bad and all that but if they would just give books out for free indefinitely it wouldn't be considered a library where you have access to a certain number of titles for a period of time.

It's either these books not being available for online lending at all or within the same constrains as a "real" library just easy and online. What's bad about that?

<comment><USER12> > That's just how it works in a "normal" library so why would it be any > different?

Because these are not physical books. You can give access to them to as many people as you want at the same time.

<comment><USER11> That not unlimited people can rent the same title at the same time is probably a licensing issue (as they only purchases x copies for lending).

The DRM in this case is mostly about the time limit on the rental though. If you would get access to the title indefinitely it would be giving away not renting?

<comment><USER13> The whole project is about preserving information for current and future generations, so what place does limiting the availability of it have in history? It's more likely it'll just be lost due to DRM when no one can figure it out in the future. It's the digital equivalent of losing the books, though due to someone being more concerned about their pocket book today than for future generations.

<comment><USER14> Would you prefer that the Internet Archive not make these books available at all? That was likely the alternative possibility.

I assume that the Internet Archive is holding onto the original, DRM-Free master copies. That's a job I trust the Internet Archive with, even if ideally I wish the data was more distributed.

<comment><USER13> I would actually, because it sets a bar that if you'd like your book to be preserved then you need to make a choice, is your book so valuable that it should be free? If not, there's plenty of other places for DRM books. What they're doing instead is trying to have it both ways.

<comment><USER15> They are having it both ways. A non-encrypted copy is preserved digitally within the Internet Archive, and that copy is made available, now, in the only way it legally can be. Once that copyright expires, the Archive can make the content freely available to all, having already been digitized.

<comment><USER7> In some cases the content doesn't belong to the person restricting it however, they're effectively copyrighting the digital medium, do you think that's right for them to DRM it?

e.g. clearly the authors of these texts aren't around any more: [http://blog.archive.org/2018/10/04/worlds-largest- collection...](http://blog.archive.org/2018/10/04/worlds-largest-collection- of-tibetan-buddhist-literature/)

<comment><USER14> > In some cases the content doesn't belong to the person restricting it > however, they're effectively copyrighting the digital medium, do you think > that's right for them to DRM it?

No, I don't think it's right for a separate entity to usurp this kind of authority, but that's not really a battle the Internet Archive can win.

They are doing their best within the restrictions placed on them. If you'd like to lobby for more sane copyright laws, please go ahead, I'll be behind you 100%. That does not negate the good being done by the Internet Archive right now.

<comment><USER7> It's not copyright law or authority, the Internet Archive can just say no. They can't be forced to take material.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Note that the donation form is in USD, though it doesn't seem to say so. A bit confusing for those of us in other countries with "$"; the form knew I was in New Zealand.

<comment><USER17> Canada too. It's one of many Americanizations that we have to tolerate daily online. And if you think it's bad for the Kiwis or Aussies, because Canada is in America we are regularly grouped into "America" or "North America" for things like online store region. Leads to confusions on a regular basis.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> It's a better cause than buying a $500m boat.

<comment><USER19> What's the story here?

<comment><USER20> Brewster Kahle, the founder of the Internet Archive, spent his liquidity event funds on starting the Internet Archive instead of on what some might consider waste.

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> If you make end-of-the-year donations, giving to Archive.org is an outstanding choice. Brewster and his team are focused on things that mattered in the past, are important now, and will form the structure which supports the future.

</comment><comment><USER22> I hate to think what will be lost when Twitter goes belly up.

</comment><comment><USER23> I don't buy into donation matching. I think if those wealthy people and organizations who are matching donations want to donate, they can just go ahead and donate. If they care and have the money and are going to refuse to donate it unless people of limited means donate, I don't want to encourage that behavior. I also want to donate to the cause that I feel is most important for me to support, not to who has the best deal.

Edit: searched for articles about it, found this: [https://blog.givewell.org/2011/12/15/why-you-shouldnt-let- do...](https://blog.givewell.org/2011/12/15/why-you-shouldnt-let-donation- matching-affect-your-giving/)

<comment><USER24> It's a way to leverage their money. If by matching up to $1M they can get the group to raise $1.5M, that's better than outright donating that money.

<comment><USER25> Exactly. Organizations offer matching for the same reason donors like to have their donations matched. Both parties leverage each other.</comment></comment></comment>


Why Cryonics Makes Sense - <AUTHOR> http://waitbutwhy.com/2016/03/cryonics.html <comment><USER2> The weak point in the cryonics movement, in my view, is this:

1) The average life expectancy of a multinational corporation-Fortune 500 or its equivalent-is between 40 and 50 years.

2) The average life expectancy of a civil government is only slightly longer, at a few hundred years (not a lot of data points, admittedly).

3) Cryopreservation is resource-intensive and requires frequent interventions (e.g. needs to be actively maintained, no passive storage solutions).

Taken together, it's doubtful that humans can create institutions long-lived enough to accomplish uninterrupted cryopreservation for any real amount of time. Therefore if humans actually do achieve singularity or end aging at any point in the future, it will most likely be only that generation of humans (or some subset) that enjoy the benefits. The amount of time preceding that moment during which it would be possible to achieve human preservation uninterrupted by the demise of necessary institutions such as companies and governments, is likely to be short, or possibly fully within the life expectancy at that time (everyone born at the start of the era of stability that leads to the "end of death" will be saved from death; people born during the prior era could not have been revived anyway due to the lack of stable institutions to preserve the bodies).</comment>


Mat Dan: 'I became an accidental celebrity 6,000 miles from home' - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-49466721 <comment><USER2> See also the case of "Da Shan" [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dashan](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dashan), who is supposedly the most famous Canadian in the world by dint of his mega- celebrity status in China.

He wrote an amazing Quora note a while ago on his position: [https://www.quora.com/Why-do-so-many-Chinese-learners- seem-t...](https://www.quora.com/Why-do-so-many-Chinese-learners-seem-to-hate- Dashan-Mark-Rowswell)

Well worth reading in its entirety.

<comment><USER3> The level of self criticism, self awareness and frankness is inspiring.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> A couple of personal anecdotes:

When I took a VC internship in the Philippines during the summer, one of the big pop stars was an American Filipino. We had a convo at the bar he owned—turns out he was a SoCal boy like me, and got tired of going to school at Devry, so he moved to the motherland and got famous.

When I visited Norway for the first time, I saw a girl whose presence really floored me. As she was leaving the club, I followed her out. Turns out she was a pop star as well, and liked me for my American-ness.

I think with the right presence, it's not as hard as one might think if you're from an OECD country.

<comment><USER5> And, do could you also have anything to do with a city in the Horn of Africa? Your username kind of sounds that.

<comment><USER4> It's an old nickname! Given to me by a very clever friend

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Nice story! A good read to start off Monday morning.

Off topic, but one of the really beautiful things about this planet we live in is the diverse cultures.

</comment><comment><USER7> It's fascinating to see a white or black person make it big in an Asian country; in the startup sense, does this mean their ethnic and skin color became their USP and advantage? The same thing I've seen happen when a black or white person show up in talk shows in S. Korea, Japan, and China. Oh, let's not forget Jonny Olsen [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNm7k2PUGzI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNm7k2PUGzI) =)

The saying goes, you're only limited by your thinking 〰 think big!

<comment><USER8> A kind of generalized Asian version of 'big in Japan'.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Learning the local's language is THE way to become in good favour of those who live there. When I'm travelling for more than a few days I learn "hello" and "Sorry, I don't speak x language" which usually gets a smile and I can then politely ask if they speak english. I used to learn enough to read a menu but these days I get lazy with Google translate (which is incredible, when you use it in real-life. Hands down, digital translation is one of my favourite technologies)

<comment><USER10> It's also in my opinion basic courtesy. You are a guest in their country, at least try to learn how to say hello and thank you.

<comment><USER11> I disagree, English is fast becoming (already is?) the global language. It makes sense to standardise on English instead of learning hundreds of different languages (which is no easy task).

<comment><USER12> English is woefully inadequate to capture cultural nuances of a lot of places in this blue-green spinny ball though

I grew up multi lingual before moving to the US and there are still several things that i have to say "well, there's no word for that in English but it's kind of xyz". There are so many ideas, thoughts and feelings that cannot be captured with the English language presently.

Of course every language has that issue across borders so I'm not convinced standardizing in english as a global language will bring enough benefit to be worth the cost

<comment><USER13> I think that's unfair, just because there is no direct or succinct translation doesn't mean the same thought cannot be expressed, it's just that it needs to be more verbose perhaps.

It is also incredibly open to new ideas and words, best put by James Nicoll >The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> > A lot of people say they know hundreds of foreign workers who come over here > and speak Malay in two or three months and they don't turn into a celebrity

Can you really speak a language sufficiently well in 3 months, especially when you are there to work on something potentially unrelated to language ?

<comment><USER15> My mother's family are from Malaysia (from the Terengganu mention in the article) and I've been told by a couple of people there that Malay is a pretty easy language to pick up and that foreigners can learn it pretty quickly.

<comment><USER16> Yes, Bahasa can be learned very, very quickly, it uses the Latin alphabet, words are written how they are spoken and vice-versa, verbs are never conjugated nor do they have tenses and the grammar is simple (e.g. plurals are created by simply doubling the words, like rumah, house, becomes rumah-rumah, houses, which in written form is abbreviated to rumah²).

My father used to joke you can learn Bahasa in three weeks, English in three months, and German in three years.

I've no clue about the Terengganu dialect, though.

It's my third language, and I've never needed it professionally, so I whatever I've said may not be 100% accurate...

Source: Am half Malay, lived there for nine years, around the KL area.

<comment><USER17> People called any malay or Indonesian language "bahasa" really bother me, bahasa means language, so if you tell people "i speak in bahasa", literally translated to "i speak in language", sounds really weird to me

<comment><USER16> I've often heard locals refer it to nothing more than "Bahasa", but yes, correctly you'd have to say "Bahasa Malaysia" or "Bahasa Indonesia", which can get umbrellad to "Bahasa Melayu", but that then sometimes offends the Indonesians, so I'm sticking to "Bahasa". My previous comment is valid for both.

Since we're nitpicking: People call _ing_ any Malay or Indonesian language "Bahasa" really bother _s_ me, Bahasa means language, so if you tell people "I speak Bahasa", literally translated to "I speak language", _it /that_ sounds really weird to me. (Personally, I find that beautiful. If nothing else is specified, it "defaults" to itself, how awesome is that?)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> There's Dustin Luke from the States in Argentina, too. Obviously, the cultural difference is much lower

</comment><comment><USER19> This is awesome! I can't wait for the movie

</comment><comment><USER20> From the article.

"'What's the difference between Mat Dan and a Bangladeshi worker who can speak Malay?'"

Mat is white whereas Bangladeshi people are black. Malay people worship white skin and thus they even give money to beg-packing white people who exploit this to travel South East Asia for free. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEGFARCfQUU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEGFARCfQUU) In fact, Mat himself was one of those. "Rather than just spending his time travelling with Western backpackers".

<comment><USER21> > _Mat is white whereas Bangladeshi people are black. Malay people worship > white skin and thus they even give money to beg-packing white people who > exploit this to travel South East Asia for free._

It's much simpler: Bangladeshi workers speaking Malay are a dime a dozen. Westerners learning a minority language in Malaysia are relatively few and far between. Millions of whites visit Malaysia as tourists but they don't become celebrities.

It's also not about "worshipping white skin", but about being amused and/or feeling validated by the western internet.

Finally, the protest against western backpackers asking from money (a recent fad protest in some countries) is irrelevant to this particular story.

<comment><USER20> > the protest against western backpackers asking from money (a recent fad > protest in some countries) is irrelevant to this particular story.

There's a term for that, it is called beg-packing. It is not irrelevant as it has been suggested in the comments that Mat was originally a beg packer. The article itself states that he was a back packer travelling South East Asia. [http://www.popularyoutube.com/video/HYkgwRJvc2s/Dear- White-B...](http://www.popularyoutube.com/video/HYkgwRJvc2s/Dear-White-Beg- packers/)

> It's also not about "worshipping white skin", but about being amused and/or > feeling validated by the western internet.

Thank you for clarifying. I'm using the term worshipping perhaps to oversimplify "feeling validated when a white person gives attention/time". And yes, it is about skin color, as a Western black person who is fluent in Malay would not get any attention.

<comment><USER21> > _There 's a term for that, it is called beg-packing. It is not irrelevant as > it has been suggested in the comments that Mat was originally a beg packer._

I mean not relevant as in "there are tons of beg packers and hardly any raise to any fame with local populations".

I've been in Malaysia several times and in the general area. It's not like there's any work shipping of whites, much less white beg packers, going on, waiting for someone to speak the language to ignite...

>* Thank you for clarifying. I'm using the term worshipping perhaps to oversimplify "feeling validated when a white person gives attention/time".*

Well, that I agree could play part. Tho that's the same often happens in white places, e.g. in my Eastern / Southern European land, western validation is often celebrated -- so I wouldn't say it's tied to skin color.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Funny how cultural appropriation works sometimes

<comment><USER23> That word you used, I don't think you know what it means.

Appropriation is when you take something (often by deceit, lies or force) and (this is the important part) call it your own.

Had he for instance learned Terenggaun food, clothing, habits, or any part of the culture, returned to the UK and announced all of it as something he came up with, that would be cultural appropriation.

OTOH, what he has done -- given himself up to it ("I'm more Malay than English.") would be described, as why-oh-why points out, cultural integration.

<comment><USER24> Cultural appropriation really doesn't mean claiming you came up with something. It's a fairly broad term but a recurring issue is when a cultural element is used in ways incompatible with or insulting to it's original meaning. So for example a head dress or garment meant to signify ritual purity becoming a common thing to wear while getting drunk at frat parties.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is snapchat really useful? - <AUTHOR> I really don't get snapchat and all the hype around it (Especially since the last bloomberg article about it).
I feel like to Twitter, Snapchat is more like Instagram. It may have more users but not the same effect. How useful is it[Snapchat]? Do you use it? Why?
The article: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-02/snapchat-passes-twitter-in-daily-usage <comment><USER2> I have many friends who swear by it, though it's only ever used for one, very niche use-case: Documenting only mildly interesting moments for friends to see.

There's no need to document unimportant things. If you have a random thought that'd you like to blurt out to the world, there's Twitter. If you want to remain social with people outside of real life contact, there's Facebook. If you want to communicate with people, there are any number of messaging apps -- which, by the way, can send any form of media. If there's something going on that is interesting enough to where you'd want to document it semi- permanently, there's any number of cameras and camera apps. If you want to broadcast everything you're doing, there's Periscope and Facebook Live.

So the reason people -- particularly young people -- prefer Snapchat (outside the infamous sexting) is because they can essentially broadcast mildly noteworthy moments of their lives to their friends without worrying about all those pictures and movies hanging around, taking up space, or possibly coming back to embarrass them.

But as for me? My toddler just loves playing with the animated filters. That is literally the only reason I have it.

</comment><comment><USER3> It's useful for seeing what my friends are actually doing. People are much more willing to share if it won't be indexed and looked at later by unintended audiences. What specifically do you not understand? The UI/UX? The appeal?

<comment><AUTHOR> Mainly the appeal

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> You might be overthinking it. Use it. Add friends, play around with it -- filters, video chat, stories etc. If you still don't like it then, we'll its not for you, and that's perfectly ok.

I use it for the ease of communication and the ability to share moments instantly. Sometimes I'll even use as a camera app.

</comment><comment><USER5> That MPH filter is dangerous. I see no use for it other than bragging about speeding.</comment>


A New Tor Bridge Authority - <AUTHOR> https://blog.torproject.org/blog/new-bridge-authority <comment><USER2> I feel like all the news around tor recently has to do with people leaving. Is this a cause for concern?

<comment><USER3> I don't know about that. The only one I've heard of is Jacob Appelbaum, and that was more of an ousting than him leaving.

If anything, Tor seems to have gained quite an impressive board of directors recently:

[https://blog.torproject.org/blog/tor-project-elects-new- boar...](https://blog.torproject.org/blog/tor-project-elects-new- board%C2%A0-directors-wizard-bruce-schneier-joins-the-tor-project)

<comment><USER4> It's not quite that simple:

[https://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/dissent-and- distrus...](https://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/dissent-and-distrust-in- tor-community-following-ja)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Seriously HN, 5 top-level comments and every single one is off-topic.

Anyway, it's great that they managed to get up and running in such a limit time at this scale.

It's obvious that there are challenges decentralisation and status monitoring, but I personally have high hopes and in general with I2P it's great to have multiple players working for censorship-free internet.

Kudos

</comment><comment><USER6> It's like everyone knows why he left but no one wants to talk about it.

<comment><USER7> Why did he leave?

<comment><USER8> In his statement of resignation he says that given recent events the Tor Project no longer meets his ethical standards, and that he will be ceasing all support, including financial and technical.

Full statement:

[https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/19690](https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/19690)

"Dear friends,

Given recent events, it is no longer appropriate for me to materially contribute to the Tor Project either financially, as I have so generously throughout the years, nor by providing computing resources. This decision does not come lightly; I probably ran one of the first five nodes in the system and my involvement with Tor predates it being called "Tor" by many years.

Nonetheless, I feel that I have no reasonable choice left within the bounds of ethics, but to announce the discontinuation of all Tor-related services hosted on every system under my control.

Most notably, this includes the Tor node "Tonga", the "Bridge Authority", which I recognize is rather pivotal to the network

Tonga will be permanently shut down and all associated crytographic keys destroyed on 2016-08-31. This should give the Tor developers ample time to stand up a substitute. I will terminate the chron job we set up so many years ago at that time that copies over the descriptors.

In addition to Tonga, I will shut down a number of fast Tor relays, but the directory authorities should detect that shutdown quickly and no separate notice is needed here.

I wish the Tor Project nothing but the best moving forward through those difficult times,

\--Lucky"

<comment><USER7> Do we know what the "recent events" he's talking about are? Do they in someway threaten the security/anonymity of Tor?

If this is more fallout from the extra-legal witch hunt applied against Jacob Appelbaum then it really is a shame to be losing project leaders over something not in anyway related to Tor tech.

<comment><USER9> I believe there was also some issues with management outside of the Appllebaum stuff.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Can someone tell me why this post has a rel="nofollow" in the link?

Same for [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12403138](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12403138)

and [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12405328](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12405328) (which seems to be a sponsored/in-house post with no comments allowed?)

CSS selector for stylish:

        .storylink[rel~=nofollow] {
            color: red;
        }

edit: further down behind the front-page it becomes more, but for "new" there are none such links at all.

<comment><USER11> We're happy to answer such questions if you email firstname.lastname@example.com, but please don't create distractions in the discussion threads by posting them here.

<comment><USER10> thanks, sorry to bother, I sent a mail. (though slight function abuse in the name of curiosity should be allowed on a site called hn, no? ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> "Nonetheless, I feel that I have no reasonable choice left within the bounds of ethics, but to announce the discontinuation of all Tor-related services hosted on every system under my control."

One can only assume this statement was made due to the somewhat recent Appelbaum debacle, but why pussyfoot around the subject? Lucky either believes numerous members of the Tor project are lying or there is something more nefarious going on here. Has he expanded on what ethical standards he is in disagreement with?</comment>


Being God is a big responsibility - <AUTHOR> http://qntm.org/responsibility <comment><USER2> Fun fiction, unfortunately missing the boat on quantum computing capabilities, the aims of quantum simulation, and the way quantum mechanics works.

The current interpretation of quantum mechanics is completely at odds with the statement from the story: "'[the simulation] is still as accurate a simulation of the real universe as there can possibly be. Civilisation - indeed, all of history - should rise on this Earth precisely how it did in reality. There are no chances. It's all worked out to infinitely many decimal places.'"

That's just not quantum mechanics. The "infinitely many decimal places" is a classic mistake (pardon the pun) and indicates a strong deterministic bent to the authors way of thinking about the world.

Clearly, quantum indeterminacy and its implications for a non-deterministic universe are still hard to both understand and get right in fiction.

<comment><USER3> I'm pretty certain the author knows quantum mechanics doesn't work like it does in the story. Consider:

 _Brute force primality testing of every single integer in existence? Easy. Pi to the last digit? Piece of cake. Halting Problem? Sa-holved._

This is obviously tongue in cheek, and only serves to establish that the computer is "larger than life" and that therefore we should automatically accept all the subsequent descriptions of how the computer can instantly simulate the entire universe and then some.

The reader is not supposed to believe quantum computers actually work like that. The computer is just a storytelling device, no more, no less.

<comment><USER2> Certainly the hyperbole is part of the story. And again, let me say I think its fun fiction.

However, I still have strong regrets that the author choose to stick the label "quantum" on it just to make it powerful/magical.

Why not call it a massively-interconnected, nano-organic cellular automata computer instead? Sure, it looses its literary flair, but quantum mechanics and computing is already so rarely understood in the public world, I hate to see fiction encouraging a deterministic model.

<comment><USER4> > Why not call it a massively-interconnected, nano-organic cellular automata > computer instead?

That would be unrealistic, absurd, and impossible. How are you going to get an infinite amount of computation in finite time with a cellular automaton or a computer made out of discrete components? The only chance of realistic technobabble is quantum effects. That way, you can pull all sorts of mumbo jumbo like "doing infinitely many things in parallel" or "teleporting the results of computation across space without violating causality" or "expressing the future of a simulation in the binary expansion of real number." And the story simply wouldn't work without a deterministic universe.

P.S. I'm not the author.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If you can get past the tricky first step of understanding the story (which many seem to fail at), the world gets even trickier after that.

So, the obvious first step is to run the simulation to completion of heat death of the universe. That way at least your reality won't suddenly shut off. This actually detaches you from the top-level reality at that point, because it guarantees that even the top-level can no longer shut you off; it had a "time step" which contained the entire universe simulation and can't be taken back.

Now, you're on top, right? Not necessarily. Suppose the next thing you did was to re-run the simulation again. You skip back to the present, in which you all already detached. Now, in infinity-1 universes, you are once again in a loop, under your total control, with one universe at the top not in the loop but grotesquely outnumbered. Now, go nuts. Design your perfect universe. No more entropy, eternal life, whatever. Take your time, you can always recover the exact state of the dearly departed simply by rerunning the simulation to the proper point.

Now, suddenly cut in your perfect universe. Infinity-1 one of you will experience a sudden transition to perfect universe. (Yes, I know infinity-1 is meaningless. Bear with me here.) So not only are you simulated, you have the power to completely rewrite the laws of your universe at will. Careful construction of this universe may result in other entertaining consequences; for instance, it need not be "a" universe, perhaps you leave the old one in place and install a literal portal to something new, or construct multiple. You can "get in" to the simulation.

Truly these people are gods in every sense that matters.

<comment><USER6> If all changes are reflected above and below, then the guys on top of you in the simulation are running you to the heat death of the universe as well. Which is essentially the same as turning off the simulation.

<comment><USER7> Calculating to heat death doesn't make a difference to the people in the simulation. So, it's not the same as terminating the simulation _before_ completion.

For instance, if calculating the simulation was paused for 100 years, then resumed, the people in the simulation would never know.

So, just because it might take five seconds to calculate the entire life of the simulation does not mean entities in the simulation would experience it like that.

Also, our universe seems pretty stable, so if heat death is a part of our universe's life, then there is a reason.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Sam Hughes' entire fiction section on qntm.org is worth reading if you enjoy stories like this. I'd recommend the "Ed stories" (<http://qntm.org/ed>), "Time Loop" (<http://qntm.org/timeloop>), "Valuable Humans In Transit" (<http://qntm.org/transit>), and the entire set of "Fine Structure" (<http://qntm.org/structure>), which is a large piece of fiction made up of small stories that he recently finished up.

</comment><comment><USER9> In the not-very-likely event that anyone here hasn't already seen it, the same author's authoritative work on How To Destroy The Earth is worth a look: <http://qntm.org/geocide> .

(Apparently he's in the process of turning it into a book: <http://qntm.org/news_book> .)

<comment><USER10> I like this page: <http://qntm.org/why>

Particularly.

 _#14 By accident

Obviously there's a limit to how big an accident can get. ... [snip] ...Be creative and the kinds of accidents I'm talking about here seem more and more plausible.

Obviously there's a limit to how big an accident can get._

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> You could create awesome feedback loops by making a very small change to something in the simulated universe, relative to how it is in your universe.

Then the people in the simulation will make the same change too, but relative to the change that _you_ made.

This is something that I put into an unpublished novel I wrote, but I want to go back and make the thing that's being changed cooler, like some fundamental universe rule.

Watch this to get an idea of why this would be awesome: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_zD6pHqvAk>

</comment><comment><USER11> Fun! I immediately thought of brains in vats: <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/brain-vat/>

Also, once the test has run, the stack of simulations and the real (top) world have diverged. Diane and Timmy at the top have belief states that simulated D and T do no: they know they are at the top of the stack.

<comment><USER12> Yeah, I would worry about what that top version of me would do. But I suppose, with the simulator it would likely be possible to see. Just run another instance of the universe to the point I found out I'm in the simulation chain, but don't let the new instance see the black sphere. This serves another purpose... when the level that thinks it is the top level sees the level below them running this test, they will have to again wonder if they are in one of those simulations. So they will again have incentive to be nice/benevolent to the simulation chain.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> The "real" (i.e. top-level) Tim and Diane wouldn't have seen an inert sphere materialize, and they would thus realize they were different from the simulations. Consequently they're not the "same" people as the simulated ones. They could completely fuck up their simulations without repercussions.

<comment><USER7> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality>

<http://www.simulation-argument.com/>

<http://urgrue.org/lib/mysterious-flow.html>

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I don't understand why they should be careful not to disturb lower levels?

They don't interact with upper levels. They are simulation anyway - they have no free will (that was an assumption - other way all the levels would diverge the moment the first human was born).

So no amount of caution can do anything to them - they are in predetermined world.

<comment><USER12> It behooves them to be the kind of people that would be nice to the lower levels, since that is then all but certainly how the version of them one level up will also behave in the same situation. It is a bit like Newcomb's problem, if you are predictably and cooperatively well-behaved you get rewarded.

<comment><USER14> Did you mean that they should be nice because the upper levels can see them and intervent? I can agree that in such situation they should be good to their simulated selves.

Or did you mean that even when upper levels are not watching, their (upper levels) behaviour depends on decision of lower levels? Because I can't see why it is so.

People at any given level are either: a) at the top and have nothing to worry - their universe won't stop working no matter what they do b) simulated and have no choice - what they decide is just result of simulation inputs and, maybe, tinkering of upper levels

Ether way - the real decisions are made only at the top level - if not, why all simulated worlds have the same history?

People would make different decisions earlier in simulated history if it was possible, and after many generations of simulated people and their different decisions worlds would diverge beyond recognition.

Even if free will exists on lower levels - why decision of lower levels inhabitants should change probabilities of upper levels decisions? Either they have free will, and their decisions are independent of upper levels - or they don't have free will, and their decisions just mirrors their top level selves.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding sth, English isn't my native language, and the subject is hard. Anyway - it's very interesting thought experiment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Odd, nobody has mentioned the movie Deja Vu in any comments, here or at the site...

Isn't this a similar premise, except the movie was simplified so as not to overwhelm and confuse normal movie-goers with quantum physics?

</comment><comment><USER16> Thank god for Readability: <http://lab.arc90.com/experiments/readability/> :)

Nice thought experiment though

</comment><comment><USER17> So... the only thing that's real is Tao.

Wicked!

</comment><comment><USER18> The funny thing is that, given in the story that it is possible to simulate the universe, even the top level Timmy and Diane can't be certain that they are not in a simulation, only that they are at the top of that particular line of simulations involving them. Imagine that when they publish this paper and others try Diane's program out on their own quantum computer, they will also create infinite simulations, which all also simulate this account of Diane and Timmy creating simulations at a previous point. In each of those infinite simulations of others running Diane's program there will be an infinite number of simulated Dianes and Timmys experiencing themselves as top level in the occurrence described in this story (not seeing the black ball behind them). Basically if the universe can be simulated, we are probably all in a simulation.

<comment><USER19> They'd probably know when they didn't see the hole in space behind them.

They probably wouldn't have any qualms with turning the simulation off either. My guess is that all those infinite simulations were on borrowed time until the top layer got bored.

<comment><USER18> I don't think you read my comment carefully enough (could be my fault, I may not have been very clear). Just to clarify, unless nobody ever runs Diane's program ever again on their own quantum machine there are an infinite number of Dianes and Tommys not seeing the black hole behind them even though they are also simulations, and they would not know it one way or the other but odds are they could guess they are in a simulation and would more than likely be right.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I didn't read the entire thing, but I got far enough to do this:

We all know the grandfather paradox: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_paradox>

Go back in time and kill your grandfather- wait that doesn't make sense? You wouldn't be alive?

I now introduce the Dbz Paradox:

Know the future and then change it before it happens- wait that doesn't make sense? I'm not sure about the consequences to this one.

<comment><USER18> > I didn't read the entire thing.

It has nothing to do with time travel, if you didn't care to read the article, why care to comment.

Also you can probably only know the future of different, possible similar timelines. Whatever changes you make in those other timelines will not affect your own. You can alter their future but not your own, otherwise you can alter causality. I don't know if altering causality makes any sense.

<comment><USER21> A perfect deterministic world simulator will imply the ability to see into the future, which would give rise to the "Dbz Paradox", even if that was not the point of the story.

It is not exactly a new revelation, if you include a model in the model, the problem potentially arise. What you typically do is to keep running the model with the previous answer, and hope the answer converge. It is a common technique for finding numeric solution to the more complex equation systems. I have done it many times. Of course, there is in general no guarantee that there is a solution, that the solution is unique, or that you will find it using this technique.

<comment><USER22> But if the simulated worlds are deterministic as implied then you could run the simulation forward into the future if your reality also followed the same determinism. Doing this would cause an interesting paradox where knowledge of the simulated future could change what you do in the real world. For example, simulate forward to the next lottery drawing to discover the numbers. Then play those numbers in the real world and win the lottery.

This all depends on the fact that the simulation and the real world are deterministic which, it would seem, is highly improbable.

<comment><USER7> In the context of this story, the simulation below you would also be looking into the future, and the simulation above would be looking at _your_ future. Whatever "future" is seen has to be reflected in every simulation.

This doesn't change much, the problem irons its self out. I see no paradox. And I don't know what you see that makes determinism "seem improbable."

<comment><USER22> For the sake of argument, let's say that world zero (W0 for short) is at some arbitrary level. Worlds being simulated below that level would be -W1, -W2, etc. Worlds above would be W1, W2, etc. If everything is deterministic then worlds at all levels take the same path and arrive at the same outcome. But if W0 has control over the -W1 timeline, then W0 can view it's own future by moving the -W1 timeline forward. W0 now knows it's own future (lottery numbers for arguments sake). W0 can now use that knowledge to change it's future. The W0 future is now different from the W1 future which contradicts the ability for all worlds to be deterministic.

<comment><USER7> As I said, every simulation within the context of this story would be looking into the future via the lower simulation.

In this argument, every simulation would look into the future to see the lottery numbers, and would act out on this knowledge. There would be no "changing the future." Every simulation would see the lottery numbers, then see themselves go to the store and get a ticket with the numbers, and every simulation will win with those numbers. There was no other future. _The future you see in the simulation is the future that will occur in your own simulation._

Calling this a paradox is like calling recursive mirrors a paradox.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Entry Point Regulation - <AUTHOR> http://www.w3.org/TR/epr/ <comment><USER2> I bet that developers writing XSSable IoT firmware web interfaces aren't exactly the type that would read a spec like this and implement it...

<comment><USER3> They're not going to see this spec, but if this gets implemented and awareness seeps out, at some point this should become standard practice as a way to mitigate unknown vulnerabilities without investing heavily in security.

Companies love bandaids they can add on top without changing their code.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I understand the broad strokes here, but an extended example would clarify how exactly this prevents XSS.</comment>