The Global Warming Heretic - NYTimes On Freeman Dyson - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html?hp=&pagewanted=all <comment><USER2> Quoting the great Bertrand Russell:

 _"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."_

Interesting how so many people who know NOTHING about Science are SO sure that global warming is caused by man. Such dogma reminds me of the times of the 16th century Inquisition: no amount of evidence will ever convince the nutcase _warmists_ that there MIGHT be a possibility that global warming is not caused by humans.

Dyson is a top physicist. Just because he dared to go against the mainstream dogma, people seem to want to lynch him. I thought that we, humans, had evolved from our tribal and primitive ways. But we still get carried away by mass hysteria and delusion.

There's no place for politics or ideology in Science. Only observation and experiment matter. Dyson is not alone. Many other physicists have been cautious and warned that we should not jump to conclusions based on noisy, ambiguous and incomplete data. They, too, were ostracized. So much for tolerance...

<comment><USER3> In business, war, governance, love, and the climate, people are forced to make decisions based on sorely incomplete data because time is of the essence, and it is all they're ever going to get. If likely exaggeration is to be called out, so too are those who assert that doubt should necessarily imply inaction.

<comment><USER4> Why is "time of the essence"? Who told you so? Al "Save the Polar Bears" Gore? I promise you, those polar bears were in no danger.

Do you know what a stampede is? It's a frightening thing, where a large herd of animals is frightened and begin to run. They run and run, trampeling anything in their path, killing anything that gets in front of them, and each other, as they run from the danger on their heals. Never would the danger they flee cause nearly the harm that the stampede itself causes.

There are groups in the world that can stampede the human herd as well. The amount of stampeding that's been happening in the last 10 years is amazing. We stampede through this Patriot Act, and that Stimulus Plan, and the global warming stampede has been worse than both of them.

Take a breath. Time is not of the essence. When somebody tell you that, they're trying to make you rush to judgment and make a poor decision. Timeshare salesman do it, politicians do it, and I'm sorry to tell you, Al Gore does it.

<comment><USER3> Al Gore has nothing to do with my reasoning process.

[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071119122043.ht...](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071119122043.htm)

These are the risks mentioned in the IPCC Synthesis report. The seem sound and reasonable.

        * The report says that around 20 per cent to 30 per cent of the plant and animal species assessed are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if global average temperatures exceed 1.5 degree C to 2.5 degree C over late 20th century levels.
        * The report also points to the likelihood of "irreversible" impacts. For example if temperature increases exceed about 3.5 degrees C, between 40 per cent and 70 per cent of the species assessed might be at increased risk of extinction.
        * Increases in sea surface temperatures of about one-three degrees C are projected to result in more "frequent coral bleaching events and widespread mortality."
        * There is also concern over the oceans and seas becoming more acidic as they absorb rising levels of carbon dioxide and the impacts on "marine shell-forming organisms" like coral reefs.
        * Other reasons for concern focus on the risks of extreme weather events with higher confidence in the projected increases in droughts, heatwaves and floods as well as their adverse impacts.
        * The report also flags up concern that the poor and the elderly in low-latitude and less-developed areas including those in dry areas and living on mega-deltas are likely to suffer most.
        * There is high confidence that by mid-century "many semi-arid areas, for example the Mediterranean basin, western United States, southern Africa and northeast Brazil, will suffer a decrease in water resources due to climate change."
        * The IPCC summary also expresses concern that any benefits linked with climate change will be gone after more modest temperature rises. The guide, launched after five days of discussions in the Spanish city of Valencia, will be essential reading for delegates attending the upcoming UN climate convention meeting in Bali, Indonesia.
        * Concern is also raised that new observations linked with the Greenland and possibly Antarctic ice sheets may mean that the rate of ice loss will increase above previous forecasts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I personally _feel_ that it is better to err on the side of caution in regards to global warming. I say "feel" because I'm just not smart enough to navigate fact from fiction on this issue anymore. There's going to be extremes on both sides, but I don't see what we have to gain by not taking better care of our planet.

Even if global warming is only partially manmade, shouldn't we do what we can to minimize the effect? And plain old pollution is a visible problem regardless of warming effects; it's now in our food and water supply.

That is how I see this issue. Hope that is a reasonable approach considering all the FUD out there. I don't see how society is harmed by erring on the side of caution on this one.

<comment><USER4> "I don't see how society is harmed by erring on the side of caution"

Let me try to help you see then.

Even though it's extremely important that you prevent tooth decay, and even if you have a huge chunk of "Jolly Rancher" stuck between your teeth, it would be a non-optimal use of resources to use your last match as you were shivering on the side of a mountain with a broken leg, to dislodge the offending piece of candy.

I'm sure you'll agree with this, in this extreme case. But what you are missing, is that humans have a limited supply of productivity that we use to feed and house the populations of our respective countries, and hopefully, to build infrastructure for the next generation to feed and house their populations. When you siphon off that productivity to dislodge a piece of candy, you better be damn sure the candy is going to harm you. In the case of the warmists, since you are literally stealing food and medicine from people's mouths with your demands of what is necessary, you better be damn certain you're right.

<comment><USER6> Given how much we spend on entertainment and other luxuries, is it really fair to say call spending money on what is likely essential to the preservation of our species "literally stealing food and medicine from people's mouths?" Hell, given what we spend on killing each other over oil and religion, how is it that spending money on understanding and dealing with climate change is stealing? In the United States alone, we have spent over $600 billion on the Iraq war-- even a few of those billions could make the difference between action and inaction on climate change.

<comment><USER7> > even a few of those billions could make the difference between action and > inaction on climate change.

Really? If we spent $20B on global warming you'd go away happy?

> is it really fair to say call spending money on what is likely essential to > the preservation of our species

Interestingly enough, if you read the cost estimates from the advocates, it's reasonably cheap to deal with the problem after it occurs, at least compared to the total global GDP at that time.

The only way you get to "spend now" vs "spend later" on an economic basis is by using a negative rate of return.

<comment><USER6> Of course it'd take more than $20 billion over the span of our lifetimes. I meant that within the context of the Iraq War spending, diverting even a few of those 600 billions of dollars could have made a very positive impact and would have meant that Bush was not completely inactive on the issue. I realize I phrased that poorly, and I'm sorry for that, but my point still stands: compared to what we spend on killing each other, the money that is being asked to save our whole way of life is chump change. Moreover, the issue of climate change runs much deeper than economics alone. Talking about rates of return and deferred action neglect the potential for catastrophe if we simply continue to do nothing.

<comment><USER7> > would have meant that Bush was not completely inactive on the issue.

Actually, he wasn't. He didn't do what you want, but that's a very different than nothing. Are you going with ignorance or "I was trying to emphasize my point"?

> I realize I phrased that poorly, and I'm sorry for that, but my point still > stands: compared to what we spend on killing each other, the money that is > being asked to save our whole way of life is chump change

The mainstream folks who want money for climate change disagree. They want hundreds of billions of dollars.

If they're wrong, that's a huge deal. Let's see some details supporting your "chump change" estimate. Are they wrong?

> Moreover, the issue of climate change runs much deeper than economics alone. > Talking about rates of return and deferred action neglect the potential for > catastrophe if we simply continue to do nothing.

Catastrophe is short-hand for "very expensive", so you're merely making a "numbers-free" economic argument.

The AGW folks have predicted the costs of "catastrophe" and "measures to avoid". (The latter are surely low because they don't significantly affect the predicted climate change.)

Once again, if they're wrong, that's a big deal.

Let's see the details.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think Dyson's biggest hangup seems to be that much of the doomsaying surrounding global warming is based on computerized models, which is not, strictly speaking, science. You probably can't empirically test most of the climate models being produced.

<comment><USER6> Not science? Better tell the computer scientists and the computational physicists...

Science is, at its most basic, our attempt to understand the world. As such, science employs many different tools and approaches, including numerical modeling. In particular. numerical analysis is a very well understood field of mathematics that allows us to rigorously analyze complicated problems by using one of the most innovative tools ever devised: the computer. Of course, one can make an inaccurate model as easily as one can write down an inaccurate equation or make a mistake in a derivation. That doesn't mean that the tool isn't a part of science.

<comment><USER8> I'm not saying models aren't tools of science. They are very important. However, the most important part of science is the part about independently recreating and verifying results. You simply cannot do that with long range climate models without waiting for that time to elapse and seeing if the model predicted what it was supposed to predict.

I'm not saying the models are wrong, or that climate change doesn't exist. What I'm saying is that calling the predictions of these models "science" is a bit misleading. The underlying factors maybe be based on scientific knowledge, but the models themselves are based on statistics, not science, because they can't be empirically verified.

<comment><USER9> It sounds like you are arguing that science needs to be observational to be "real." I'd argue that science needs both observations and theory and that either half alone is incomplete. Think of the models as a manifestation of the theory. It would be nice if you could solve a set of equations for the atmosphere in closed form, wouldn't it? But you can't so you run a numerical simulation.

Anyway, it's hardly surprising that so much effort has gone into theoretical climate science, since, as you observed, it's difficult running a controlled experiment with the atmosphere.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The use of the word "heretic" is telling. This issue has long since taken on the overtone of a religious debate rather than a scientific one. I don't think someone should be considered a "heretic" when he has on his side an MIT climate physicist, a former director of climate science at NASA, a Nobel physicist, IPCC participants, and hundreds of other relevant intellectuals.

Whoever said "the debate on Global Warming is over" ought to be forever considered a disingenuous political hack.

<comment><USER11> Yes it is telling of the way the journalist hoped to frame the story. A good way to spice up an otherwise ordinary story. Better than 'Aged Physicist disagrees with dominant theory'. I'd call it a piece of disingenuous hack work but it worked so well I have to admire it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> "A group of scientists will be sitting around the cafeteria, and one will idly wonder if there is an integer where, if you take its last digit and move it to the front, turning, say, 112 to 211, it's possible to exactly double the value. Dyson will immediately say, "Oh, that's not difficult," allow two short beats to pass and then add, "but of course the smallest such number is 18 digits long.""

So how did he know that?

<comment><USER13> Because the decimal expansion of 19 repeats after 18 digits.

That means all the fractions 1/19 .. 18/19 are just rotations of each other. And 20/19 = 1 + 1/19, which means that 2/19 is a single rotation away.

If you've ever noticed that 142857 * [1..6] produces different rotations of the same number and wondered why, you might have thought about this. Dyson had probably already done all the hard work on the problem and knew immediately that the answers were rotations of some repeating fraction, and one where multiplying by 2 gives rotations by 1 digit.

<comment><USER14> Thanks for the insight. I wouldn't have noticed any similarity to the multiples of 1/19. Accepting this, though, is there a reason it would have been obvious to him that there was no smaller number?

The first such number, by the way, does indeed have 18 digits. I got there by considering every final digit and figuring out how long the string needed to be before the final digit reoccurred with no carry.

(edit: oops, just read your explanation below which pretty much answers this)

<comment><USER13> Well, since you asked for an obvious reason, and not a completely separate derivation, here it is.

The process of rotating a repeating decimal expansion x by 1 digit means adding some integer n and dividing by 10.

(n + x) / 10 = 2x

Simplifying, n = 19x, i.e. x = n/19. So you know the number has to correspond to a decimal expansion of n/19, which is 18 digits in length.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I just posted an essay where Freeman Dyson explains his own views about the topic (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=532426> or, more directly, <http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html> )

</comment><comment><USER15> Lets be honest, the REAL problem here with the idea of global warming caused by humans is that it can not simply be solved by the market. This possibility seems to make hardcore libertarians so uncomfortable that they can only hope no such problem exist.

<comment><USER16> This is an incredibly astute point, and shows great awareness of human factors. I'm very pleased to see it on hacker news.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Speaking of data, we've been dropping probes into deep water for almost a decade now. Since the heat capacity of the oceans dwarfs that of the atmosphere, surely the temperature of the water is relevant.

What are the oceans doing? If they're getting colder, the earth may well be losing heat, even if the atmosphere is getting warmer (which it hasn't been for almost a decade).

It would also be nice to know the temperature of the earth because its heat capacity dwarfs that of the oceans.

</comment><comment><USER17> Unless I am mistaken, acidification of the oceans has been demonstrated. So has the loss of large volumes of fresh water stored in glaciers, as well as the loss of coastal land as sea level rises. Natural systems are fragile, and we continue to poke and push them, with damages (for example, loss of biodiversity) that are not clearly obvious and that are in many cases simply irreparable. I won't belabor this point, although obviously much more could be said.

Burning carbon based materials to generate energy is, in the long term, unsustainable--there is a finite supply, and getting at the remaining sources will continue to become more expensive and more environmentally invasive (see: mountaintop removal). But enough about the environment, there are more important considerations (After all, we will eventually leave this planet, right?).

Our eventual shift to renewable sources of energy is inevitable. Worries about the consequences of climate change are finally gaining momentum in the public conscious. That means that now is the time to go full speed on development and roll-out of renewable energy. Mr. Dyson mentions that "By restricting CO2 you make life more expensive and hurt the poor."

Interesting comment from the man described as looking "like a person taking the longer view," because (given time) cheap abundant energy would do an incredible amount for the poor and starving. Deserts could be irrigated and farmed with desalinized water, pumps could preserve our coastal cities, really, the applications of cheap and abundant renewable energy are limited by our imaginations. Why leave that for our childrens' or grandchildrens' generation? What are we waiting for?

There is always a place for some healthy skepticism, but I fear that with respect to this particular issue skepticism has given the world plenty of motivation to procrastinate.

<comment><USER4> With all due respect, I could have cut and pasted your post from any global warming website. I note this is your first comment on this group. Did you come just for this topic?

In this utopia you describe, you neglect to explain what miraculous devices will produce this infinite energy supply. I think that's an important point that you left out. If you're wrong on that point, then we've hurt people for nothing, right?

Since we're cutting and pasting from web sites, let me just paste the following from <http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html> , Everything else is just philosophy.

________________

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

<comment><USER18> With all due respect, I could have cut and pasted your post from any global warming denial website.

The bulk of what I read on water vapor stated that although the process was so far poorly understood, most scientists (for the moment) believe that increased water vapor is an amplifying side-effect, not a primary cause, of climate change. Basically, that increased temperatures lead to an increase in water vapor due to the evaporation of ice, small lakes, and rivers, and that in turn further drives climate change.

I see that most of your comments in this thread fly in the face of what most climate scientists believe to be happening.

<comment><USER19> _I see that most of your comments in this thread fly in the face of what most climate scientists believe to be happening._

I'd ask for sources, but there's no way to confirm that the people behind them are actual "climate scientists", whatever that means these days. It's hard to see who's who anymore, but smug confidence like this definitely rings my alarm bells.

<comment><USER17> Environmental science is inherently stochastic and messy, but to write off an entire branch, as you seem to have done, is unfair to those who pursue careers in improving our understanding of climate.

"there's no way to confirm that the people behind them are actual "climate scientists", whatever that means"

Well, the system that we have is that of peer reviewed literature. People who are interested in environmental science or other related fields pursue research in those fields, and some happen to research climate.

Why do you put the words 'climate scientists' in quotations? Yes, there are scientists who study climate, much like there are scientists who study other environmental/biological/chemical phenomena.

"It's hard to see who's who anymore, but smug confidence like this definitely rings my alarm bells."

I'm not sure what this adds to the discussion. Could you perhaps rephrase or reword; maybe I've missed the content of the statement you intended to convey?

<comment><USER19> I certainly didn't mean to write off climate science or scientists. My point was that _I_ don't know how to distinguish the science from the propaganda, except in obvious cases. I find it hard to believe that other armchair scientists can be so sure of themselves. They _could_ be right, but to me its mostly a sign of propaganda.

So _I_ don't know who the climate scientists are. Lots of parties are making wild claims and saying science is on their side. Take <http://realclimate.org/> for instance. Is this real climate science? I mean, anyone could put up a website with the words "climate science from climate scientists". How does one tell?

Though I think you're right that peer-reviewed literature gives an indication.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> You have to admire Dyson's blunt honesty:

 _If what he says were obviously wrong, he wouldn't have achieved what he has. But Hansen has turned his science into ideology. He's a very persuasive fellow and has the air of knowing everything. He has all the credentials. I have none. I don't have a Ph.D. He's published hundreds of papers on climate. I haven't. By the public standard he's qualified to talk and I'm not. But I do because I think I'm right. I think I have a broad view of the subject, which Hansen does not. I think it's true my career doesn't depend on it, whereas his does. I never claim to be an expert on climate. I think it's more a matter of judgement than knowledge._

I especially love the point about Hansen's career hinging on his theory being borne out which seems to be a general issue with science which crosses over into the mainstream consciousness.

</comment><comment><USER11> Quick summary

Dyson isn't so sure that global warming is cause by rising levels of CO2. Either way he doesn't see this as being a big problem as global warming would be a good thing for the world.

He is more a Global Warming Embracer rather than a Global Warming Denier.

</comment><comment> patrickg-zill Subject matter - interesting.

Purple prose by author earnestly trying to convince you of his erudition, and constant asides that do nothing but distract - not interesting.

<comment><USER21> No, general public needs to learn about his integrity, erudition and impeccable scientific standing.

This is important because Dyson's opponents as a rule try some sort of character assassination instead of sticking to the subject matter.

<comment><USER22> Still, the writing is horrible.

<comment><USER23> Having gone to the article hoping for details on why Dyson disbelieves global warming, I'm disappointed like you. On reflection, I think the author intended the article to be about Dyson himself, and as such, I kind of like the writing. But, yeah, I'm disappointed about the lack of details.

<comment><USER24> The title of the article here is misleading. He isn't the global warming heretic, he's always been a heretic in everything that he's done or talked about. The simple fact is he's quite often accurate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I find it interesting that the planet is presumed to be warming at roughly 0.02C a year, yet we pump out [enough energy to raise the temperature by 20C a year]. (Ed: Sorry, I'd mistaken my numbers. Our potential to raise the temperature of the atmosphere is actually 200 times what I'd mistakenly put (originally 0.1C). Our potential to raise the temperature of the oceans is 0.1C a year, when in fact the oceans temperature raises at 0.01C. Sorry for the mistake folks!)

I have several problems with all the eco-energy projects. Namely wind turbines are likely to cause more ecological problems than solve, I'm sorry but they're killing off bats in phenomenal numbers and killing a species high up on the food chain causes problems. We do it to seals, but we eat the fish that they would so ecologically it's not all that harmful... unless we're going to start eating millions of tons of bugs a year, I think killing off the bats might cause a serious problem. I mean the last thing we need are plagues of locust.

The other problem with wind turbines is that they slow local wind speeds, if this is produced on a global scale this could inhibit the transfer of energy to the night-side of earth to be radiated away. This is the same problem that wave-energy will produce, mass use of this technology will cause a reduction in water flow, which in turn will cause more energy to be stored by the water. This one is particularly unpredictable: reduced tidal action will reduce the cooling effect of water vaporisation, however this will likely be balanced by an increase in evaporation, yet this could potentially be disastrous because hotter water = stronger storms, so mass use of wave-power technologies could drastically increase tropical storms, more than global warming ever could. Hopefully the wind turbines can slow these down!

I haven't even touch on the fact that wind turbines place angular stress on the ground they sit on, which on a large scale has never been predicted. I mean we're talking about placing angular forces on entire tectonic plates that will change as the direction of the wind. The effect of this is inherently unknown, and I don't want to know what could happen at stressed fault-lines.

My problem with solar power is that it reduces the albedo of the planet and ultimately turns the electrical energy into thermal (infrared) energy, which is then trapped by CO2! Lowering the planets albedo will increase global warming even if we decrease the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, this problem will be compounded if they ever get the holy grail of solar energy, the orbital solar power plant. Placing solar power plants into space won't increase the planets albedo, however it will transfer ridiculous amounts of energy to the planet and to be viable they only need a 20-30% efficiency due to the sheer abundance of energy. However, the other 70-80% will still be absorbed by the atmosphere and convert to thermal energy. (If anyone doubts this, please put a cup of water in the microwave and this is essentially the result as 70-80% of the energy will be absorbed by the atmosphere, which is roughly equivalent to a 10 meter layer of distilled water)

Global Warming is (95% probable) a byproduct of human civilization in one way or another. However the solution proposed by environmentalists is a planet wide geo-forming project.

I think the potential for harm could be much, much greater from geo-forming the entire planet than sea levels rising. We know what global warming _could_ do to the planet, we don't know what geo-forming _could_ do to the planet and no one is looking at it.

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person on the planet that realises the solutions to the problem are potentially worse than the problem itself.

</comment><comment><USER25> Dyson was originally a mathematician and is judging global warming by the standards of a mathematical proof. Of course, no proof outside mathematics can meet that strict standard. Hence, his global warming doubts.</comment>


NASA, SpaceX set May 27 as target date for first crew launch - <AUTHOR> https://spaceflightnow.com/2020/04/17/nasa-spacex-set-may-27-as-target-date-for-first-crew-launch/ <comment><USER2> It looks like SpaceX will gain the pride of having the 8 by 12 inch American flag left by the last shuttle mission.

"The shuttle replica accompanied an expected presentation of a U.S. flag that was flown on the first and last shuttle missions. The 8- by 12-inch flag, which was revealed by President Barack Obama during his call to the astronauts last week, will stay on board the station until the shuttle's successor arrives.

"This flag represents not just a symbol of our national pride and honor, but in this particular case, it represents a goal," Ferguson said. "This flag will be flown prominently here by the forward hatch of Node 2, to be returned to Earth once again by an astronaut that launches on a U.S. vehicle, hopefully in just a few years." [9 Weird Things That Flew On NASA's Shuttles]

Both the model and flag were hung near and on the hatch where 35 space shuttle crews have entered the station and where the STS-135 astronauts exited for a final time soon after presenting the mementos."

[https://www.space.com/12335-shuttle-astronauts-flag-model- sp...](https://www.space.com/12335-shuttle-astronauts-flag-model-space- station-tribute.html)

<comment><USER3> Doug Hurley was the pilot on the shuttle crew that left the flag on the ISS, and will be the commander of the crew that brings it back to Earth.

<comment><USER4> There are several very large assumptions implicit in that sentence.

<comment><USER5> Hurley is going to be the "Spacecraft Commander" as mentioned in the article. The parent comment also indicates that they will be bringing the flag/memorial/token back. I'm not sure what "large implicit assumptions" you are referring too.

<comment><USER4> \- mission not being scrubbed for a variety of possible reasons

\- mission commander not being changed

\- rocket not blowing up on the pad

\- rocket reaching correct orbit

\- mission not being completed, for instance docking issues

\- everything that could possibly go wrong on the return flight

Really, the ease with which everybody seems to assume that this will go off without a hitch is impressive, this is not exactly walking to the corner store to pick up a small parcel.

<comment><USER6> You must be real fun at parties.....

Friend: I'm going to grab more drinks from the store

You: There are several very large assumptions implicit in that sentence

Friend: ?

You: Your car can break down, you can get in an accident on the way there, the store can be robbed and you can get shot, you may get a call about your parents dying on the way, a meteor may strike and kills us all...

<comment><USER7> I would love to party at jacquesm, we could talk about all the ways that civilization is a rube goldberg machine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is incredibly exciting. Watching SpaceX over the last few years has made me feel like a kid again (watching the livestream of the first Falcon Heavy launch, culminating with footage of Elon's Tesla in orbit, is a memory I won't soon forget). I wish them nothing but continued success, they are an inspiration to many.

<comment><USER9> The landing was way more exciting than the car in space in my opinion.

<comment><USER10> Definitely. Both thrusters landing simultaneously was incredible. They truly made a part of scifi reality with that milestone.

The Tesla in space was cool but in the end it wasn't more of an accomplishment than placing any other satellite out there.

<comment><USER11> SpaceX recently released new 4k footage of the first stage returns to the landing zones:

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > American astronauts on American rockets from American soil Jim Bridenstine

Jim Bridenstine really knows how to talk politics. I must say I very impressed with his tenure so far, the NASA Administrator is not really all that powerful of a position but given how much opposition there was to him being a Trump selection he does do well.

This is such a vital step to make LEO a commercial domain. NASA is spending way to much money on LEO and to make any moon/mars future possible that needs to be commercial. NASA only want to launch max. 4 people per ship, but it can take 7. So the price could really be cheap pretty cheap to allow a fair amount of non-NASA groups to send up people.

Axiom Space got the contract extending the ISS and a more commercial ISS could operate more efficiently in the longer run.

Eventually, with the cost of Cargo Space transportation coming down, we could actually build Space Stations in Space and make them way bigger.

<comment><USER13> NASA Administrator is such a bland boring title. I wonder if that's intentional, to indicate the focus shouldn't be on management but rather on the engineers, scientists, and astronauts.

<comment><USER14> "President" was supposed to be the most boring title. It was chosen because the role was supposed to be simply that: To be present, while the rest of the federal government did its thing.

As the government evolved, the title gained more meaning. I sometimes wonder if the leaders of younger countries that use it understand its original meaning.

<comment><USER15> > "President" was supposed to be the most boring title. It was chosen because > the role was supposed to be simply that: To be present

President doesn't come from the word "present" [1], and has been used for millennia (2ish) more than you're implying.

[1] [https://www.etymonline.com/word/president](https://www.etymonline.com/word/president)

<comment><USER16> Maybe you meant _centuries,_ and not _millennia?_ English, even it's oldest forms, hasn't been around for millennia. Anyway, as your own etymology link demonstrates, the word's first use in its present meaning, as an executive leader of a republic--especially of something the size and importance of a nation state--is first in the US Constitution. Prior to that it generally meant leaders of more modest organizations: "heads of religious houses, hospitals, colleges and universities."

<comment><USER15> I meant linguistic usage - it has had a very similar definition (head of something) for millennia.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Another loss for Boeing on top of the 737MAX debacle and Covid-19. I would hate to be their CEO right now.

<comment><USER18> Why? He's head of a company that is too big to fail. A company that the federal government has refused to demand a stake in, in order to bail out. No matter what he does, he's going to make $10s of millions of dollars. I would LOVE to be CEO of Boeing right now.

And oh, by the way: since he started in Janaury, he can blame literally everything on the previous leadership. Probably one of the most cake jobs in America right now.

<comment><USER19> You may be right, because there are rare cases, but I find it unlikely. Not many human beings go into life aiming to just rip people off and not achieve anything, or aiming to fail at a lot. Especially someone who becomes the CEO of a huge corporation. You have to be quite drive to succeed, not just at your bank balance, to get there. You don't become CEO of boeing overnight, it probably took a lot of work.

I doubt the CEO feels all that good about life right now.

And even if you are right, that fact that you'd want the same says a lot about you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> It's a shame no one will be allowed to watch it :-(

</comment><comment><USER21> Isn't it the stupidest thing to do in current situation ? Endangering lives of crews, operations and families.

<comment><USER22> We just launched three astronauts last week. They have quarantine process they've been using for years even before COVID-19 came up.

<comment><USER23> First I am not aware that these three astronauts are the only people required to launch that rocket. And it feels very much like "do as I say not as I do" from the government. How is it an essential activity?

<comment><USER24> Essential as in the first and so far only permanent manned orbital station with countless research projects ongoing & likely tens of thousand of people supporting the project directly and indirectly by their jobs ?

ISS is not really designed to operate unmanned for any length of time & you could easily loose it due to some simple failure that the crew on board can easily address.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Economics and Abstraction - <AUTHOR> http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/253510/economics-and-abstraction-jim-manzi

<comment><AUTHOR> The author uses " _the role of very low interest rates in stimulating economic growth in the software industry_ " as an example, with a number of details that are relevant to us.</comment>


TSA is keeping your loose change - <AUTHOR> https://loweringthebar.net/2019/05/alert-tsa-keeping-loose-change.html <comment><USER2> I'm not sure what alternative the author has in mind. Should the TSA separately bag the 47 cents you left in the plastic bin with the day and time it was lost, so that it can be returned to you in case you decide to come back and claim it? That's just not realistic.

They basically have two choices: keep it or throw it out. And why would you throw out money?

<comment><USER3> They do propose the alternative of donating it, actually.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> TSA keeps the spare change left in security bins, which amounts to $3m over unspecified number of years, with "some evidence that in 2013, TSA was scrounging about half a million dollars a year from security bins" without actually pointing to any evidence. Author finds this a big deal.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's not linked in the article, but the number comes from a committee report [1] related to the TSA Loose Change Act (which _is_ linked in the article, but finding the report from that link is indeed nontrivial).

I think the interesting part is that TSA keeps the money to fund its own operations. The actual amount they raise is not too surprising.

[1] [https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/113th- congress...](https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/113th- congress/house-report/274/1)</comment></comment>


A Town for People with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome - <AUTHOR> https://www.newyorker.com/culture/personal-history/a-town-for-people-with-chronic-fatigue <comment><USER2> I had horrible fatigue a couple years ago; I wonder if it's related to CFS at all. It was utterly bizarre: I had just come off some antibiotics, when I suddenly had no energy to do anything at all. All I could do was lay in bed. I also got walking pneumonia about a month after the symptoms began, and my roommate had the exact same symptoms. A test for mono came back negative.

The worst part was that the recovery was slow and gradual. After 6 months, I felt like I could operate as a human being again, and only just this year did I feel like I'm back to normal.

I'm chalking it up to it being the first time I was on antibiotics for an extended period of time, plus a run-in with some unfortunate mysterious disease. I honestly have no idea, though.

<comment><USER3> Which antibiotics? I had a horrific experience with fluoroquinolones, and it put me out of commission for months

<comment><USER4> You probably got 'floxed'. Fluoroquinolones are dangerous and should be reserved for life and death situations.

[https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-03267-5](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-03267-5)

Last year the European Medicine Agency put out a warning that the use of fluoroquinolone and quinolone antibiotics should be restricted. I also believe the FDA has slapped a black box warning on this class of antibiotics.

[https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/referrals/quino...](https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/referrals/quinolone- fluoroquinolone-containing-medicinal-products)

<comment><USER5> I got 'floxed'. I was prescribed Ciproflaxin from a doctor for a fairly normal infection, who only said it was an antibiotic, with no mention of side effects, and said to take it daily for 30 days. I did look at the box when I picked up the prescription and thought it was really strange that it said "DO NOT EXERCISE WHILE TAKING THIS PRODUCT" and had a looooong list of side effects. I took a single pill and I was feeling neuropathy in my legs for the first time in my life. I kept taking it for eight more days, feeling more and more scared, as the neuropathy got more and more intense and widespread, and eventually called the doctor after I started feeling tingling all over my body and especially my face and felt there's no way that could be normal. They seemed very surprised but said to stop and gave me a different non-quinolone antibiotic instead.

I then found the stories, lots of them, online, about people who experienced horrible side effects. A lot of snapped tendons, neuropathy, etc that went on for years after they stopped taking the medicine. And I saw a lot of mentions of deaths from the drug as well, which didn't help matters at all.

And I got to join them in that also. I didn't exercise for at least a year afterwards out of paranoia that my achilles tendon would snap like the rest (it already felt sore all the time after that), and thankfully it hasn't so far.

But I felt neuropathy often. At first pretty much all the time, but eventually it would go away for a couple of weeks and then come back for a couple of weeks, off and on, off and on. Mostly in my legs and arms, but sometimes I'd feel it in my face again.

I went to urgent care to get it checked out a few times over the years and they would always have to rule out diabetes first because that's their assumption whenever they hear neuropathy apparently. I had several tests but they never pinned it down to anything they expected it to be, and didn't bother investigating my repeated mentioning that "Hey, I took Cipro, and this happened right afterwards. I read stories that it does this to people, maybe that could be checked somehow?"

I now just tell people I'm allergic to Cipro and I doctors look at me funny and ask how that could be sometimes, surprised that anyone would have bad side effects to it.

The neuropathy is mostly gone away now, but I had it off and on for at least 6 years. My right foot has always felt a little screwed up since as well, often sore, it's a lot harder to walk on it for long periods of time now (but I can do it).

Considering there were other antibiotics I could have been prescribed and no one seems to be aware that it could have serious side effects, I'm glad the FDA finally started mandating warnings on it, but I still don't think they've raised awareness enough, as no doctor I've talked to seems to be aware of the side effects.

Also I am now much, much more skeptical of anything a doctor tells me and make sure I read all side effects of drugs and I don't wait anywhere near as long when I have side effects anymore, even if they're somewhat mild.

After reading that article, I'm wondering if maybe I should try to find a doctor who has experience with this and verify that I don't have lingering damage from it that could possibly be addressed.

<comment><USER6> I feel like this is something that a good pharmacist could have helped call out. Still, they're kind of the last resort in these things, and you won't always hear the "real" side effects unless you ask them (and they may know better than the doctor. Glad to hear you're getting closer to okay.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> What an interesting rabbit hole this took me down. So it looks like Ampligen is "Poly I: Poly C12U is designated by the molecular formula, [rI(13):rC(12)rU(1)]n where: n = 46–138", which has now been improved to longer dsRNAs with additional U ([https://patents.google.com/patent/US8722874](https://patents.google.com/patent/US8722874)).

The most interesting thing I've come across is that they dosed it as naked RNA by IV and it is rapidly cleared ([https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1974294](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1974294)).

They should try formulating it in a lipid nanoparticle. I bet they'd get some really interesting PK/PD.

So the drug turns on RNase L, which basically shreds all RNA in the cell. It's a kill switch for the cell. Kind of like the last ditch effort to stop a viral infection. What's interesting about this drug is that doesn't turn on TLR3 really well because of the U:I mis-matches so it looks like only some cells turn on RNase L. I don't really get that part.

The other part if they see increased in NK cells but not Tregs. Again, some cell (maybe APC?) is taking up the oligos from the blood and activating things a little bit, but not enough? That may explain why the clinical results for CFS (for example) were so hit or miss: the clearance kinetics of this type of drug is going to vary wildly from patient to patient.

Another weird thing I noticed is that today, the company changed their name to AIM ImmunoTech and just got a twitter account ([https://twitter.com/AIMImmuno](https://twitter.com/AIMImmuno)). Seems like it's tied to the New Yorker article coming out.

</comment><comment><USER8> If you think you suffer from CFS please check out Dr. Howard Schubiner and read his book. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VyH1laOd2M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VyH1laOd2M)

I suffered from chronic pain symptoms for almost 10 years (was unable play the piano and type on the keyboard) until I realized it was 100% psychosomatic.

<comment><USER9> you gotta love how quickly people will downvote anyone who provides any sort of evidence for the existence of psychosomatic syndromes. they'll probably claim it's because you didn't read the article. but this can't be it because the article very clearly said the etiology is still up for debate (despite focusing on the one medical doctor's claims). there's something inherently offensive about the proposition of psychogenic disorders. neurotics will not so easily give up their jouissance.

i greatly admire schubiner and sarno for exploring this issue but their limits are clear, and they admit it themselves. relatively few patients (i think for sarno it was like 20%?) will "accept the diagnosis." and why should they? again, in 80% of patients the crisis of jouissance is not sharp enough to really investigate their unconscious. and of course in many of those 20% of patients (yourself and myself included) the jouissance is displaced elsewhere, perhaps to somewhere much less obvious than chronic lower back pain.

<comment><USER8> The problem is that we are terrible at dealing with cognitive dissonance.

When someone believes they have a disorder for many years/decades it becomes a part of their identity. Admitting they were wrong means that they needlessly caused suffering to themselves. It is embarrassing and emotionally painful.

They become instantly defensive, and hostile towards anyone offering alternative explanations.

<comment><USER9> indeed the syndrome can take on a life of its own (become part of their identity), and perhaps that's when it's at its most fragile. it's why after 10 years of suffering your pain could vanish immediately after learning it may serve a psychological purpose.

but i think for many neurotic people (and most of us are indeed neurotic) the syndrome (i use lacan's _jouissance_ ) serves its purpose just fine. so don't you dare take it from them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Stanford scientists discover biomarker for chronic fatigue syndrome [http://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2019/04/biomarker- for-...](http://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2019/04/biomarker-for-chronic- fatigue-syndrome-identified.html)

HN discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19831932](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19831932)

</comment><comment><USER11> A lot of the symptoms of sleep apnea look like Chronic Fatigue Syndrome on the surface. If you feel tired all of the time no matter how much you sleep, get a sleep study. Sleep apnea is pretty treatable. You don't have to be overweight to have sleep apnea.

<comment><USER12> No competent doctor should diagnose CFS without a full sleep study to rule out such sleep disorders.

<comment><USER11> One would hope. It took me until early adulthood to get diagnosed with sleep apnea because doctors had repeatedly told me such things as "you can't have sleep apnea if you're not overweight," "you have good grades in school and don't have trouble running 3 miles at track practice, you must not be THAT tired," "every teenager is tired, you just need to improve your sleep schedule," "you need to cut caffeine," and by far the worst -- "you're just depressed, let me put you on Prozac".

These are competent/highly trained doctors that aren't in the Bay Area or New York but are in a US tech hub containing a Top 15 medical school.

After I insisted on a sleep study, the results came back as me having SEVERE obstructive sleep apnea with 30 cessations of breath per hour (once every 2 minutes) while asleep. You just don't notice it while you're asleep because your body kicks itself out of REM sleep into lighter, less productive sleep but you're not consciously awakened whenever it happens.

I even heard the last two ("you just need an earlier bedtime" and "you're depressed") EVEN after showing my doctors the sleep study results with the actual data. Terrible.

If you go on /r/sleepapnea, you'll find that these kind of stories are still surprisingly and unfortunately very common.

I have jaw surgery at Stanford on the books for early next year to finally fix this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> >Peterson had considered the possibility of psychosomatic illness but felt it improbable, because many of the patients were otherwise well-adjusted, with no history of mental instability or trauma. "I'd seen almost all these people for three years when they were well," he told me. Any psychological theory just "wasn't right."

in other words, he has no psychological theory. in reality conversion symptoms do not depend on "mental instability" or "trauma" in the popular sense. but of course why would you expect an m.d. to be trained in psychoanalysis?

anyone claiming that this is a settled problem and that CFS is an "organic illness" (because the CDC says so) should study the rise and fall of stomach ulcers.

<comment><USER13> What happened to stomach ulcers ?

<comment><USER14> Stomach ulcers were thought to be caused by "stress," and increased acidity in the stomach caused by stress, and diet.

It wasn't until 1982 that the bacterial cause was found, and it took years for the medical community to abandon the "caused by stress" explanation and apply real treatment.

partly explained here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicobacter_pylori](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicobacter_pylori)

<comment><USER15> I keep hearing this supposedly revelatory anecdote, as if _caused by stress_ and _bacterial infections_ are mutually exclusive factors.

It's well known that chronic stress weakens the immune system, and makes it easier for a bacterial infection to take hold.

So a more complete hypothesis is that stress can be the cause, whereas weakened immunity and consequent bacterial infection is the mechanism.

Of course, anything else that causes the immune system to be weakened can also be a cause.

<comment><USER14> Stress was neither necessary nor sufficient to produce the ulcers; it may have been involved in some cases, but it was not the "cause."

<comment><USER15> But H. pylori was also not sufficient to produce the ulcers; most people in the world have it, but far fewer develop ulcers.

As user interpenetrate has articulated in more depth, the error is in the need to identify a single, simple "cause".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> damn, C.F.S is pretty messed up. The weirdest thing is how it seems to happen so suddenly.

<comment><AUTHOR> Also, with any "syndrome" you get a range of people with the symptoms, some with different underlying causes (and some, no doubt, with psychological ones.)</comment></comment>


Godot Engine Awarded $50k by Mozilla Open Source Support Program - <AUTHOR> https://godotengine.org/article/godot-engine-awarded-50000-mozilla-open-source-support-program <comment><USER2> This is heartening news especially in the wake of the licensing that Unity and Unreal have rolled out in recent years. Sure, the terms aren't too onerous, but it's always great to have at least one truly open source foundation in your corner.

Interesting that Phaser was also a recent recipient of a Mozilla grant. Even though it targets a completely different developer audience, it's cool to see Mozilla take game making seriously.

</comment><comment><USER3> If you want to dabble with prototyping games, Godot is the way to go in my opinion.

I've played with Unity and Unreal a bit, each with their own pros and cons, but for me Godot is the one I found most intuitive and easy to test new ideas with. Worth checking out.

<comment><USER4> Thanks for the tip. Did you have a chance to compare with gamemaker?

<comment><USER5> Godot doesn't enforce any structure like game maker does. Additionally Godots default language (Gdscript) is awesome and intuitive, whereas gml doesn't really feel like a real language (argument0-15. Come on)

<comment><USER6> >Additionally Godots default language (Gdscript) is awesome and intuitive, whereas gml doesn't really feel like a real language (argument0-15. Come on)

I agree with the comparison to GML, but whether one finds Gdscript intuitive depends on one's existing background. I personally found it frustrating because I was used to C/C++, but with time I can see getting used to it. It's not a _bad_ language by any means.

Also, both Game Maker and Godot share the problem of their scripting language being essentially a form of lock-in, since no one is going to use Gdscript anywhere else, and any code you write it in is no longer portable. Also, they use their own shader script rather than GLSL, which means your shaders aren't portable either.

Godot can support different languages (unlike Unity or Game Maker), but IIRC that requires recompiling the engine and may break the editor.

<comment><USER7> from Godot's documentation:

>Finally, one of our brightest additions for the 3.0 release: GDNative allows scripting in C++ without needing to recompile (or even restart) Godot.

[https://docs.godotengine.org/en/3.1/getting_started/step_by_...](https://docs.godotengine.org/en/3.1/getting_started/step_by_step/scripting.html#gdnative-c)

<comment><USER8> Given that Unreal only now added such support via [https://molecular- matters.com/products_livepp.html](https://molecular- matters.com/products_livepp.html) partnership, I wonder how Godot is actually doing it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Nice one! Such a great project.

Every time I go and have a play with Godot my mind is blown that the whole program is a single ~45MB executable.

</comment><comment><USER10> Godot approach to game development with nodes is superior to other solutions IMO.

I think the biggest blocker for wider adoption is 3D performance and Inverse Kinematics now. Without it, nobody will ever produce high profile game on Godot.

<comment><USER11> Yes, if you come from Unity like me you will find Godot amazingly intuitive and clean compared to Unity. No more weird workflow, no more prefab. Just nodes in a tree and scenes.

With Unity you have many features, a big asset store that allows you to very quickly prototype, the render engine is powerful, but the architecture & organization is just a massive mess. It's really the kind of editor were you can do everything because the dev added all the popular shiny features to make fancy trailers but nothing is planned & well organized, all features are just put one of top of another with no coherence.

Not only the the architecture feels complicated but the editor itself is super heavy : mandatory Email & account, installation size of several GBs, etc.

Godot has less tools and the asset store has almost nothing on it right now. The current render engine is not powerful but it is temporary, everything will get re-written with Vulkan to be on par with other engines.

While it has not as many features as Unity, the foundations of Godot are really solid & clean, I think this will be a huge advantage on the long term

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> > _The WP also includes work to make the editor work on mobile browsers, such > as touch screen gestures, responsive UI, etc. This should also make it > possible for us to port the editor to Android and iOS natively to tweak your > projects on the go._

That sounds very ambitious, UI and UX wise. Wonder how that will turn out in practice

</comment><comment><USER13> Used Godot 3.1 for a game project recently, really surprised at how good it is.

</comment><comment><USER14> FWIW, there's a semi-official Godot-SpatialOS integration by an Improbable engineer: [https://improbable.io/blog/godot-spatialos-and-engine- integr...](https://improbable.io/blog/godot-spatialos-and-engine-integration)

</comment><comment><USER15> So happy for these guys. Met them at GDC 2019 and their project is wondeba!

</comment><comment><USER16> I was thinking "why not use bgfx?", thankfully it's already been discussed: [https://github.com/godotengine/godot/issues/19602](https://github.com/godotengine/godot/issues/19602)

However, the arguments against bgfx seem to amount to "I want to do it myself", a classic "not invented here" issue.

EDIT: found this too [https://godotengine.org/article/godot-3-renderer-design- expl...](https://godotengine.org/article/godot-3-renderer-design-explained)

> Added to that fact, Vulkan still has years to go until it's properly > supported in most desktop and mobile platforms, which makes it unattractive > to implement for us (as it means considerably more effort to write, debug > and maintain).

And then they're talking about the Vulkan PI in TFA which probably won't be ready for some time too...

<comment><USER17> > However, the arguments against bgfx seem to amount to "I want to do it > myself", a classic "not invented here" issue.

I disagree. It has been 9 months since that post. bgfx still does not list support for Vulkan. They already implemented DX12 and Metal. They still claim support for Windows XP and Vista. Godot says it will get Vulkan support in 3.2 which comes out in a few months. Otherwise they would have to wait and work on bgfx to get it working. DX9, XP, Vista, feels like a lot of baggage for what Godot is right now. A very quick and easy to use game editor that easily deploys on both Win and Linux.

Also, your edit links to a pretty outdated article (2017).

See Godot's about face on Vulkan here:

[https://godotengine.org/article/abandoning-gles3-vulkan- and-...](https://godotengine.org/article/abandoning-gles3-vulkan-and-gles2)

> Vulkan was always a tempting alternative to solve them and to ensure we are > much safer from driver bugs (after all, this is what the API was intended > for). Still, the lack of support on macOS made it unappealing. Having to > write a Metal backend to support this OS is a lot of effort for a platform > not used very much.

> in a completely unexpected turn of events, it seems Valve has found an > arrangement with the developers of MoltenVK (the commercial and proprietary > Vulkan over Metal wrapper), ported Dota 2 to it, and got it open sourced.

> It seems to be a mostly complete Vulkan implementation that runs on macOS > and iOS. This pretty much lifts the only barrier we had for moving Godot to > it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Fantastic - whilst I need to run before I can walk with the dev I'm doing with it, increasing the focus on multiplayer work using web tech should make it easier to achieve some of the ideas that have been laying in notebooks for years.

Congrats to the team!

</comment><comment><USER19> This is great news. I recently just found out about this and have tried a few things with ease. I can see this going as the standard game Deb for open source if you don't want to or are unable to create your own engine / libraries.

</comment><comment><USER20> Godot is my game engine of choice. As a patron, I am now in very good company.

</comment><comment><USER21> Godot is growing to be quite interesting. Hopefully they'll implement well parallelized Vulkan support in some near future.

<comment><USER3> It's coming up.

[https://godotengine.org/article/abandoning-gles3-vulkan- and-...](https://godotengine.org/article/abandoning-gles3-vulkan-and-gles2)

<comment><USER21> Yes, but hard to say how soon it will be implemented.

<comment><USER3> Late reply here, but in a recent post Juan said that he would begin working on the Vulkan port in May.

[https://godotengine.org/article/godot-32-will-get-new- audio-...](https://godotengine.org/article/godot-32-will-get-new-audio- features) (at the bottom)

In the post I previously linked he said he expected the port to take a "couple of months", so we could expect it in any release made in the 3rd or 4th quarter this year, maybe as early as July?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Godot is great and im glad they secured some funds they will put to good use. Right minds in the right place

</comment><comment><USER23> Great news! Love the PROJECT <3

</comment><comment><USER24> Godot is ABSOLUTELY great, especially if you are a python developer! Thank YOU!

</comment><comment><USER25> Godot is a very impressive project.</comment>


Tezos: a self-amending cryptographic ledger - <AUTHOR> https://www.tezos.com/ <comment><USER2> This is the modern equivalent of a penny stock.

Could an admin please change the link to point at their technical whitepaper instead of this content-free solicitation to participate in a funding round that conveniently opens 5 days from now?

</comment><comment><USER3> Here is probably a better link which describes Tezos in more detail: [https://www.tezos.com/static/papers/position_paper.pdf](https://www.tezos.com/static/papers/position_paper.pdf)

Edit: After reading it, the main takeaways are:

1\. Allows voting on changing the protocol

2\. Uses Proof of Stake with some statistical analysis to help with flaws, although nothing seemed definite

3\. A brief mention of formal logic being used to create some sort of constitution, which any changes have to prove they abide by before being accepted by the system

</comment><comment><USER4> Very interesting. I find the rise of all these cryptocoins really difficult to discern the gems from the mediocre. But tezos (and EOS) seem like one of the better ones.

<comment><USER5> Ya right [http://www.coindesk.com/eos-unpacking-the-big-promises- behin...](http://www.coindesk.com/eos-unpacking-the-big-promises-behind-a- possible-blockchain-contender/)

<comment><USER4> An article that quotes a random reddit user by username as evidence and the godfather of truth-tellers Chris DeRose. How damning of an analysis. /s

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This one has lots of potential. TDLR, this one has built in governance to allow update to the cryptocurrency, which both bitcoin and ethereum had issues with. Bitcoin has scaling problem, and eth had to fork. Ironically, cryptocurrency purpose is the decentralized but the core team retains too much control, which exactly what they're trying to avoid. I'm planning to fund ICO.

</comment><comment><USER7> _The token is called a Tez (XTZ), when there are many they are Tezzies (tay-z- eez)._

Why don't you just call it a (TEZ)?

<comment><USER8> This is to comply with currency naming standards: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_4217](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_4217)

Same reason XBT for bitcoin is prefered by some to BTC.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Another garbage coin. Next please.

<comment><USER10> Funnily enough I originally read the title as "Tazos" which are another type of garbage coin.[1]

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tazos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tazos)</comment></comment>


Show HN: Fastn, a JavaScript tool for building user interfaces - <AUTHOR> http://korynunn.github.io/fastn/ <comment><USER2> I never like to criticize when someone creates something new. But decades of professional experience (having seen this concept come and go repeatedly over the years), taught me that HTML is your friend. I inherited a project that uses this concept, and there is no maintenance. Not because it's stable, but because it's more delicate than a faberge egg, so we never ever ever touch it.

I'm sure for some small projects with very infrequent layout changes, this could be nice to work with. But for any app of sufficient complexity, keep your markup out of your code be it through DOM construction or in string HTML. (React being the one implementation that MAY prove to be the exception to prove the rule, though it's too early to tell at this point).

<comment><AUTHOR> I've had this criticism many times in the past, but after doing exclusively JS rendered DOM for about 5 years now, I personally could never go back.

I write large-scale web front-ends as my day-job, they used a number of tools, but the one thing in common is the HTML-free approach. It creates much more manageable codebases, encourages reusability, allows for easy composition, and massive flexibility.

You mention that you "don't touch it" due to decades of experience. Have a look at the example app ([https://github.com/KoryNunn/fastn/blob/gh- pages/example/](https://github.com/KoryNunn/fastn/blob/gh-pages/example/)) as an example of app structure. Yes, it's a trivial example, but it's not really that different to the non-trivial apps I build at work.

Maybe it's time to give it a go again?

<comment><USER2> I think it's great that you created something that you find useful and works for you, and continue to create it after receiving negative criticism. I also think it's great that you're putting it out there, and wish you well with it. I'll end with that, as I don't want to be harsh or overly critical.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> "Nothin to see here! Check out index.js"

Bad sign for me. There's many valid reasons to have a markup available for we applications. Embedding layout this deep into code is just messy for me. The best acceptable way (for me) so far is React.

<comment><USER4> You mention react but it's does the same thing does it not? JSX is transformed into stuff like React.DOM.li('text', {/ _options_ /}) (<\- I've only played with react and only written JSX so IDK if that's even right) which looks very similar to what is shown here.

<comment><USER3> Not entirely the same. React forces the template into a single render function. In this case the whole code is about element rendering. Presentation layer generating code can be anywhere, that's why I think it's messy.

Of course some might like it for some use cases.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Huh.. Github seems to be stripping newlines from the .js sources :/.. It's 1am here, I'll fix that tomorrow.

</comment><comment><USER5> i like this. data binding without some html hybrid. animations... nice test app. you did a lot right.

ill try this out :)

<comment><USER6> Me too! The data binding is especially nice :-).

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Mixed Content: The page at '[https://korynunn.github.io/fastn/'](https://korynunn.github.io/fastn/') was loaded over HTTPS, but requested an insecure stylesheet '[http://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Roboto:400,300,100'](http://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Roboto:400,300,100'). This request has been blocked; the content must be served over HTTPS.

Can we stopped with the mixed content and go full HTTPS already?

<comment><USER4> I don't disagree with your premise but let's not lose our shit over a demo page with mixed content. In fact HN is linking to the HTTP version which (obviously) doesn't display this warning and now even the HTTPS version is working. This was not a slight by the developer just an oversight probably left over from developing the landing page locally (which was quickly fixed).

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This might be classified as a "nailgun" rather than a "framework" if the only thing I'm nailing is paper to cardboard. The whole "Nothin to see here! Check out index.js" indicates to me that this is the precise opposite of a solution to the problem of more and more sites relying exclusively on piles and piles of Javascript with zero regard for accessibility, privacy (by making the site useless for those who disable Javascript to that effect), performance, etc.

<comment><USER4> I'm quite stumped at the backlash against only rendering into the DOM and not sending down rendered HTML... Also, as for people who disable JS... Very bluntly: fuck them.

Are there security concerns at running JS? Sure, but you can't take away a HUGE building block of the web and expect everything to just work. It would be like taking away C from your computer, the whole thing comes crashing down. This and frameworks like this are normally for building interactive interfaces and/or full web apps which (let's all say this together) ARE NOT POSSIBLE WITHOUT JAVASCRIPT. PERIOD. The web is a constantly moving target and if frameworks like this break accessibility then maybe accessibility tools need to be re-written/updated to handle client-side rendering (which is where the web is largely going, optionally with an initial render on the server side).

If we are talking about a blog then sure, needing JS is just stupid, my blog works just fine with or without JS but if I'm building a web app there is no way I can reasonably deliver both a cutting edge JS web app AND a static, submit-the-page-to-do-anything app. If you think that's an easy thing to do then you've either never done it or the web app your were working on didn't deserve to be called a web app. I hear this shit from people all the time about how you "don't need JS"... Sure you don't need JS just like you don't need users which is where you will be if you deliver a shitty non-interactive website.

TL;DR: People not using JS are simply not worth the effort to support and if screen readers can't handle JS client-side rendering it's the readers then need to change not the web. It's simply unreasonable to expect all web developers to account for every single edge case. Taking away JS is taking away one of the building blocks of the web and is a BAD idea.

<comment><USER9> In my opinion, most sites should at least maintain a core subset of functionality that can work without JS. Sites existed before JS that let people read news and engage in commerce, there's no reason we should lose all that.

Also, as we now enter a future where billions of people who never used a desktop computer begin mobile banking, being able to conduct business without JS might be one avenue to combat fraud.

<comment><USER4> While I agree in concept in reality this is normally not possible. For a company like Google? Sure but for most companies out there they just aren't going to have the developer and QA resources to continuously test both JS and no-JS flows. For banks? Yes they can probably support both but honestly banks will probably move to MORE js to thwart fraud as in making sure you are a real person based on our mouse movements or other things. As for news sites, 10000% they should work without JS, the printed word is their bread and butter (even with some place coming up with more interactive news stories) so they should have no trouble supporting no-js browsers. There is a fear that they may just say "fuck you" to non-js people though if it significantly affects their advertizing (Lack of tracking or dynamic ad injection).

<comment><USER8> There's a good article on progressive enhancement (which is, alongside / in addition to graceful degredation, what's usually referred to when one talks about JS/non-JS hybrid flows) that addresses the cited pain points and "myths". [0] The claim that PE is "twice the effort" is directly addressed; basically, it's not twice the effort at all if one actually designs one's app to support PE/GD from the start (or otherwise starts with bare server- generated HTML and adds on layers of interactivity from there).

[0]: [http://www.sitepoint.com/javascript-dependency-backlash- myth...](http://www.sitepoint.com/javascript-dependency-backlash-myth-busting- progressive-enhancement/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This seems like a pain to write, and even harder to read.

What are the advantages in comparison to virtual DOM based frameworks out there?</comment>


License-Plate Readers Let Police Collect Millions of Records on Drivers - <AUTHOR> http://www.cryptogon.com/?p=35851

<comment><USER2> I used to be a software engineer on an ALPR system.

There are things I like about ALPR and things I don't like -- it's up to you guys to make sure it isn't abused. This technology could be abused without oversight.

Images are taken from cameras and matched against known "hot lists" of wanted people. Wanted for what? That depends. There's a list for expired plates (a.k.a. revenue generation - the selling point is that law enforcement will recoup the cost of the systems very quickly), stolen cars, murder suspects, missing people, sex offenders. There is even a notion of a "secret" list where the cops operating the system aren't even aware of what the analysts are looking for. These systems can also do geofencing -- if a plate for a known sex offender is spotted within a certain distance of a school, they're busted. Lots of stolen cars have been recovered via ALPR -- and remember most serious crime starts with the criminals obtaining a stolen car.

The system can also be used for internal investigations -- for instance there was a cop who was stalking his ex-wife who happened to have an ALPR. They pulled the capture history and her license plate came up multiple times. So he's busted.

Depending on how the system is set up they could store and back up the images and geolocations forever. There is current pending legislation regarding how long they can store data. The highway patrol can only store data for 60 days, most police departments have no such limitations. Update it looks like this failed--[http://gizmodo.com/how-automated-license-plate-readers- threa...](http://gizmodo.com/how-automated-license-plate-readers-threaten-our- privac-493400783)

Given enough mobile and fixed ALPR cameras the end result would be the same as having a GPS tracking device on everyone's car. I don't see why citizens should subject themselves to that long term data collection.

How about controls? Anyone querying the data leaves an audit trail behind. There are lots and lots of auditing and authorization levels built into the systems. That being said if something isn't configured correctly as was depicted here... [http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/08/technology/security/shodan/](http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/08/technology/security/shodan/)

Something to note, this technology is out of the bag. In the future 3M which makes most license plates are going to be adding QR codes to license plates. [http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6029](http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6029) You won't really need specialty cameras.

Presently there isn't a national database for ALPR but they're working very very hard to make this a reality. It's up to you guys to make sure this technology is used with proper restrictions and oversight. As I heard out of the mouth of a salesman after a sale to a middle eastern country "Hey regimes are great for business!"

<comment><USER3> > Given enough mobile and fixed ALPR cameras the end result would be the same > as having a GPS tracking device on everyone's car. I don't see why citizens > should subject themselves to that long term data collection.

The common argument for privacy in relation to democracy, is that:

If being associated to a political group will be counted against you and the data from such a system could be used to prove your attendance or affiliation to such a group...

...then you are unable to freely express your political beliefs as a consequence of being tracked.

<comment><USER4> Exactly.

Too often I hear people say "I don't mind personally." But it does affect everyone, since it chills political speech which hurts democracy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> _sigh_

I'm going to cross-post from another forum, where we had a similar discussion on ALPRs.

My reply was in response to how a town can use ALPRs to justify the layoffs of 2-3 parking personnel.

"Nope, the way you justify this is you don't pay for it.

The way it actually works is the manufacturer employs a team of grant writers, whose job is to know about any and all municipal, county, state, federal grants. In conjunction, with a team of lobbyists to influence the increased disbursement of funds to towns to help in the "war on terror". And the cherry on top, is the team that works with each state (or each regional purchasing authority) to get the manufacturer's products onto the approved list of law enforcement-related purchasing items.

The manufacturer then sells 2-5 systems to your town as a way of increasing revenue collection for the cost of $0 (see, grant writers?) plus annual maintenance cost. Your town sells it as a way to crack down on drug dealers and other undesirables. The manufacturer gets about $100K in revenue at this turn.

Then the manufacturer sells professional services to integrate the camera lookup system into your town's DMV, property tax, and criminal databases. So, you're not limited to just parking tickets _.

Then the manufacturer sells the use of a certified company employee as an "expert witness" in case you need someone to testify to the accuracy of the system during a court proceeding (that is a result of their surveillance technology).

Then they sell the mapping/GIS software integration at a rate of $300/mile driven for cities, and ~$80/mile driven for highway patrol/state troopers.

_ __I seriously wish I was joking about how the game is played. __*

This is what happens when you base all of your municipal revenue on inflated real estate prices/assessments and the floor disappears from under you. You go scrambling for any sort of revenue you can get.

* = I've talked to some officers and detectives in my old town, and they state that they turn the system off when riding with it, because it generates so many hits that they cannot possibly respond to each individual one. My suspicion is that its _both_ that, and the cost per mile driven."

And someone else's follow-up to my post:

"Thanks, you gave me the perfect lead-in to explain my comment.

A lot of these will receive "grant money" from the DHS with the stipulation that the culled data is fed to the DHS for their global database.

There was a PBS Frontline on this subject about a year ago."

</comment><comment><USER6> My small home town in Georgia has one of those. I really like the fact that they are doing a lot to take drivers that have no insurance, no licence, or registration off the road. Those people are why we pay so much for car insurance. From what I heard the local PD took out a combo 30k loan/grant to buy a set of those. They wrote enough tickets in the first week to cover it.

On the other the idea that they are logging every time, and place they see your vehicle is very disconcerting to me.

<comment><USER7> Insurance and registration are tied to the vehicle.

License is tied to the person, and I'd hope that solely recognizing the plate of a car owned by someone with a suspended, revoked or never-existing license doesn't represent probable cause to stop the car and check out the driver. I suspect some PDs probably claim it is.

<comment><USER8> I disagree. I think that is probable cause.

I don't think there should be a penalty for it, but it's definitely worth checking out.

For example, if there's a man with a suspended license and no wife or kids, it would be suspicious for his car to just be on the road.

<comment><USER9> If you own a car, and your license is suspended- what are the chances you are going to either a) loan your car to a friend or family member; b) ask a friend or family member to drive you somewhere (possibly in your own car) to get groceries/run other errands? I think the odds are pretty good.

<comment><USER10> Easy enough to clear that up when the car is pulled over.

I agree, it's fair game for probable cause. Otherwise, they couldn't pull over a car driven by bank robbers or kidnappers on the basis of its license number.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Original article: [http://cironline.org/reports/license-plate-readers-let- polic...](http://cironline.org/reports/license-plate-readers-let-police- collect-millions-records-drivers-4883)

Maine, New Jersey, and Virginia have limited the use of ALPRs, and New Hampshire has banned them outright, according to [http://www.infowars.com/automated-license-plate-readers- thre...](http://www.infowars.com/automated-license-plate-readers-threaten-our- privacy/)

<comment><USER12> If you drive into Manhattan your plate is scanned. Every entrance has permanent readers in place.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I read about LPRs a while ago, and since then I've noticed the cameras _everywhere_ , all over LA. They are so much more prevalent than you think.

The hardware is cheap enough ($1000/camera) that there's no purely financial reason private interests couldn't start using them, e.g., for billboard advertising, etc. But for sure the idea is pretty scary.

</comment><comment><USER14> UK has had these for a long time. They first appeared in the "ring of steel" around the financial district in London, and Heathrow Airport. But they've spread out across the country.

We also have a law that describes what a licence plate must look like. ([https://www.gov.uk/displaying-number- plates/overview](https://www.gov.uk/displaying-number-plates/overview))

I have no idea what happens to the data these machines collects - there's potentially a lot of information about people's movements there.

<comment><USER15> Wow, I am actually very impressed with that Gov.uk page: it was easy to follow, clear and seemed to have the right amount of detail to cover _most_ questions without overwhelming me. It also had links to relevant outside resources.

On top of this, it actually looks pretty good--far better than I would expect a government website to look!

<comment><USER2> and most of it is on github [https://github.com/alphagov](https://github.com/alphagov)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The same technology caught Soulja Boy's car as the one who caused a hit in run a few months ago. The article goes into some of the details of how he was caught.

[http://www.tmz.com/2013/05/23/soulja-boy-bentley- impounded-h...](http://www.tmz.com/2013/05/23/soulja-boy-bentley-impounded- hit-and-run-police-cameras-lapd)

Updated to fix link.

</comment><comment><USER17> Steve Jobs famously re-leased his SLK every 6 months and never put plates on it -- seems like a great way to avoid this type of tracking if you're in the financial position to do so.

<comment><USER18> No need. New cars in California come without license plates. Instead, you get a temporary registration document affixed to the inside of your windshield and plates are mailed to you in a few weeks. It's your responsibility to put them on.

OR, you can simply not put the plates on and blend in with all the other new cars -- and there's no shortage of new cars in the Bay Area. Usually, the dealer has placed their own cardboard/paper license plate with their own company logo in its place. When I bought a new car, I just flipped it around so it was just plain white.

As long as your car is a late model and reasonably clean, with the registration stuck to the windshield, cops probably won't bother pulling you over. Parking tickets may still be issued from the VIN. If you are pulled over, you might get a dressing down and a fix-it ticket to put your plates on within x days. You can do this for as long as you'd like to press your luck.

<comment><USER10> The truth is even weirder: in California there is a "celebrity exemption" that allows one to drive around with no license tags at all, if one meets certain qualifications.

Apparently you do get a bar code (according to one 2005 article), so the exemption would be of no use against automated readers. It just keeps ordinary citizens from being able to identify your car.

<comment><USER18> No, this is a myth. Many manufacturers (including MB) put a tamper-proof sticker with the VIN (sometimes barcoded) on every body panel of the vehicle so that theft or replacement can be detected. One location is behind the rear license plate.

[1] [http://pictures.dealer.com/m/mercedesbenzoftampa/1069/537b8d...](http://pictures.dealer.com/m/mercedesbenzoftampa/1069/537b8ded9300b34641252cd6883c77f0x.jpg) [2] [http://bimmerboard.com/members/q/original/VIN%20located%20be...](http://bimmerboard.com/members/q/original/VIN%20located%20behind%20rear%20License%20Plate%20E38.jpg) [3] [http://www.m3forum.net/m3forum/showpost.php?p=3856500&postco...](http://www.m3forum.net/m3forum/showpost.php?p=3856500&postcount=4)

<comment><USER10> Hmm, I'm having trouble finding any evidence for the public figure exemption, so it sounds like you're right. They certainly don't seem to advertise it on the DMV site, at least.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I recognize that there are security implications for this sort of technology, but I think that if we used it properly, the convenience would be well worth the trade-off.

For example, in Ontario, ALPRs were used in conjunction with RFID to build a toll road that was free of toll booths in 1997. (Politics later led the toll road to be sold by the provincial government to a privately-owned European company, which has been surprisingly good at maintaining said tollway, even during winter storms.)

</comment><comment><USER20> I see that the police patrol your neighborhood pretty often. Also, the other question to ask, if possible, is how many times they spotted stolen cars, expired plates, and "criminal" cars in your neighborhood? With that data, I think it could help police track down burglaries faster. After a while, the cars that case the neighborhood will stand out with a few records, whereas the resident cars will have many records.

<comment><USER21> "After a while, the cars that case the neighborhood will stand out with a few records, whereas the resident cars will have many records."

Along with all the cars that are just visiting friends in the neighborhood, &c. I'm not saying it couldn't be useful, but it should be treated with care.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I'm conflicted about license-plate cameras. On one hand, I think there is definitely the privacy risk. On the other hand, if we had speeding cameras everywhere (like in say Sydney), we'd have a lot less need for traffic cops and all of the abuse that comes from them.

<comment><USER23> The cameras are operated by cops. Therefore there is still abuse.

<comment><USER24> He's talking about a different kind of abuse: when police actually pull you over, they can troll for additional offenses, for instance by having a drug dog false your car.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> You can't drive onto Manhattan without being read by one of these.

</comment><comment><USER26> Bicycle license plates? The Dutch still use them? Anywhere in the US?

Boats? Yes:

Every vessel in Puget Sound, Washington State, is tracked with cameras and radar. We see two stereo cameras mounted on top of the channel marker from Rich Passage at south end of Agate Pass.

I've read this is now all part of the USCG-Coast Guard, the NW is in District 14(?).

</comment><comment><USER27> What's to stop individuals or companies from using the same tech to collect data? After all, what you do in public is public, and private detectives are allowed to follow and film their targets in public to show their clients and use in court.

<comment><USER28> There are very good reasons for some businesses to use ALPR technology. EasyPass and other automatic toll-collection schemes use RFID tags on cars to uniquely identify them. There are parking-lot control systems that use RFID tags to allow access to paid parking lots. ICS, the largest vendor of car wash management systems, sells an RFID subscription package. One of their tags is on my car's windshield: [http://www.icscarwashsystems.com/index.php?product=17](http://www.icscarwashsystems.com/index.php?product=17)

ALPR has some technical and business advantages over RFID. The RFID car- identification solution has been around over ten years; ALPR wasn't as effective then. If it has been, we'd probably have ALPR toll-collection systems instead of RFID.

I hope this pushback against ALPR won't extend to private uses of it for reasonable and limited purposes.

<comment><USER29> We _do_ have ALPR toll systems, at least here in California. You can leave your Fastrak RFID in your kitchen drawer forever, as long as you associate your license plates with your Fastrak account.

<comment><USER28> Nice. I didn't know that. I wonder when they started that? [https://www.bayareafastrak.org/vector/dynamic/signup/VTconfi...](https://www.bayareafastrak.org/vector/dynamic/signup/VTconfirm.shtml)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


"You should be willing to make this startup the main focus of your life" - <AUTHOR>

I can't help but notice that one of the links on the YC jobs page (viewable above at news.yc/jobs) says that prospective engineers should "be willing to make this startup the main focus of your life".  Is this reasonable?
I know HN has been through several equity for non-founders discussions this quarter; there's certainly room for continued debate on whether or not early hires deserve a lot of equity.
That leads me to my concern with the requirement in this post's title:  Is it reasonable to expect anyone to build their life around an employer?  Unless the employee is a major shareholder (i.e. cofounder) this seems like it's asking too much.  In this case the prospective engineer would be the first non-founder employee.  Perhaps they'd be eligible for double-digit equity?  If so, that pretty much makes them a cofounder and invalidates most of the above questions. <comment><USER2> If you don't want to devote your entire waking hours to a job then don't apply to one that requires you to do so.

There are numerous productivity studies that show working past a set number of hours decreases productivity in the long-run leading to more bugs, poorer morale and more "fire-fighting" instead of fixing problems for the long term.

If a company goes against this and just wants to work longer and harder instead of smarter, let them do it.

</comment><comment><USER3> There are many young people who are excited by this - equity is not as exciting to them as being on a team who works like mad towards a better way. I doubt you'd find too many 30-somethings interested in this but there are plenty who see opportunities like this as a way to gain street cred, bypass college, gain experience, etc.

</comment><comment><USER4> In my experience this is a pretty typical expectation at a startup. Good for these people for being so honest about it.</comment>


Does Price Matter?  - <AUTHOR> http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2010/10/does-price-matter.html

<comment><USER2> Summary: More great advise from Fred, you're adding somebody to your family when you take on an investor not just getting a silent pile of money. So consider what else comes along with the money and don't always just take the highest offer -- look at the value of each. The same applies for a sale transaction.

Opinion: While this is somewhat self serving for him to get people thinking this way it is true. Consider this example: Investor A offers you 5M at 20M for 25% of the company but doesn't know or understand your market and investor B offers you 4M at 16M for 25% of the company but has built a successful business in your market before and can help you avoid costly mistakes.

The same applies on a sale transaction. If you think the acquirer doesn't understand your business then the maximum value you'll see from that transaction is on the day of it. If you believe they understand it and it'll continue to grow you can stay on board and create much more value of which you'll be rewarded for.

<comment><USER3> I'm sure the opposite also holds true: just because as an investor you can squeeze a low valuation, there can be such a thing as _too low_. So sure you may have won the round of negotiations, but you both lose when the founders lose interest and the co tanks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm not sure I get it. From the perspective of the investors, the 300 million sale seems better. Are they not trying to maximize the return on their money?

<comment><USER5> The expected return is (probability of success) X (value at success). In practice, the probability is what matters far more, and so that's what you optimize for.

It doesn't matter what valuations/etc. are in place if the company tanks.

<comment><USER4> But this is a company being sold. It's an exit.

<comment><USER6> The company might be more profitable in the long run if it has better chemistry with its acquirer, even they didn't make the highest offer.

<comment><USER7> This is predicated, of course, on investors taking a long term view. I think it's been shown that we don't tend to do that.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>