Ask HN: HRs and Management are asking me to Not raise a concern anymore - <AUTHOR> Summary of Problem: - work at India Office of a Famous, Big Software Company. - The offer letter which is issued does NOT mention a certain deduction.
- I raised this issue using the official HR tools meant for employee concerns.
- The response I got was continuous denial and on asking multiple question over many months ( 6+ ), the HR response now is,
"they do not want to hear it anymore."
Same response of My manager now.
Details and more: http://codepad.org/w513MqdS <comment><USER2> Maybe things are different in India, but why did you think HR is going to help you? HR is absolutely worthless to non-management employees. Its a totally corrupt profession. My policy is if I absolutely have to talk to HR and can't solve it another way I will just quit instead.

<comment><AUTHOR> The tools which are meant for employee concerns send the message ( email trigger ) to HR department.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Is the yearly increase substantial?

Do you still think the yearly insurance price is competitive with other offerings in the market?

Is the insurance price being adjusted for inflation only?

If so, is your salary adjusted for inflation?

Do you like working there?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes

No

They claim that, but there was no information given about it

No

Yes, but not anymore.

<comment><USER3> That's unfortunate. Nobody likes to feel cheated at work.

I'd suggest to try and remediate the situation first. Try to cancel the insurance and get your money back if possible.

If that doesn't work and working there isn't that great anymore (no friends, not learning much, career dead-end, no perspective of higher salary, etc).. _I_ would look for another job if I could afford that financially.

In big corporations, as much as your boss may like you and the work you do, his/her hands might be tied: no leverage with HR, they have a "problem" to deal with, since official channels have been used to complain.. now that might be making him/her look bad to other higher ups, etc.

Best of luck.

<comment><AUTHOR> > cancel the insurance and get your money back if possible.

Not an option.

>no leverage with HR,

This process almost feels like an organized scam and well thought of.

Generally the company is very vocal about the "process orientation" and "well defined policies".

But, in this case, it took quite an effort to take them out of denial mode, and now that they are out of denial mode, they just do not respond.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> What are you asking HN? There is no question here.</comment>


A 1967 Proposal for Single-Launch Piloted Venus Flybys in 1972, 1973, and 1975 - <AUTHOR> https://spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com/2017/05/apollo-ends-at-venus-1967-proposal-for.html <comment><USER2> _" Six months after Funk and Taylor completed their report, AAP bore the brunt of more than $500 million in Congressional cuts to NASA's Fiscal Year 1968 budget. The program, which for a time in 1966 had been planned to include some 40 Earth-orbital and lunar missions, shrank rapidly during 1968-1969. It was officially renamed the Skylab Program in February 1970. Between May 1973 and February 1974, three three-man crews occupied the Skylab Orbital Workshop in Earth orbit for a total of 173 days."_

For context, the US spent ~$110B (non-inflation adjusted) on military actions in Vietnam, 1965-72.

To think we could have ceded Vietnam a few years earlier and visited Venus for pocket change (and potentially not had Nixon as a president)... the mind boggles.

<comment><USER3> But then, the whole cold war madness, of which the Vietnam debacle was one sorry outgrowth, was the very thing that fueled the space race.

<comment><USER4> Neal Stephenson explores this point here:

[http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2011/0...](http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2011/02/space_stasis.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> In a sense, it may have been a good thing we didn't attempt a manned Venus fly-by in the 70s. Even today, we aren't sure we can sufficiently shield spacecraft from radiation outside of the earth's magnetosphere.

Imagine the public perception of NASA had every astronaut that went to Venus come home and slowly died of multiple cancers.

<comment><USER6> Meh, radiation concern is over-rated. Astronauts and cosmonauts have spent more than a year in orbit, and the longest cumulative time in space (for one person) is over 800 days. YES, this is LEO, where the radiation levels are lower, but the levels of radiation aren't actually that much higher once you minus out the relatively-easily-shielded solar particle radiation. It's about a factor of 2 higher in deep space vs LEO. So as far as cumulative dose, we've already achieved that without "slowly dying of multiple cancers." And really, it takes a lot more cumulative dose than that to have a large and statistically meaningful cancer risk increase. We're talking about a 3% risk of cancer death, not 90% as you're implying (and the risk is relatively linear).

The nice thing about Venus flyby is that provided you can shield the solar radiation (using water and supplies), the interplanetary magnetic field is stronger the closer to the Sun you get, so the very difficult-to-shield cosmic ray dose actually reduces.

And another note about deep space radiation: there's an incorrect assumption out there that you do not receive the highest energy cosmic ray radiation in LEO due to the Earth's magnetic field. That's not true. The Earth's magnetic field can only shield the lower energy cosmic rays (the ones that are easier to shield using supplies and spacecraft mass). The highest energy cosmic rays, above the "geomagnetic cutoff," still get through, and they're the hardest to shield and also the ones that people say the effects are least known. However, we've had dozens of astronauts & cosmonauts spend ~6 month stints in space with exposure to these rays without any dramatic effects (and some have spent a year or more at a time).

I'd venture that a crewed Venus flyby ("ma'ammed" as well as manned, since this is Venus afterall!!!) in the 1970s was perfectly doable from this perspective, given enough supplies and basic shielding from solar particle events. It would've been risky, but perhaps no more risky than Apollo 11, which had to actually land on and launch from a rocky body (a huge extra source of risk).

Skylab had a >80 day mission in the 1970s, and the Soviets did a >175 day mission in 1979. I think a Venus flyby in the 70s would've been feasible.

<comment><USER7> Isn't the problem more those occasional solar flares than steady-state cosmic radiation? All longterm spaceflight so far has been inside the van Allen belts which offer quite a bit of protection (for us on earth too).

<comment><USER6> The solar flares' radiation is relatively easy to shield against. You can arrange your food and water supplies to provide temporary shielding. Even a very small amount of shielding (like simply being inside a spacecraft) will stop the worst effects. Here's a graph showing some really bad solar flares and how aluminum (which is a terrible shielding material compared to food and water) reduces the dose: [http://www.bioedonline.org/slides/content- slides/space-life-...](http://www.bioedonline.org/slides/content-slides/space- life-sciences/radiation-effects/?pageaction=displaySlideDetails&tk=56&dpg=13)

<comment><USER7> OK interesting, thanks for sharing.

Shielding in general does seem to be a real issue for any spaceflight beyond LEO though; perhaps not as bad as I'd thought.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I remember dismissing the Capricorn One movie out of hand for positing a manned Mars program with _Apollo_ gear. Maybe I was a bit too harsh there, preposterous as the plotline otherwise was.

</comment><comment><USER8> I was just wondering if we had technology available at that time for a self- sustaining mission that could last 350+ days, while supporting the crew of 3 (or 2?) and fitting the weight limits...</comment>


CMake daemon for user tools - <AUTHOR> https://steveire.wordpress.com/2016/01/24/cmake-daemon-for-user-tools/ <comment><USER2> The daemon exposing completion kind of reminds me of the design YouCompleteMe uses, though this takes it several steps further offering quite a bit more funcionality.</comment>


Show HN: Insane Race – my first android game - <AUTHOR> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.matt1.insanerace

<comment><AUTHOR> So this is my first attempt at an Android game. I'd love your feed back.

I studied some of the BF Skinner works (of Skinner Box fame) as well as Angry Birds and a few other "casual" games to understand what makes them compelling.

I've borrowed a lot from Angry Birds and used the same "design pattern" which you might find familiar, but I hope the game play is different enough not to raise any ire!

The privacy policy includes some details about tracking - I am using Google Analytics to track some anonymous game play stats like the average score, number of games, and the crash location. If I get enough users (perhaps 5000+) I'll use the stats to report back on the findings about the "average" player like how many games they played, average scores, and crash locations which I hope HN finds interesting!

Thanks!</comment>


Sunspots could soon disappear for decades: study - <AUTHOR> http://www.physorg.com/news203746768.html

<comment><USER2> In short, "There has been a decrease in the sun's magnetic field lately. Based on that trend, we're predicting that sunspots could disappear entirely."

They bury how shaky this prediction is really far into the story. It reminds me a lot of <http://xkcd.com/605/>.</comment>


Spray-on Skin Is a Reality - <AUTHOR> http://gizmodo.com/5749968/the-skin-gun-that-sprays-new-skin-on-burn-victims-is-real

<comment><USER2> I hate to get political, but there is a barrier beyond which I feel compelled to speak out. The ban on stem-cell research during the Bush Administration, and the current Tea Party's attacks on the NSF (which I see as probably the premier force keeping America at the frontier of science and tech, at least when it comes to high-tech entrepreneurship like Google, not flashy web 2.0 startups that contribute little science) are really dangerous.

This is what stem-cell research looks like.</comment>


Here's Why I Love Working At Intridea - <AUTHOR> http://yourtime.intridea.com/

<comment><USER2> I must admit I needed sometimes to be sure of what this website is presenting because the domain name talks about "yourtime", which is "my" time, but I couldn't find anything related to me at a glance. Shouldn't it be "ourtime.intridea.com" ?

Excellent idea btw, I love companies taking care of employees in such ways.</comment>


Ask HN: AWS vs. GCP(Choosing a Cloud service provider) - <AUTHOR> I'm currently at the prototyping phase of an App and I"m looking to choose a Cloud PAAS for my application. The buzz now is AWS, I currently have my static site hosted on Google Cloud. Will like to know your thoughts on which Cloud provider you chose over another. This is especially for the startup use case.<p>Thanks! <comment><USER2> I've used AWS, Azure and GCP and personally I prefer GCP at the moment.

GCP works so smoothly with Kubernetes and Stackdriver is pretty awesome. I feel that lately AWS suffers from feature bloat. Or at least whenever I open the services console I tend to close it back down since there's always 10-20 new names of products I don't recognize.

<comment><AUTHOR> I tried hosting a static site on AWS S3 and after tinkering for like 30 minutes, I could not get it to work. I did it with GCP(Cloud storage) in 20 minutes. I lean more towards GCP but I'll like to know the fuzz about AWS</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Good C codebases to read? - <AUTHOR> What is good but not super-complex C codebases that can be used to learn about proper practices used in modern complex projects?<p>Inspired by this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9896369 <comment><USER2> One of the very good sources of knowledge is the FreeBSD code base. You can check it out from Subversion, and have a complete operating system in the .c and .h form. This is actually how I gained the proficiency in C. It exposes you to industry-grade C (e.g.: you'll learn about bits which are hard in C but are being used actively) Also if you ever get interested in operating systems, FreeBSD gives you a very nice transition, since both programs and the kernel are in the same repo.

To check out the FreeBSD source code, you can do:

svn co [https://svn.freebsd.org/base/head](https://svn.freebsd.org/base/head)

And if you want to know how 'cat' is implemented, go to bin/cat/.

Same for 'ls', 'find' etc..

Other than that, early source code of UNIX gurus is very good too. Check out the Plan 9 project from Bell Labs. It has a very clean code too:

[http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sources/plan9/sys/src/](http://plan9.bell- labs.com/sources/plan9/sys/src/)

<comment><USER3> There is also an official mirror on Github. [https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd](https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I find [https://github.com/antirez/redis](https://github.com/antirez/redis) one of the best C codebase to read.

</comment><comment><USER5> I think the last time this came up sqlite was recommended

</comment><comment><USER6> Both Lua and LuaJit.

[https://github.com/LuaDist/lua](https://github.com/LuaDist/lua)

[https://github.com/LuaDist/luajit](https://github.com/LuaDist/luajit)

<comment><USER2> Lua's C code base is fairly complex. I don't recommend it to a people willing to study C more. When I attempted to embed Lua into the FreeBSD's loader I expected it to be much easier. But when things went wrong and I had to jump and understand Lua internals, it too a while.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Redis' src is very clean and easy to dive into.

[https://github.com/antirez/redis](https://github.com/antirez/redis)

</comment><comment><USER8> sqlite [http://www.sqlite.org/docs.html](http://www.sqlite.org/docs.html)

</comment><comment><USER9> gcc, postfix, fossil, a lot of major projects have good C code.

<comment><USER10> Fossil is a high quality codebase but a little odd in many respects. For example, the build process runs three custom preprocessors to generate header files: [http://fossil- scm.org/index.html/doc/74836bc8ae09edd152d8/ww...](http://fossil- scm.org/index.html/doc/74836bc8ae09edd152d8/www/makefile.wiki)

For a beginner looking for idiomatic C code I wouldn't really recommend it as something to study.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Any good C++ codebases?</comment>


Simple lays off 33 employees as top executives depart banking company - <AUTHOR> https://www.geekwire.com/2017/simple-lays-off-30-employees-top-executives-depart-banking-company/ <comment><USER2> The problem for me with Simple is that whole they tend to be very good at providing support or technology, but are pretty bad at being a bank. They're unreasonably restrictive with regard to using your debit card abroad, and the lack of a checkbook is, while not a frequent inconvenience, one that always seems to be problematic at the worst possible times.

That their solution is "act less like a bank" seems to me that they have got things horribly backwards.

<comment><USER3> I was a super early adopter and couldn't agree more. I was also pretty young at the time and really only had that one checking account as a source of money, and their failures at being a bank really screwed me over. I can remember being in line trying to pay for $200 worth of groceries and getting declined (despite having well over that available in my checking account). The reason was eventually cited to me as a "technical glitch" after I had to call their after-hours "emergency line" and wait for a callback standing next to my groceries for a half hour.

The mobile experience was really great though, and I like that they automatically accounted for things like tips in your available balance to give a clearer picture of available funds.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've happily used Capital One 360 (neé ING Direct) for the better part of a decade at this point. It seems to provide all the same benefits as Simple (especially no fees for anything ever), while being better at being a bank.

And their web experience, which up until recently seemed to be stuck in 2002, has improved since the Capital One acquisition.

</comment><comment><USER5> I was a Simple user for a couple of years back when it was invite only. It was pretty good, but I wish they'd focus on providing nice tech on top of existing bank infrastructure. For instance, license out their nice UIs and budgeting tools to other banks and help with integrations and such, since most banks have atrocious web banking apps. Or integrate with Plaid and provide a single transaction aggregation and budgeting tool that looks exactly like Simple's current interface. I would pay for that.

</comment><comment><USER6> I love Simple, but definitely need a backup bank as well. I use their debit card for most purchases and love the real-time alerts. Also, love how they break down purchases.</comment>


Automatic Mobile Emergency Alerts [Free Startup Idea] - <AUTHOR> http://almoststartup.com/allertia-enabling-automatic-mobile-emergency <comment><USER2>
        We need a system to push emergency alerts directly to mobile phones based
        on their location without the need for the person to opt-in.

I don't understand why this can't be opt-in. Granted, emergency alerts are something I would want to receive, but I think it's something that should be provided as an opt-in service, either by downloading an app or signing up with your cell carrier. My fear is that with a helpless, captive audience, the scope of "emergency" would slowly creep outward until you're spammed multiple times a day about the great deals at the Costco in your area. Also, if the service weren't opt-in, it would prevent competition because users would not be able to choose which emergency notification service they want to use.

<comment><AUTHOR> Opt-out vs. Opt-in is arguable. Given the severity of alerts, I think opt-out provides the most utility to the population. These alerts are coming directly from government organizations, "deals from Costco" should have no bearing on the decision.

<comment><USER3> Totally agree. As I understand it, this is in case of "real" emergencies as assessed by government bodies. The revenue is not going to come from ads being served along with the messages. It is going to come from the customization, implementation and support of the technology.

<comment><AUTHOR> Exactly. (at least in way that I've proposed the service)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The Finnish Government is preparing just this kind of a system. Launch is expected at earliest in 2011.

Planning was started after the 2004 Asian tsunami. In 2007 the upfront costs of an emergency alert system were estimated at 1,5 to 6 million euros. At that point the Ministry of the Interior decided to mothball the project.

This year we've had record breaking storm damages. It's likely that development of such system will once again be a priority.

In Finland, mobile emergency alert system is seen as an alternative to current national emergency broadcasts (tv, radio - similar to EAS). Currently the system is very stupid - single bear sightings are pushed nationwide in every broadcast media. It's mostly a matter of too lax regulation on the use of emergency broadcasts, but ultimately a new, more localized delivery method would be needed. This would mean SMS emergency alerts pushed through local cell towers.

For further info on the Finnish project: Google "hätätekstiviesti" and Google Translate.

</comment><comment><USER5> A sadly related, but very informative is the Virginia Tech shooting report: <http://www.vtreviewpanel.org/report/index.html>. I did a bit of work (mostly code audit) of an emergency alert system at a University and it was one of the most rewarding work experiences I've ever had. Trouble with these systems is that at least where I worked, they were used to notify people of snow closings, etc., which made some people very angry: "why are you sending me so many e-mails, text messages, etc.?"

</comment><comment><USER6> This is very well thought out and presented. Even though the internet hasn't reached everyone in the world, cell phones certainly are. I could see this being picked up by someone outside of the US where it hits a little closer to home

I have actually talked to folks who are working on something similar specific to africa I believe. And I've done a little thought in this area as well.

I think this approach for a business would make a lot of sense, and probably would get scooped up by one of the larger players in global mobile infrastructure pretty quickly. Hope your plan falls into the right hands, though I imagine the scope of such tech is a little beyond the typical YC-type startup?

</comment><comment><USER7> In a previous life I worked at a company [1] doing things similar to this [2]. It was great to see it put to use in the 7/7 London bombings, and it certainly helped save a few lives over the years.

When I left a couple of years ago we were putting the finishing touches to a new version which was much improved, but it looks like that never launched.

[1] <http://citysafe.org>

[2] <http://communitysafe.gov.uk/>

</comment><comment><USER8> I consulted with the Department of Homeland Security about developing a system almost identical to this in 2005-6. It WAS eventually developed. I could give lots of valuable insight. Shoot me a message if you are interested.

<comment><AUTHOR> Awesome. Did you consult on what eventually became IPAWS / CMAS? Thanks for the offer for more insight. I grabbed your email from your profile. If it looks like the project will get undertaken, will definitely hit you up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Very informative write-up. At Stormpulse we're already sending emails and are about to start sending SMS and phone calls via Twilio. I can vouch for the demand (it's high). Of course, folks still have to opt-in.

</comment><comment><USER3> Alertia is a great idea! The biggest barrier in my opinion will be dealing with the governments of the 180+ countries than the technology!

</comment><comment><USER10> Weather bug app does this but it's Opt in. First thing my parents want installed on their phone.

I use it b/c I rarely watch live tv or listen to the radio.

Not sure about the " a system to push emergency alerts directly to mobile phones based on their location without the need for the person to opt-in." Seems a little too big brother to me.</comment>


Famous Perl One-Liners Explained, Part II: Line Numbering - <AUTHOR> http://www.catonmat.net/blog/perl-one-liners-explained-part-two/ <comment><USER2> For command line, I prefer awk and sed. Yes, I know they don't have the power of Perl or Python for big projects, but this is an excellent example of using a shotgun to kill flies.

Edit: And of course, since this same site has awesome examples of sed and awk one-liners in action, the comparison has never been easier to make.

<comment><USER3> For these sorts of examples, I tend to use awk and sed too, but sometimes the shotgun is useful. One major advantage of using Perl in this context is that you also have -M, with all of CPAN at your disposal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> One liners like this is why Perl has a reputation of being like line noise. I'm a big fan of Perl, but if any of my employees wrote this kind of write- only code, I'd fire them.

<comment><USER3> If they do any amount of command line wrangling, you should hope that your employees are writing code like this every day. The whole point of these one- liners is that once you get the hang of it they're very powerful additions to your *nix pipeline.

They could write highly maintainable, well tested, peer reviewed etc code to do the same things, but in this context that would be hugely wasteful, as the utilities already exist.

This is Perl as a replacement for Awk, not for Java.

<comment><USER3> See also "Area Number Three" in [http://steve.yegge.googlepages.com/five- essential-phone-scre...](http://steve.yegge.googlepages.com/five-essential- phone-screen-questions)

Being able to create that line-noise is, in most cases, significantly more useful than taking 3 months to create a perfectly engineered recursive phone- number finding program.</comment></comment></comment>


Steve Jobs Preparing for First TV Appearance (1978) (97 Seconds) - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ogsI2OAYWnk

<comment><AUTHOR> arnoldwh mentioned it here -

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2922846>

This really blows me away - amazing contrast between that and how highly polished he is now. Shows how far people can go with persistence and chutzpah. Inspirational.</comment>


I'm Over Tech People - <AUTHOR> https://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2016/04/10/im-over-tech-people/ <comment><USER2> No comprendo? A few of his posts have been interesting, but as he mentions he's a little too wrapped up in SV and himself. A few months in a far off land would help. I'm planning a trip to Nepal later this year if he's interested. ;)

</comment><comment><USER3> Seriously, as one who recognizes the indicators, this guy needs help. I mean, everything about his career implosion and general public disdain, complete rejection of society, etc. is his own creation. If reading this Michael, without malice, please get help.

<comment><USER4> The negative reddit comments were weird and does conform to his analysis there's a ring of people doing it.

<comment><USER5> Ha, getting hateful comments on reddit is pretty common. Not to downplay whatever is going on here, but I've found reddit to be pretty vile a lot of the time.

<comment><USER3> Well, and to be honest, at this point he reads like a delusional paranoid. Not sure what got him there, but he needs help either with the tone or an underlying cause. Needs to bring reason back into the tone and discussion and quit escalating. Whether that involves professional help or a long, quiet vacation somewhere without internet, I hope he does it.

<comment><USER6> Totaly agree. I did not read Michael's earlier posts but there is definitly missing some reason in his words. Looks like he is slowly slipping into crazy land.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> (i have never met Michael Church nor have i ever had any direct communication with him.) I have read a few of his essays and each was thoughtful, tightly reasoned, and clearly evidenced an emotional stake in the subject matter. I'm not sure there's anything abnormal about someone expressing their frustration over X in proportion to their contribution to change/improve X.

</comment><comment><USER4> Whatever happened behind the scenes in SV, Michael has given good advice over the years, and I'm grateful for it. I think I'd have been for the worse if I hadn't stumbled onto Michael's comments on the startup industry years ago.</comment>


Journey towards a reliable Linux workstation - <AUTHOR> http://fortintam.com/blog/2018/02/25/journey-towards-a-reliable-linux-workstation/ <comment><USER2> reliable workstation...neverending story like ' which linux is distro is the bes'</comment>


Tony Gwynn was Great Far Beyond the Numbers - <AUTHOR> http://padres.mlblogs.com/2014/06/16/tony-gwynn-was-great-far-beyond-the-numbers/

<comment><AUTHOR> It's not really HN fare, but for all the baseball fans it was pretty shocking news. My favorite stat (care of Jayson Stark) is that in 129 ABs, he never struck out combined against Pedro Martinez and Greg Maddux.</comment>


Is it time for a web crawling code of conduct? - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/is_it_time_for_a_web_crawling_code_of_conduct.php

<comment><USER2> Upstanding crawlers already follow this and more; rogue crawlers won't be influenced by such a code-of-conduct.

Furthermore, unless a crawler is trying really hard to disguise itself, site owners have the ultimate 'self-help' available to them: just block bad crawlers entirely.

Any formal code-of-conduct beyond what are already customary practices (like following robots.txt rules) thus strikes me as superfluous.

<comment><AUTHOR> My hope in making a code of conduct accepted by legitimate web crawling companies is that it lets customers and users more easily decide which products to use.

It also helps in distancing legitimate companies from illicit ones.</comment></comment>


Leak Suggests NSA Was Deep in Middle East Banking System - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/2017/04/major-leak-suggests-nsa-deep-middle-east-banking-system/ <comment><USER2> As a US citizen, and given how things like 9/11 were funded, this is _exactly_ what I want NSA to be doing. This is thier job.

What I don't want them doing is hoovering up internal comms traffic without a warrant and passing it to people like DEA. That is exactly _not_ thier job.

Frankly, it's a bit bizarre to me that US citizens don't understand how to draw the distinction between those two sceanrios...

<comment><USER3> I'm sorry, I guess that me not being American makes me unable to stand by your position, but I don't get it.

I'm an European citizen and I don't think it's Ok for any agency to spy in others' banking systems (or in anthing for that matter). If it was Iran doing this the US would go to war with them. If it was Palestine who was spying on US banking systems the US military would be killing left and right until nothing but corpses would remain, but is it OK for the NSA to shit on International laws to make America "safe"? The NSA is out of control of the American people, as all the other agencies. It seems like the US government and ther agencies feel they can do whatever they want, wherever they want and however they please, and no, that's not OK for the rest of the world. And about that 9/11 funding thing... It was proven that the CIA had knowledge about the attack before it happened... Do you really think they need to spy on the entire world to stop another one? And given the recent events, do you even think they need banks to attack the US, France or any other place? Gathering this information seem to have much more to do with controlling foreign goverments than with preventing terrorism. Please stop using 9/11 as an excuse for everything, there are lots of countries which have suffered many more terrorist attacks in the last 5 years and don't use it ad an excuse to fuck with everyone else in the planet.

<comment><USER4> All globally-competitive countries are doing this to all other countries. I'd be very shocked if Iran's intelligence agencies didn't have (either in the past, or presently) some level of access to our financial systems.

It's pretty absurd to suggest we would kill people just because we caught a spy agency snooping on us. We've caught and rebuked foreign spy agencies all the time. The usual punishment is covert retaliation (escalating malware attacks, etc.), and the times when it isn't covert (like with the Russia revelations), responses usually involve sanctions and condemnation.

NSA would be doing the American people a disservice if they weren't competing with the rest of the spy agencies out there. It's just a fact of life. We just want them to do it without warrantless mass surveillance of US citizens.

>It was proven that the CIA had knowledge about the attack before it happened...

They didn't. To suggest they did is to allege a massive conspiracy. They received hints it might happen, but intelligence agencies receive tens of thousands to millions of pieces of new information per week, 99.99% of which turns out to be nothing. You can apply this argument to almost every war or attack in history (including Pearl Harbor). Sieving the signal out of the noise isn't easy.

I'm an American but neither a nationalist nor a patriot. I just realize they're doing their job. I also realize and acknowledge Russia wouldn't be doing its job properly if they _didn 't_ try to influence the Presidential election.

<comment><USER5> I believe he's referring to the 50 CIA employees who knew there were 2 suspected terrorists inside the US. As Richard Clarke alleged, the CIA purposely withheld this information from the White House because they appear to have been running a sting operation.

If you look at "Interview #07 (Washington, DC) by FF4Films on Youtube, Richard Clarke makes this allegation. It's pretty clear the situation is quite different than just saying the warnings were too non-specific to notice.

<comment><USER4> True, good point. But that seems more like basic incompetence or cockiness rather than awareness that 9/11 was about to happen.

<comment><USER6> I remember something about European agencies (UK and France IIRC) giving specific warnings a few weeks or months in advance to the US agencies and the US agencies doing nothing then later scrambled to justify this inaction.

-/edit- here: [https://cpj.org/2007/12/french-journalist-investigated-over-...](https://cpj.org/2007/12/french-journalist-investigated-over-intelligence-l.php) -edit/-

Then again 9/11 is not a valid excuse as the US has been orders of magnitude worse for decades, had been preparing for such an event but did nothing and even the contrary when it actually happened and then used it to go to war to unrelated countries for unrelated reason (access to oil). So please just stop brandishing 9/11 as a justification for doing more of what the US have been doing all along.

<comment><USER4> >Then again 9/11 is not a valid excuse as the US has been orders of magnitude worse for decades, had been preparing for such an event but did nothing and even the contrary when it actually happened and then used it to go to war to unrelated countries for unrelated reason (access to oil). So please just stop brandishing 9/11 as a justification for doing more of what the US have been doing all along.

I agree with you. That isn't what I was arguing at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Eroding confidence in banking systems shouldn't be an American goal. Instead, protecting and securing those systems should be the goal.

<comment><USER8> How does NSA spying on financial transactions erode confidence in banking system?

<comment><USER7> Because it encourages adoption of alternative systems.

The Swiss Banking Act of 1934 is an indicator of the magnitude of change that can occur when banking privacy is not respected.

<comment><USER9> Some more information about the Banking Act: [https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/feb/08/hsbc- files-...](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/feb/08/hsbc- files-1934-swiss-law-secrecy)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I don't understand how this is news.

This entries are years old: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Worldwide_Interban...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Worldwide_Interbank_Financial_Telecommunication#U.S._government_involvement)

Unless stated otherwise, NSA is there, even here.

</comment><comment><USER11> The debate on whether the spying is justified going on in here assumes the NSA is only seeking intel, and completely ignores the possibility they compromised the systems at EastNets with the specific intent of defeating KYC and other money laundering / anti-terrorism controls so money can flow to groups they want to ensure receive money. Sure, it's speculation on my part. Well, speculation viewed through the lens of a US citizen who has witnessed decades of covert empire building perpetrated on the world by my government. I'm not even saying the NSA is directly funding any groups, they could just be silent kingmakers, working in the back room like the Wizard of Oz, pulling levers here and there to ensure funds flow to favorable groups and not to unfavorable ones. No matter how morally dubious those receiving this favor are.

<comment> wu-ikkyu In the same vein, here is an interesting DEF CON lecture titled, How To Overthrow a Government:

[https://youtu.be/qbTPkKB9Ffc](https://youtu.be/qbTPkKB9Ffc)

One of the key elements of the lecture is pwning the central bank of the target country in order to frame political oponents by creating false transactions to terrorist groups.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> People be like : "spying is bad and I don't like it"

Aggressive spying has been standard since forever. If you are outraged it means you have not been paying attention. This is not new.

<comment><USER6> That the US have been going at it for decades does not mean it is OK or that not being new means it should not spark outrage.

Then again show us how Liberia has been into the aggressive standard since forever, or even how this forever existed before 20th century.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> The NSA were just checking out those who are funding ISIS and other terrorist groups.</comment>


Taxodus – mapping assets offshore - <AUTHOR> http://taxodus.net/ <comment><USER2> I profoundly dislike the usage of the term "Protecting" in "Protecting your assets", especially when we have a more suitable verb: "Evading". It has the correct connotations too.

<comment><USER3> Offshore holdings companies aren't always about tax evasion.

Sometimes they're about making sure the _presumably very nice person_ [but also possible gold-digger] you married can't actually spend all your money.

That's the sense of "protection" they mean.

<comment><USER4> If you don't want someone spending our money, you just don't give to them. You don't need to hide money to accomplish that goal. Marriage is a joint partnership, and anyone is free to not enter into one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Very interesting game, and I really like the look/feel of it. Defiantly need more explanation, I have no clue what I'm doing in there!

<comment><USER6> They have this doc with a better backstory <http://youtu.be/d4o13isDdfY>

<comment><AUTHOR> The documentary is excellent

<comment><USER7> I'm not so sure I'm getting what they are trying to say here.

Companies have been playing the taxation arbitrage game since the beginning of taxation. Isn't that what states to do each other in the USA? Why do you think FL has no income tax while NY/NJ/CT do?

I'm not sure why this belongs on HN.

<comment><USER4> FL has no income tax because it doesn't want retirees to rip off wage earners. It is clearly not a play to attract portable businessz since it has almost none.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


"Rem Maps" Logo Through the Years - <AUTHOR> http://www.remmaps.it/logo_en.htm <comment><AUTHOR> There is also post by _Remo Madella_ [0] on _«Rem Maps»_ Facebook-page (in Italian) with larger photo of latest maps with new logo.[1]

 _OpenOrienteering Mapper_ , mentioned in story, is fully free & open-source desktop & mobile GIS/DTP (desktop publishing software) app for orienteering mapping and other sorts of cartography.[2]

Also, take a look on how «REM MAPS» orienteering mapping gear has changed through the years.[3]

[0] [https://www.facebook.com/remo.madella](https://www.facebook.com/remo.madella)

[1] [https://www.facebook.com/remmaps/photos/a.348636805150534/37...](https://www.facebook.com/remmaps/photos/a.348636805150534/3790765840937596/)

[2] [https://www.openorienteering.org/apps/mapper](https://www.openorienteering.org/apps/mapper)

[3] [http://www.remmaps.it/strumenti1_en.htm](http://www.remmaps.it/strumenti1_en.htm)</comment>


16000 Chickens flocking on one cell processor - <AUTHOR> http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/winner-cure-for-the-multicore-blues/0 <comment><USER2> But not in Clojure? Aww... Oh wait, this is from 2007 (B.C.)!

</comment><comment><USER3> Really neat idea and an interesting read, but I really wished there was a video of the simulation running.

</comment><comment><USER4> And the company that developed the demo was acquired by Intel in August:

[http://www.electronicsweekly.com/Articles/2009/08/26/46803/i...](http://www.electronicsweekly.com/Articles/2009/08/26/46803/intel- buys-multicore-software-specialist-rapidmind.htm)

</comment><comment><USER5> What I think about parallelism is that ten or a hundred cores is just pain because there's no way to make them act like one 10x speed processor and they can only run even the parallel algorithm at 10x the speed, which _seems_ like a big increase but isn't much more than we're used to.

Now, when we have 1000 or 10,000 core processors with good shared memory, then actual fun stuff is possible.</comment>


Crypto-Gram Newsletter – September 15, 2013 - <AUTHOR> https://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-1309.html

<comment><USER2> What's with this posting? crypto-gram has been going for a long time (I've been subscribed for at least a decade).

These days (since 2004 or so), the newsletter is essentially a compilation of the month's postings on his blog; If there's something interesting in the newsletter, people usually post a link to the actual blog post.</comment>


Five surprising salaries (Astronomers 96K/year) - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/worklife/04/09/cb.surprising.salaries/index.html

<comment><USER2> iirc, we already had this on the front page, but i'm adding my $0.02 to it:

i read this article, and then heard this (<http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1235>) this american life which included a piece on astronauts. most astronauts will never see space. 50% of their time is meetings, 25% is training, and the rest is paperwork and public speaking. not all its cracked up to be.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the note. To support your reading, I met a guy from NASA a few years ago. According to him, NASA is a bureaucracy run by accountants.</comment></comment>


Teach Yourself Programming in Ten Years (1998) - <AUTHOR> http://norvig.com/21-days.html <comment><USER2> Mastering any skill takes close to lifetime, but for "Why is everyone in such a rush?" there are a few main points:

\- because one needs to pay one's bills,

\- because using technology is cool; and waiting 10 years is not cool.

It is easy to say in retrospect that it was worth spending 10 years of learning something. But it is hard to make such commitment in advance (especially as most of such commitments are misses, by opportunity cost).

And actually I think that the biggest mistake in traditional teaching of school subjects is that they teach many years, but don't make you use it. (Compare to playing with a ball, when you do it before learning about classical mechanics.)

BTW: See "A Mathematician's Lament"by Paul Lockhart [http://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/devlin/LockhartsL...](http://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf)

<comment><AUTHOR> > It is easy to say in retrospect that it was worth spending 10 years of > learning something. But it is hard to make such commitment in advance > (especially as most of such commitments are misses, by opportunity cost).

I don't think Peter implies to stay jobless, till you clock 10,000 hours on programming. Many people who don't program, see it as lucrative opportunity to start making six-figures a month, and pick one of those books mentioned in the article.

After completing few examples, they acquire a false notion, how easy it is. "Tell me any technology and I'll learn it in a week." said one guy I was interviewing but when they get to work on something tangible, they get a cold feet. The article simply speaks about foolishness of expecting to learn something within few weeks and get on a job, quickly. By no means, they should just learn and get a job only when they are ready, but realizing that nothing would ever be enough and constantly trying to level up, is essential to become really good at programming.

<comment><USER2> Well, there is a good reason not to call oneself "C++ programmer" after spending 24h with it.

Being convinced that something is easy and using it is a wonderful thing (they are way too many people who are scared to program and miss the opportunity). Plus, one of the best strategies for learning programming is to go to a point where someone can pay (even if for a very junior position) and continue learning.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I came across that essay a couple of years back, and I liked it very much.

It pretty much taught me the value of persistence. The first time I tried to learn Lisp, I felt like my IQ had dropped to about room temperature. It took me years to get it, trying again every couple of months. Eventually, I did get it. I am not an enlightned, brilliant Lisp hacker, but refusing to give up has allowed me to understand things I initially considered myself too stupid for. Which, in turn, encouraged me to tackle other problems. If that first one eventually turned out not to have been all that hard, maybe this other one isn't, either?

It's not a _major_ influence, but I could say this essay has, in a way, changed my life.

<comment><USER4> _The first time I tried to learn Lisp, I felt like my IQ had dropped to about room temperature. It took me years to get it, trying again every couple of months. Eventually, I did get it._

Next stop is Haskell. :)

If it makes you feel better, the people who seem to be really smart have the same roadblocks, false starts, and struggles... if not more of them, just as world-class marathoners (while they run the distance faster than most of us could) are still exhausted at the end of a race, because they run so hard.

It wasn't until my late 20s that I "got" that this sense of exhaustion is often a good thing. At least the exhaustion that comes from solving hard problems is a good thing; the kind that comes from political flare-ups and open-plan offices is pretty useless as far as I can tell.

<comment><USER5> After Haskell, Agda and Idris.

<comment><USER4> Possibly Coq but I've heard that it's really hard.

<comment><USER5> Similar-ish ideas in Coq, Agda, Idris and Isabelle. Or at least, they are trying to solve similar problems.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Programming in the 21st century equivalent of low carb diets and miracle weight-loss without exercise! Haven't you heard? You can go from novice to ninja in hours! Just pay keep paying us for these carrots.

Mastering any skill in life takes dedication, training and time. Whenever someone promises a shortcut in life, there is usually an ulterior motive.

<comment><USER7> Programming is the equivalent of Football.

A decent amount of NFL players didn't play the sport until their late teens, some even waited until their early twenties! This is unheard of for any other competitive sport. This occurs often where pure speed (receiver) and size (offensive lineman) are at a premium.

There are trained mathematicians and scientists that can outhink most programmers: your b might be greater, but their m is steeper (y=mx+b).

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I agree with Norvig that programming is a long-haul commitment...not much different than any other form of literacy, except in most schools, we're forced to go through 12+ years of English/math (and even then, a pretty high number of college students are still at a remedial level).

One thing he didn't address that I'd like to see more explored: how much of learning programming is learning the "mechanics"? By that, I mean everything from knowing how to Google effectively, to learning an IDE, to your OS keyboard shortcuts....I'd have to imagine that learning how to program 30 years ago can be fundamentally different than it is now, based on the _conveniences_ we have available to us.

When teaching beginners, I've been trying to stress the importance of good mechanics/practice...I've seen students spend literally 4-5 hours on some typo-caused bug (such as `rm`ing something accidentally) because they didn't take the few minutes to get use to tab-autocomplete. Or use a proper text editor with syntax highlighting. Learning anything is a race against time and energy...the all-night debugging sessions add up, and people who are intellectually capable end up dropping out simply because they've run out of time (or believe they have, which is a sensation that grows as you get older).

</comment><comment><USER9> I get it, it's a great article but I don't think we need to share the same article and discuss it annually.

2 years ago: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5519158](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5519158)

3 years ago: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3439772](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3439772)

6 years ago: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1060176](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1060176)

7 years ago: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=191235](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=191235)

8 years ago: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43243](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43243)

Keep in mind these are the ones with decent number of comments. There are two pages of submissions with the exact same title.

<comment><USER10> This is a problem with time-decay voting content systems and evergreen content. It happens on reddit as well.

<comment><USER11> We need a sidebar w/ prereq "must reads"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Personally I think programming is easy. Started 6 years ago on/off, and the last 2 years full time. I use to have a blast doing it, because it always kept my mind in the 'zone' by trying to solve complex problems in my head.

Now, it's automatic. 95% of the things I run into daily at work, I've done them a million times already, so I just regurgitate what I already know. The other 5% of the time a quick google search will find my solution.

I don't feel challenged anymore. I don't think my line of work can possibly get anymore challenging either. But job availability is so plenty in my current field of programming, arghhhhh.

<comment><USER13> If you don't mind me asking, which field do you program in?

<comment><USER12> I'm a mobile dev, Android/iOS/Windows, yehh. Currently interested in ML.

<comment><USER13> yeah I can see why you would feel that way. ML is fun, but be prepared to spend a lot of time data wrangling more than anything.

What is your salary like??? (if you don't mind me asking)

<comment><USER12> Throwaway, so doesn't matter. Salary is 90k, though recently realized how little it matters. I'd be fine with 50 or so. Have some background in neural networks, and all the math goodies needed for ML. Between ML and robotics somewhere would be my dream job.

<comment><USER13> Hey, thanks for divulging. I appreciate it. Right, writing apps can be fun at first, but it does get old. I agree with you. It's especially more hectic if you're a web developer with all the javascript churn that's been going on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Learn to program in 10 days, learn to debug over 10 years.

</comment><comment><USER15> I stumbled upon this essay by Norvig about one and half year earlier when I was just searching web as a newbie wannabe programmer and this essay really cleared my view about programming. I am still a student and have not yet seriously got into programming but the essay has encouraged me to be more persistent.

</comment><comment><USER16> At the end of ten years, you have to start over, since what you learned ten years ago is obsolete. Worse, the programmer boom that impelled you to get into programming is now over.

<comment><USER8> I have to disagree with this...I started learning programming formally 10 or so years ago in college...not only are C/C++ and assembly still relevant languages in their own right, everything I learned about fundamental programming concepts, such as branching, loops, race conditions, and algorithms are directly applicable to every new language I learn...and everything I informally learned programming and hacking as a child -- QBasic, MSDOS command-line, how to dialup a local BBS and download the latest shareware id games...getting comfortable with those interfaces, getting an implicit understanding of how computers can be controlled beyond the default packaged interfaces made for consumers...that was invaluable experience in preparing me for learning programming in college.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I think the rise of these development 'boot camps' is causing more harm than good. It devalues programmers skills and worth as well as give people false hopes. I am all for people wanting to improve their skills or learn something new, but these bootcamps overpromise, and under deliver.

<comment><USER5> How do the bootcamps devalue skills and worth? They might give an impression that it's easy---but unless they find a way to make good programmers, which would be great!---they take nothing away from the value of skills.

<comment><USER18> They may skew employers expectations of what they can pay for developers.

It's similar to the classic "What do you mean $XX an hour? My nephew said he can make a site for $20"

<comment><USER5> Seems plausible.

Fortunately, we don't need to care too much about the expectations of underinformed potential employers. There are companies around that pay enough, and drive the market price for talent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> "Why is everyone in such a rush?"

I don't think Mattan & the guys at one month rails are gona like this.

</comment><comment><USER20> It's fascinating that he doesn't say _self-teach_ yourself programming in ten years.

I think he's wrong about the telegraph taking 10 years to master.

</comment><comment><USER21> Great article, however I don't think it is from 2001, because he mentions Clojure and Go.

<comment><USER22> He must update it from time to time. The oldest Internet Archive snapshot of the page is from 1998 and includes no mention of Go or Clojure:

[http://web.archive.org/web/19980206223800/http://www.norvig....](http://web.archive.org/web/19980206223800/http://www.norvig.com/21-days.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> This article is a golden classic

</comment><comment><USER24> 21 days is way too short, but 10 years is a bit too pessimistic. 2 years...?

<comment><USER25> I've been doing it for going on 18 years, and sometimes I feel like I haven't even scratched the surface.

<comment><USER26> I'm in the same boat. Sometimes I feel like I'm getting pretty good at this, but then I talk to somebody and I have no idea what they're saying half the time. It's really ... I want to say humbling, but it's more stupefying than humbling.

<comment><USER27> Yep, I've been learning Haskell for the past year. Honestly, I consider myself still at the beginner stage at best. But I'm just starting to see a light at the end of a tunnel.

It is most definitely humbling to learn new ways to compute that force you to reconsider what you hold true. I liken it to learning a human language and having it force you to learn another cultural viewpoint. You quickly learn that you have been in a filter bubble.

<comment><USER5> I've been dabbling in Haskell for around a decade now. I'm still learning new things.

<comment><USER27> My light at the end of the tunnel remark was more of an analogy that at that point I'll be able to use the language with minimal competency. >.<

I can see with things like Idris and dependent types even more of the same of the whole, well I thought I understood computation to a minimal degree, here is another bit of it that totally changes how I view the world.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> He must keep it updated, as it now references Go.

<comment><USER29> The footer alludes to that: "Peter Norvig (Copyright 2001—2014)"

I tracked the page on web archive, and it existed at least since 1998. Here is a funny edit over the years:

      1998: Let's analyze what a title like Learn Pascal in Three Days could mean:
      2009: Let's analyze what a title like Learn C++ in Three Days could mean:
      2014: Let's analyze what a title like Teach Yourself C++ in 24 Hours could mean:

:)</comment></comment>


Practical Unix Manuals - mdoc: structure, style, and composition - <AUTHOR> http://manpages.bsd.lv/ <comment><USER2> I would rather write POD and convert it to ROFF (and commit the outcome to the repository, since not everybody needs a Perl installation) than write directly in ROFF, no matter what macro package to use.

But I actually like the initiative. I see far too little man pages for new projects lately, and ROFF is not that difficult to learn and use.</comment>


I'm tired of trying to meet new people. So I've built another social network - <AUTHOR> http://blog.interestin.co/post/im-tired-of-trying-to-meet-new-like-minded-people-online-so-ive-built-another-social-network#.UXFm8aJT7GA

<comment><USER2> Everyone, please stop. Seriously, stop. How many more of these things do we need?

"Find people nearby with similar interests", sounded like a semi-decent premise 3 or 4 years ago, but no one did it well enough to reach a critical mass, and nor did the 100 or so clones that followed. I cringe every time I hear about a startup like this now.

People (maybe just me) don't generally make friends in this way. How many times have you honestly been walking down the street and thought, "I must find someone who shares my love of handball as well as Star Wars!" You don't. You go join a handball club, or you find some nerds that are into sci-fi, and maybe there might be an overlap. And if not, who gives a shit - there's much more to liking a person than what their interests are. They might be really unkind or talk about you behind your back. I'd rather not be friends with them in that case, even if they love handball and Star Wars more than they love breathing.

Offering control over your users privacy can not be claimed as a selling point, as I see so often in social media startups. It is a minimum user requirement and in some territories, a legal requirement.

I hate to tell anyone that you can't do something, but I think there are so many more valuable unsolved problems out there.

<comment><AUTHOR> You see, the goal here isn't to connect you with people who love both x and y, and so they fit you as potential best friend. The goal here is replace those tons of friends on your social networks, whom half you (not specifically you ofcourse) barely know, with people who really interest you and love x, or y, or even both. Thanks for your comment

<comment><AUTHOR> And this isn't location based. I've seen too many of those on my iPhone, claiming to find you some new "BFF's". It isn't the goal

<comment><USER3> Out of curiosity, what's the difference between this and forums which have many ultraspecific subsections for people to discuss their personal interests? Is it that this searches for people who have as many overlapping interests with you as possible?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> You know, at first I was thinking this is a cheesy idea, especially with it not really giving anything new. But then I think, what would I pay to find a friend that truly has overlapping interests? I'd probably pay decent money for that, because I can't seem to find a "best friend". The people who share my sports interests don't understand how I can watch a chick flick. The people who are into programming can't understand my religious views. And those people don't take kindly to my love for science. And those people don't appreciate my musical abilities. So on, so forth. Only my wife understands all that, which is great, but I need a friend outside that. My existing friends are good for diversity, but nobody understands me enough to really be my best friend. So, in short, I'd pay for something that let me find someone who can actually understand me. Call it "friend dating".

<comment><USER5> Are you saying you're religious, yet love science? I'd like to have a discussion with you.

<comment><USER4> Not sure if this leads to trolling, but yes, extremely, on both accounts. I'm both a Christian (even something of a creationist) and manage to love science. I admit it's not a common combination (hence my post), but it does exist. :)

<comment><USER3> I'm curious. What does "something of a creationist" entail? Is this a Deist sort of creationism, or are you closer to biblical literalism?

<comment><USER4> It means I believe at the very least, a creator was responsible for initial life. I also believe that evolution is either a guided process or that the existing evidence can also point to creation. Do not believe in young earth. Do not believe the creator started it and has not intervened since.

<comment><USER3> Curious! I can't say I agree with that – at least, not the way you just phrased it; could just be linguistic ambiguity – but it's interesting nonetheless. I have to say, that's a mindset I don't usually expect on Hacker News; now I'm wondering just how diverse the beliefset of this community is.

<comment><USER6> My personal belief is that the earth was created as if it were much older than it actually is, although their really wouldn't be much of a difference to us.

For example, if God created the first tree, just snapped his fingers and poof, there it is full sized. Would that tree have tree rings? I think it would.

<comment><USER3> What would be the point of creating something and then faking its age? Is it a test, for us to ignore empirical evidence and determine that God made it anyway? Or are you suggesting that, perhaps, the world began with us humans, and that the universe pre-humanity was manufactured to seem like it gave rise to is (but it couldn't have, because it started with us)?

I'm interested in where such a belief comes from.

<comment><USER6> I don't think that is was manufactured to trick us, but that for whatever reason the simulation needed a past. Imagine the world is a recursive algorithm and it start running at n = 1, you need to define n = 0 for it to make any sense.

Tree rings are needed to support the tree and would occur once the simulation started running anyway, so God could either create two classes of tree, or use the more elegant solution (to my mind) of having that tree appear the same as if it had grown.

My reason for believing this is that I think it's a more elegant solution (that is just based on my personal perception of elegance) and that God decided the world should be in a certain state before humans arrived, so either he could run the simulation for billions of years, or he could just fast forward as if it had ran for billions of years. Either one works, but since there were no people around to experience time why bother with actually running it (or the opposite argument, why not actually run it).

Another reason why I think the simulation was needed in the first place, because it moves the limits of our knowledge further away, and gives us more room to explore.

Imagine if God decided humans needed an energy source, so he put a magic black liquid under the ground with no explanation. We'd find it, and that would pretty much be the end of it--we could go no further. However, if he instead ran set up a simulation and ran it(or skipped ahead) to create oil, we can try to figure out where oil came from.

Basically we have a whole rich and complex simulated past to explore before we hit the brick wall of--God did it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I had this idea when I was employed at Facebook. I was even considering doing something similar to it on the Hackathon. I believe in your idea and if Facebook won't do, in my opinion it it will be big (I didn't see anyone there interested in picking up this idea, so I don't think they will).

Graph search solves part of this problem - on example you can search "Friends of my friends, who like tennis, programming and Game of thrones". The problem here is that it's awkward to contact these people - you won't message person "hey, I found out that we have similar interests, we may be friends". The whole problem is "breaking ice". The fact that you know who could be a good friend doesn't solve this problem, because you don't have a good way of meeting these people.

I had a few ideas how to solve it, any wasn't perfect. Core thought behind is that you usually meet new people not through internet, but either on parties or by introduction through common friend. Maybe you will have any use from them:

1\. Facebook or your site could algorithmically organize events for people. But honestly I don't know if people would be interested in attending such parties. You would sign up for a party and Facebook would find ideal group of strangers, that according to some machine learning would be your ideal friends. Having enough data is is possible to make awesome selection, but I don't know if people would be interested in attending such parties. Some slight modification is organizing "lunches". Imagine you are working in big office or at big school campus. Then your site could find ideal people to eat lunch with.

2\. This is slight modification of point 2. There are tons of public events and venues. You could suggest what are good public parties and venues where I could find the most likely minded people. This is probably the least awkward option, but it is also the least accurate in finding likely minded people.

3\. Introductions. Likely minded people will probably be close to you in your social graph. There's a chance that you have common friend. He could get a suggestion from Facebook or your site - "Hey X, we found out that your friends Y and Z should know each other. Do you want to introduce them to each other?". But here I am again sceptical if people would do it.

4\. Having option of posting a status to result of graph search query. Then you could on example post a status "Hey, who wants to play tennis?". Problem here is that to initiate a conversation another person needs to write a message to you. Messaging a stranger is always awkward and in my opinion won't work, unless there will be big mental shift among people.

I believe this is a big problem for a lot of people nowadays, especially introverted people not good at making new connections. I believe in you, good luck :).

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you very much for your details feedback! Much appreciated!!! I'd love to talk further, if you'd like to as well, you can find me at contact AT interestin.co

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think meetup.com fills this role fairly well at the moment. There's definitely room for improvement but if you're looking for a group of people that want to play some tennis, go climbing etc. then it's a pretty good bet.

<comment><USER9> Meetup.com is pretty good but there's plenty of room for competition.

<comment><USER10> While there's room for competition, it does have the chicken-and-egg problem. People who create meetup groups need to know there are people to join the group and people who want to go to meetups need to go to a place with a wide variety of groups. That's why it's hard to do a Craigslist or eBay competitor.

<comment><USER11> This is very true. If there are only a handful of people in a small town who have your interest, you're kinda out of luck with meetup.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I have been thinking about something similar to this for a while. The problem is the negative stigma of hunting for friends. That makes it difficult to get people to want to signup. The best potential candidates would already have lots of friends and wouldn't need your service.

However, this would be immensely helpful in finding new friends, especially if you just moved to a new area. Even moving within a city, it is difficult to maintain close connections to your friends if you don't live near them.

Best of luck

<comment><USER9> > The problem is the negative stigma of hunting for friends. That makes it > difficult to get people to want to signup.

I think it'd be interesting to research why that is and trying to come up with some solutions. (This problem is also present in dating sites).

I think meetup.com's approach avoids this problem because you're not explicitly "fishing" for friends.

<comment><USER13> Agreed. I strongly feel the stigma against dating sites, and still refuse to use them, but Meetup is a great resource I don't even think twice about using.

I just can't get over the thought of "well, I can't do it in real life, so let's take the easy way and throw it up on the internet and see what sticks."

The funny thing is, relying on chance to put you in the same room with the right person, let alone identify and connect with them, is really inefficient. Current dating sites notwithstanding, the internet has a huge potential to optimize this process. And yet, it just feels so _wrong_. You are trying to start an intimate relationship through such a clinical and impersonal interface, and the vision of someone sitting there browsing through hundreds of candidates "asynchronously" at your leisure is unsettling to me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm really surprised that this post was able to reach the front page with "I'm building another social network". That being said.. here's a startup that's trying to deal with this problem: <http://www.joinbunch.com/group/28/startups/1/>

Still, I find it unclear if the goal is to meet people online or offline..? Or why I would like to meet someone sharing the same religion/book/movies/job/etc... My startup buddies don't share all the same religions, and my starcraft buddies don't share my startup enthusiast.. but so what?

If the goal is to meet new people sharing your passion, just join the next meetup or events related to that passion..

If the goal is to meet new people _online_ sharing your passion then.. I guess that's an interesting problem to tackle. There are lots of verticals going after this (I.e. finding a fitness buddy). The only difference with yours would be "having all these in the same feed". Is that enough of a value proposition?

A friend of mine created something that could clearly hit that market idea.. still unclear if he wants to go in that direction.

<comment><AUTHOR> The goal is to replace those big numbers of "friends" in your social networks, with your true friends and people that interest you, if you become their friend - it's even better.

</comment></comment><comment> cupcake-unicorn This would be great, if you could pull it off. I'm stuck in a bad situation like this - most sites connecting you to a single person are dating oriented, and that is HELL as a female user, and otherwise I have made a little bit of use of meetup.com and couchsurfing.org, but I do find it lacking. The issues with meetup.com is that you have to tolerate sometimes awful group meetups, and one person will come every time and be really awkward or something...I'm much better person to person. When I've used OkCupid to meet people, guys assume they're on a date and start doing a ton of inappropriate crap even though we're just meeting for coffee. Would love to see the niche filled, and please see if you can do what you can for gender balancing/creepers, which is a huge problem for female users of such sites.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I've been working on <http://www.socialocale.com> . It's interest and location based. Judges at Startup Weekend hated it. What do you guys think? Is it worth pursuing? Here's a screenshot of what it looks like on the inside <http://imgur.com/ciPp9pA>

</comment><comment><USER15> I would avoid calling it a social network, simply because of the increasing "social network fatigue." Even when fatigue isn't tangible (and I don't think it yet is for social networks) it can mean the difference between a potential user visiting your site and possibly signing up, or never even clicking the link.

</comment><comment><USER16> I think this sounds really cool. It would be really interesting to get REALLY specific into your interests and see if anyone matched up with you.

It's great that it's not designed to be a dating site, I take it there'll be no pictures or 'how would you describe your body type?' data fields, then?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! LOL no "body type" things. I'm still in looking to come up with more features, but I'm not sure weather you'll be able to press a button saying "find me a friend" like dating sites do, that matches you up. I'd love to discuss over your ideas/everything you'd like to see in the site via email as well - contact AT interestin.co

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> We think we are on track with <http://www.LetsLunch.com> to cater to people meeting during lunch hour. It is a least friction way for you to meet new people. Tell us what you think about it? so far 12,000 lunches setup and going up!

</comment><comment><USER18> I remember PG interviewing Zuck for Startup School 2012, and Zuck mentioning that while Facebook solved the "How to connect with existing friends" problem, it wasn't really focused on solving the "How to meet new friends" problem. So, nice work!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Interesting concept, I'm looking forward to the first release.

> it's not a dating site

The skeptic in me says that if it works to some scale, it will quickly become one :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your feedback! It's one of my biggest concerns actually. I really don't want it to become another dating site. Using your (the users) help and feedback, I'll try to get pass this.

<comment><USER9> Actually it would be nice if it becomes "implicitly" a dating site, but not explicitly.

Just like how in real life you can hang out with a mixed group of people where implicitly/secretly everyone knows a part of it is fishing for a relationship.

But explicitly and on the surface it's only about finding friends and like minded people.

<comment><USER19> The problem is that offline, there is an implicit vetting system.

I.e. if in your group of friends, one of the guy is always trying to hook up with a different girl everytime, quickly people will stop inviting him to events.

However, some social networks that have become "implicit dating websites" (meetup.com comes to my mind to some extent), there is no such self-regulatory system.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> If you want to meet new people is the solution really to spend EVEN MORE time on the computer?

<comment><AUTHOR> I see your point and tend to agree. The right title is "I'm trying to meet new people online" except it's too long. I'd like to try and make social networking more efficient so people will spend even less time online. We'll out it'll work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I'm interested

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! For any question please don't hesitate to contact me via contact AT interestin.co or even via Quora (see the link posted on the blog)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Sounds like Reddit++ to me</comment>


A googol-to-one gear ratio [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.kottke.org/20/03/heres-what-a-googol-to-one-gear-ratio-looks-like <comment><USER2> I ran the numbers for going in the other direction.

Suppose that:

        * The 99 slower gears are massless.
        * the fastest gear weighs 10 grams
        * The fastest gear is a cylinder of radius of 2cm
        * The slowest gear completes 1 rotation every 3 days.
        * Relativity only applies when I want it to.

We have:

        * The fastest gear has an angular velocity of:
             w=10^95 radians/second = 10^95 s^-1 //Since radians are unitless
        * The fastest gear has a moment of intertia given by:
            I=mr^2 / 2 = 10^-2 * 4*10^-4 / 2 kg*m^2
        * The fastest gear has a rotational energy of:
            E=Iw^2 / 2= 10^-2 * 4*10^-4 / 2 kg*m^2 *  10^190 s^-2 / 2
            E =  10^184 kg*m^2*s^-2
         * Ignoring all of relativity except E=mc^2, we have
            m = E/c^2
            m ~ 10^184 kg*m^2*s^-2 / 10 ^ 17 m^2*s^2
            m ~ 10^167 kg
        * Acknowledging more of relativity now, we have:
          Schwarzschild radius = 2Gm / c^2
          Schwarzschild radius ~ 10^-12 m^3*kg^-1*s^-2 * 10^167 kg * 10^-17 m^-2*s^2
          Schwarzschild radius ~ 10^138 m

Giving us a black hole large enough to fit about 112 googol observable universes.

I'm sure that I'm missing some relativistic effects here, but I don't even know how to begin to approach that.

<comment><USER3> >Giving us a black hole large enough to fit about 112 googol observable universes.

*Giving us a black hole with a radius large enough to fit about 112 googol observable universes stacked end-to-end in a line.

~Triple the number of zeros for the number of universes to fit in its 3D volume. 112 x (4/3) x pi followed by 336 zeroes, more or less.

<comment><USER3> Doing some more order of magnitude approximations, in order to scale this black hole down so it were the size of our observable universe, define "the diameter of the universe in millimeters" (approx 10^30) as mmU. There are mmU * mmU * mmU * 0.5 mmU universes in the diameter of this black hole. For each millimeter in this scaled-down black hole, there are mmU groups of mmU universes, with another half layer of nesting, but then you can divide that by 1000. To fit the number of universes in the whole volume in a line end to end, repeat this process again, except without the extra half layer and division by 1000.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The original mentioned, Arthur Ganson's Machine with Concrete, is quite a bit more artistic. The end is cast in concrete.

The idea is that there is a certain amount of energy lost as friction in each gear, per turn. If you calculate the gear ratios and how many turns of the earlier gears would be required to make the final gear move, even infinitesimally, the amount of energy lost becomes more than all the energy in the known universe. It's not really about RPMs.

<comment><USER5> Impressive but imho he could take it one step further and instead of concrete on the other end, he could rotate the gear in the opposite way.

<comment><USER4> It would take more energy than the total energy of the known universe to turn the last gear.

<comment><USER6> *the gear in the middle

<comment><USER4> Sure, if you are inverting the gear ratios half way through...

<comment><USER3> Even without that, even 50 of these gears would take the mass-energy of something between a star system and a galaxy cluster to turn at any human- scale timeframe

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Now if on the slow end you connected an exactly reversed series of gears you could configure it such that the final gear moves at exactly the same speed as the first gear, but the middle gear moves at 1/googol the speed. Of course this is likely to break down at some point but it would be interesting to see exactly what the maximum recoverable ratio is for gear movement and what the limiting factors are.

<comment><USER8> Can't imagine how long it'll take to get the slack out of that gear train.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I would love for someone who knows more about physics to explain what effect a single rotation of the front gear actually has on the last one.

Naively you would assume that every rotation of the first gear rotates the last by one googolth. But (I assume) that can't be true in the real world, since that distance is significantly smaller than a planck length.

I have some educated guesses as to how the rotation is actually being "stored" if it's not physically moving the final gear, but I'm probably more ignorant than I think - for example I'm not totally sure I understand what a "planck length" is.

<comment><USER3> There's slop in between the teeth of the gears, they aren't perfectly tightly meshed. All of the gears can wiggle back and fourth that amount, but the "wiggle room" of the last gear gets shifted one googlth of a rotation per one rotation of the first gear.

If all of the gears were pre-loaded, such that the slop was "behind" the contacting teeth, then the last gear would turn one googlth of a rotation, with an incomprehensible capacity for torque if it were to encounter any resistance in that very small distance. Being less than a planck length, you might say that the probability of finding the gear's atoms one planck length behind, and one forward, shifts continuously. Of course the atoms are vibrating far greater distances due to ambient heat, but still bonded together.

The frequencies are typically of the order of 10^13 Hz, and the amplitudes are typically of the order of 10^−11 m. A Planck length is about 10^-35.

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

Maybe you could say that the gear that shifts approximately one atom vibration (#11) or one planck length (#35) applies as much torque as needed to shift the slower gears behind it, once the force applied becomes greater than the friction resistance, which will happen quite often (about as fast as the atoms are vibrating, if the gears are perfectly tightly meshed) because of the tremendous capacity for torque. There will be higher pressure from the source of the force than from the resistance of the further gears.

<comment><USER10> I wanted to make a geared divider for a "micrometric" slide but the slop/room made me wonder if there was a way to know the actual precision.

<comment><USER11> The slop is called backlash. On cnc machines they go to some effort to reduce it through fancy gear and lead screw design. You could just go old school and take it out by how you operate the machine. If you only ever measure while traveling in one direction, then the slop will be taken out and won't matter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> If every electron in the universe came over and cranked that first gear around a hundred times, it still wouldn't be enough to make the last gear visibly move.

<comment><USER13> Stupid question, but realistically what would happen if you tried to manually turn that last gear? Would nothing move? What if you put a lot of force, what would happened / which part would break?

<comment><USER14> An interesting question!

As a guess, there should be some slack and elasticity in the last two gears or so, which you could get out if you used enough force. Beyond that, the effective torque is reduced by 100x or 1000x already, which means moving any further gear even by the width of an atom would probably require more torque than the final gear can bear, and either the teeth or some other weak point would fail on the last gear. Of course, even what motion there is (up to failure) would be hard to observe. Moreover, putting this much torque on the end of the structure would also likely torque the entire machine end to end (like twisting a rope) and generally mess things up in uninteresting ways.

Putting all that together, I think an observer would probably say nothing is moving, right until the last gear and/or entire structure fails spectacularly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Part of me likes to thing something crazy would happen if you turned it from the other end. Turn one gear once and the gear at the far other end turns a googol times but melts somewhere around a trillion rotations. Almost doesn't feel too outlandish given a scope that already includes "more energy than the entire known universe has" (per the article) for a measurement.

<comment><USER16> All this time we've been fussing about clean energy and perpetual motion machines when all we needed was this machine to apply essentially infinite leverage and generate a universe of energy at the flick of the wrist

<comment><USER17> Woops accidentally solved fermi's paradox and the mystery of what created the big bang, in one shot.

<comment><USER18> At first there was God. Then Adam and Eve. Then one of their descendants built this machine and prayed for god to turn the last wheel. Bang! (a big one)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> In the same vein, check out "Machine with Concrete" [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5q-BH- tvxEg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5q-BH-tvxEg)

<comment><USER20> The post says this is what inspired it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> If you made this in a physics engine could you get the last gear to spin in a reasonable time and not break the simulation?

<comment><USER22> Sure, just do something with Fourier transforms. Okay, it's not completely accurate, but most simulations aren't anyway.

In fact, I can simulate this in text form with no floating-point or number theory issues at all. Here's the simulation:

> For every 10^100 turns of the first gear, the last gear will move about one > full turn.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I bet the zero point fluctuation motion of the last gear dwarfs the deterministic motion.

<comment><USER22> The word you're looking for is "thermal." The bulk of the gear behaves completely classically at this temperature.

<comment><USER23> I think you are right in the sense that at room temperature, thermal fluctuations dominate.

Better stated, my point is that if the entire assembly is at absolute zero, the quantum fluctuations in the final gear are much greater than the deterministic motion associated with one revolution of the first gear.

<comment><USER22> If this entire assembly is at absolute zero, something is very wrong in the universe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Are there any science museums that have something like this? When you look at this, you think that surely you can make that last gear spin. After all we've all spun gears, we know how they work. But it would be so counter intuitive to spin one of those gears by hand and basically see nothing happen no matter how much you spin it.

I know that would blow the minds of some kids (and adults).

<comment><USER25> Sciencenter in Ithaca has one of these. The last gear is attached to a small platform with wine glass that you're encouraged to try to break.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> What happens to the energy used to rotate the device? Is it dissipated as heat before it reaches too far?

<comment><USER27> Friction basically. In a perfectly idealised version of the system with no friction/slack/materials being deformed/etc, if you started it off then let go then everything would keep spinning forever. You don't need to pump a whole lot of energy into the device to make it go.

<comment><USER28> "...if you started..."

That's a big if. I haven't done the math yet, but I'll bet that the outside rim of at least one of the gears would have to be started moving faster than the speed of light. I'm not sure how you would do that.

The gear just before the first gear at light speed would have the outside rim moving at about 100th of the speed of light. It would take quite a bit of energy to do that.

(Others have pointed out that at speeds well before the speed of light, some of the gears would melt. I'm ignoring that.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Flip it around .. what's the fastest rotational speed achieved via a hand powered machine?

<comment><USER30> I imagine you could get several thousand RPM at least with a hand pump and a dentist's drill, if mechanical gearing is not a requirement.

<comment><USER31> I think ~100k RPM is achievable with a shirt button on a bunch of twisted strings, pulled on both ends.

This was actually used to construct a cheap mechanism that needed the high g to separate some chemicals to analyse samples. I can't remember the details though.

<comment><USER32> 125k RPM. For malaria detection using a whirling paper centrifuge, powered entirely by hand. [https://news.stanford.edu/2017/01/10/whirligig-toy- bioengine...](https://news.stanford.edu/2017/01/10/whirligig-toy-bioengineers- develop-20-cent-hand-powered-blood-centrifuge/)

<comment><USER31> Thank you! I was not able to dig this up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Nice!

I'm surprised Oskar van Deventer (YT: OskarPuzzle, [https://oskarvandeventer.nl/](https://oskarvandeventer.nl/) ) hasn't done more than 10^9:1 reduction.

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

I think this calls for 10^10^2 reduction using a series of cycloidal drives (34x 1000:1 should do it just fine)

</comment><comment><USER34> This is insane. My OCD is tempered and my love for all things mechanical has been re-ignited.

I am curious how this ratio is calculated though, I didn't drill into the relative ratios.. If anyone has a link I would love to see!

<comment><USER35> It's pretty simple: for each pair of gears that mesh with each other, one has ten times as many teeth as the other, which gives a ten to one reduction.

If you chain 100 such reductions, you get 10^100 to one reduction.

<comment><USER34> But the construction of it ??! It's one thing to put the numbers down, we know they round out nicely, but in my head this needs a very minute level of construct engineering..

For example: If 1 gear(cog?) is 1/1000 of a cm out, would that not effect the ratio over this 'distance' ?

Edit: I might just sound like an idiot right now, but when we get down (or up) to these numbers, i can't help but feel manufacturing numbers play a bigger role

<comment><USER36> As in the video, they just reuse the same ratio gears in cascade?

<comment><USER34> You're right, took me a bit to catch up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Ok what if instead of gears we use belts to connect? I think some of the slack will be taken out (as long as you tension the belt accordingly) and transmission of power should be more uniform.

</comment><comment><USER38> Why can't it spin faster?

<comment><USER39> I'm sure it can spin a bit faster. Why can't it spin so fast that the final wheel visibly turns? Well the first wheels would melt from friction or be torn apart before then, and where are you going to get that much energy to turn them so fast? At some point there's the speed of light as a limit as well.

<comment><USER40> There are 10^80 electrons in the universe, Eddington thinks.

Even if you managed to make a contraption that turned one electron into one rotation of the first wheel, and you fed the entire universe to your contraption... you're coming up a few dozens order of magnitude short to make that full turn :^)

<comment><USER39> That's what I already said

> where are you going to get that much energy to turn them so fast?

<comment><USER40> I guess you just have to make a machine that manages _two_ turns per electron.

(I know you did - but any chance to introduce Eddington's number is fun)

<comment><USER39> > I guess you just have to make a machine that manages two turns per electron.

But that just isn't going to be tractable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Now put a shaft connecting the last gear to the first.

</comment><comment><USER42> Just for fun, I would connect the first gear to an electric motor and let it run for an hour or so.

<comment><USER43> Here you go: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApqfqiFTO4E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApqfqiFTO4E)

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> So after rotating enough to reduce clearance between teeth, you can move last gear lets say tooth to the distance 10^65 smaller then Planck Length -- smallest known length, wchich is 1.6 x10^35 m and where all strange things like quantum foam, or micro wormholes are supposed to happen ...?</comment>