Learning Dexterity - <AUTHOR> https://blog.openai.com/learning-dexterity/ <comment><USER2> Fascinating:

"We observed that for precision grasps, such as the Tip Pinch grasp, Dactyl uses the thumb and little finger. Humans tend to use the thumb and either the index or middle finger instead. However, the robot hand's little finger is more flexible due to an extra degree of freedom, which may explain why Dactyl prefers it. This means that Dactyl can rediscover grasps found in humans, but adapt them to better fit the limitations and abilities of its own body."

The learning of "emergent" behavior, specifically when it creates improvements to natural human motion is one of the main reasons why this type of work is so important. Similar to the way that we imitate design from nature (e.g. wings, suction cups), we can now accelerate development by observing how the bots perform the task in a variety of environments

<comment><USER3> It's a really cool phenomena, it also means we have to make our simulations better. These sorts of RL algorithms are so good at finding "exploits" in the physics engine they are in that help them "cheat" sometimes, compared to what the researcher wanted.

<comment><USER4> I agree, but FWIW in the linked work they did randomize some of the engine parameters during training to avoid fitting too much to a specific set of assumptions. Certainly though more accurate simulations, as long as they were still fast to compute, would be very useful!

<comment><USER3> yeah, I think a big reason why they needed to do randomization in the first place is because of inaccuracies in the simulation compared to the real world. And the extra randomization required almost two orders of magnitude more training time!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Does anyone know a good graduate program/route for this kind of work? My undergrad was CS with some experience in (dumb) robotics and mechanical design but no ML. I am interested in applying ML/CV to physical systems like this however am I bit weary of going back to a CS program. I have seen some Mechanical programs with an emphasis on control that let you 'build your own degree'. If I could take a mix of ML/CV, control systems, kinematics I would be happy. Just looking for some input from people in this field.

<comment><AUTHOR> (I work at OpenAI.)

Worth noting: it's a well-supported route to join OpenAI without any special graduate training. Many of our teams (including our robotics team!) hire experienced software engineers, teaching them whatever ML they need to know, or our Fellows program lets people do a more formal curriculum ([https://blog.openai.com/openai-fellows/](https://blog.openai.com/openai- fellows/)). We also have a number of software engineers who focus on what looks like traditional software engineering: see for example [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdIPveR__jw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdIPveR__jw).

See our open positions here: [http://openai.com/jobs](http://openai.com/jobs)!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Honest question: In the video, it looks like it works, but performs worse than about 90% of humans at the task of rotating a cube.

On the other hand, Alpha Go or even a rudimentary chess program does better than 99.99% of all humans.

So is it fair to say that deep learning is fundamentally missing something that humans do? Or that chess and Go are "easy" problems in some sense?

(It seems like with "unlimited" training hours it could eventually be better than a human? Or is that a hardware issue?)

<comment><USER7> In 2015, it was commonly thought that it would still be decades before a computer could beat a top human player at Go. Now, you are calling it "easy," because it's been done.

The first chess program was written by Alan Turing on paper between 1948 and 1950. He didn't have a computer to run it, but he could still play a game with it by stepping through the algorithm by hand. In 1997, Deep Blue beat Kasparov, using traditional algorithms and not deep learning.

Clearly there are differences between these problems and dexterity. Chess, for example, can be described relatively simply using logic, and there is no dynamic or physical element; a rudimentary player can be written using pencil and paper; a winning player just needs enough compute power, apparently.

More importantly, there is a technology curve. You are asking about the ultimate limits of a technique moments after its first success puts it at the low end of the spectrum of human ability. Give it a decade or two.

I am just shocked the video was real-time and not sped up like so many of these videos are (eg watch a robot arm fold a shirt in thirty seconds when you play it at 5x speed).

<comment><USER8> >> In 2015, it was commonly thought that it would still be decades before a computer could beat a top human player at Go

This needs a citation and it needs it badly.

It was widely reported in the popular press, to the dismay of many scientists working in game-playing AI, who had very different opinions about how close or far beating a professional human at Go was at the time of AlphaGo. The majority of them in fact did not make predictions- they just pointed out that Go was the last of the traditional board games to remain uncoquered by AI. Not that it would take X years to get there. Most AI researchers are loath to make such predictions, knowing well that they tend to be very inaccurate (on either direction).

<comment><USER7> All I know is what the articles and commenters were saying then, as an interesting contrast to this comment now. Every article on AlphaGo described a general state of shock at achieving something that (even if at a purely psychological level) seemed at least 10 years away.

[https://www.technologyreview.com/s/546066/googles-ai- masters...](https://www.technologyreview.com/s/546066/googles-ai-masters-the- game-of-go-a-decade-earlier-than-expected/)

> Just a couple of years ago, in fact, most Go players and game programmers > believed the game was so complex that it would take several decades before > computers might reach the standard of a human expert player.

<comment><USER8> >> All I know is what the articles and commenters were saying then, as an interesting contrast to this comment now.

I understand, but in such cases (when an opinion of experts is summarised in the popular press, rather than by experts themselves) it may be a good idea to dig a bit further before repeating what may be a misunderstanding on the part of reporters.

For example, my experience is very different than what you report. In an AI course during my data science Master's and in the context of a discussion on game-playing AI, the tutor pointed to Go as the only traditional board game that was not yet conquered by adversarial AI, without offering any predictions or comments about its hardness, other than to say that the difficulty of AI systems with Go is sometimes explained by saying that "intuition" is needed to play well. And I generally don't remember being surprised when I first heard of the AlphaGo result (I have some bakcground in adversarial AI, though I'm not an expert), and in fact thinking that it was bound to happen eventually, one way or another.

A similar discussion can be found in _AI: A Modern Approach_ (3d ed) in the "Bibliographical and Historical Notes" section of chapter 5. Adversarial AI, where recent (at the time) successes are noted, but again no prediction about the timeframe of beating a human master is attempted and no explanation of the hardness of the game is given, other than its great branching factor. In fact, the relevant paragraph notes that "Up to 1997 there were no competent Go programs. Now the best programs play _most_ [sic] of their moves at the master level; the only problem is that over the course of a game they usually make at least one serious blunder that allows a strong opponent to win" \- a summary that, given the year is 2010, and to my opinion, strongly contradicts the assumption that most experts considered Go to be out of reach of an AI player. It looks like in 2010 experts understood then-current programs to be quite strong players already.

In general, I would be very surprised to find many actual experts (e.g. authors of Go playing systems) predicting that beating Go would take "at least 10 years", let alone "several decades" (!). Like I say, most AI researchers these days are very conservative with their predictions, precisely because they (and others) have been burned in the past. Stressing "most".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > Learning to rotate an object in simulation without randomizations requires > about 3 years of simulated experience

It's interesting to me that this is about the same amount of time it takes humans to develop similar levels of motor control. I don't know enough about AI or neuroscience to say whether it's likely to be a coincidence or not, though.

<comment><USER10> Interesting observation. I suspect it's probably coincidence though. Other tasks which humans are able to learn (such as [playing Dota][1]) have taken OpenAI much longer to master. OpenAI Five spends 180 years of training per day, per hero in order to learn Dota, and it still isn't at the level of professional players (though that may change soon).

Though I suppose you could argue that Dota benefits more from high-level reasoning, whereas basic motor control is a more intuitive skill. (And therefore better suited for this type of AI.)

[1]: [https://blog.openai.com/openai-five/](https://blog.openai.com/openai- five/)

<comment><USER11> Also, the time referenced in the article is presumably three years of non-stop training – given that an infant has a calendar packed with other things like sleeping, crying, and other non-motor activities, total human time logged on learning fine motor control is probably half that, if not less.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Very cool. There's also a Times article about Dactyl: [https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/07/30/technology/ro...](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/07/30/technology/robot- hands.html)

</comment><comment><USER13> > Rapid used 6144 CPU cores and 8 GPUs to train our policy, collecting about > one hundred years of experience in 50 hours.

That seemed an order of magnitude higher than I expected. Is training usually this computationally expensive?

<comment><USER14> haha I just read it and thought that's a magnitude less than I expected. Pretty often it is. A lot of papers from high profile institutions have a lot of computing power availiable.

First, it seems to be a lot and be really expensive, but think of it in man- hours. It quickly diminishes.

<comment><USER15> Not to mention that evolution has had millions of years of optimizing this stuff.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Nice.

Take a look at position 44, where it seems to get stuck, with no move to make forward progress, and two fingers straight out. Did it lack image recognition to tell it what block rotation was needed?

It doesn't seem to work by discovering strategies for rotating the block one face at a time, then combining those. It's solving the problem as a whole. That has both good and bad implications.

</comment><comment><USER8> >> We've trained a human-like robot hand to manipulate physical objects with unprecedented dexterity.

To be precise, the "physical objects" appear to invariably be cubes of the same dimensions. Not arbitrary "physical objects". Which is probably the best that can be done by training only in a simulated environment.

</comment><comment><USER17> I am continually impressed by OpenAI, whenever we think that something is too difficult for our currently understanding of AI. With their Dota AI and this they have shown that more can be done with a lot less than previously thought.

<comment><USER18> Not to be too negative, it's cool work, but I'd argue unlike the OpenAI result it is not so surprising this was doable with the techniques they used ; see eg this paper from Google [http://www.roboticsproceedings.org/rss14/p10.pdf](http://www.roboticsproceedings.org/rss14/p10.pdf) and this one from Stanford/DeepMind [http://www.roboticsproceedings.org/rss14/p09.pdf](http://www.roboticsproceedings.org/rss14/p09.pdf) . Yes there is the additional aspects of an object in hand, but fundamentally the techniques are the same.

Of course these works are cited in related works of paper as they should be; perhaps the OpenAI blog should also provide more context on where this stands wrt prior work, as many non-researchers may read this is may be quite misleading...

<comment><USER19> OpenAI has not exactly had the best reputation with their press releases.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Holy cow, the robots are definitely coming. We really are at the ground floor of a technology that is going to change humanity, I am certain of that. Changes greater than any changes we've seen before.

<comment><USER21> Well, if you're thinking sentient, AI beings, then no-- they are still a long way off. Unless we can give any meaning behind why a robot should do something, for example, have and use this kind of dexterity, it's all mechanical tricks. Cool tricks, nonetheless.

<comment><USER22> I agree with the person you replied to but I'm not thinking about intelligent machines. I'm just thinking about the automation of everything. Look how close we are to self driving cars without needing a sentient robot behind the wheel. Mechanical tricks are going to eliminate the jobs of a lot of people.

<comment><USER23> > Look how close we are to self driving cars without needing a sentient robot > behind the wheel. Mechanical tricks are going to eliminate the jobs of a lot > of people.

Let's say we're close to self-driving cars, i.e. it'll happen in 10 years or so. How much will it cost? How much the maintainance will cost? How many years will be needed until everybody owns a self-driving car? Unless more than a handful people have that kind of car you won't kill a lot of jobs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I guess someone has to be the negative one: I can't help feeling it's route to the correct face looks entirely accidental (and I don't mean that in a good way)... I'm sure it's "learned" some methods, but they don't look that efficient, reliable, purposeful or controlled. In a more noisy and dynamic environment I'd expect them to fail. Granted is possible these could be more due to training conditions than an inherent limitation of the underlying model.

<comment><USER25> It looks that way because they're moving rapidly from one face configuration to another. But there's no way that's happening by random. I would guess that even just holding the cube constant in a dynamic grip is quite difficult.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Link to paper ( why no Arxiv :/ ): [https://d4mucfpksywv.cloudfront.net/research- covers/learning...](https://d4mucfpksywv.cloudfront.net/research- covers/learning-dexterity/learning-dexterity-paper.pdf)

TLDR (quick-ish skim, feel free to correct) they train a deep neural network to control a robot hand to choose desired joints state changes (binned into 11 discrete values; eg rotate this joint by 10 degrees) for a 20-joint hand given low-level (non-visual; so, current and desired 3D orientation of the object and exact numeric state of the joints) input of the state of a particular object and the hand. They also train a network to extract the 3D pose of a given object given RGB input. All this training is done in simulation with a ton of computation, and they use a technique called domain randomization (changing colors and textures and so friction coefficient and so on) to make these learned models pretty much work in the real world despite being trained only in simulation.

It's pretty cool work, but if I may pull my reviewer hat on not that interesting in terms of new ideas - still, it's cool OpenAI is continuing to demonstrate what can be achieved today with established RL techniques and nice distributed compute.

<comment><USER26> It's pretty amusing/amazing how well domain randomization works, but it seems like they train the pose detector in the real world and not in simulation:

"To transfer to the real world, we predict the object pose from 3 real camera feeds with the CNN, measure the robot fingertip locations using a 3D motion capture system, and give both of these to the control policy to produce an action for the robot."

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> > _a human-like robot hand_

But why?? Why should robots' hands resemble human hands? They could have any number of fingers, or tentacles, or magnets, why should they be like human hands??

It seems "AI" really means "as close as possible to human behavior", even if we're not really that clever in said behavior.

Also, human intelligence being at least debatable, it's not obvious that the obsessive imitation of humans is the best way to attain "AI".

<comment><USER28> We have built this world for human hands so that has become the best shape overall. It does depend on the situation but I'm guessing for many, an improved human shape is best.

<comment><USER29> Yep, backwards compatibility, not just hands but bodies overall, if we ever make a robot that can drive existing cars it will pretty much resemble a human body, and our cities were created for human bodies/interactions (walking up stairs, etc)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> The hand itself is an incredible piece of machinery.

</comment><comment> shady-lady Has the pricing come down on these robotic hands? Anybody have ballpark cost for the Shadow Dexterous Hand - 100k, 300k?

<comment><USER31> Pricing on robotic hands: [http://www.androidworld.com/prod76.htm](http://www.androidworld.com/prod76.htm)

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> This is a great example of why AI innovation is not moving at the pace we are told to believe. This is using the same basic algorithms we've known about for decades, just more compute and differently formulated problems. We need a paradigm shift!

</comment><comment><USER33> Any comments on why it seems to basically not use the middle finger at all?

<comment><USER34> I find it strangely correlated with the way the camera is set up. If it uses the middle finger then the camera might not see correctly the cube's face. You can see it using it at the last resort. But I don't see why this would matter in the simulation phase.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> That's very impressive. Robotic grasping is getting pretty good[1] but in-hand manipulation is a whole 'nother kettle of fish and this is really exciting.

[1] He said, tooting his employer's horn.

</comment><comment><USER36> They should set up an accelerometer and gyroscope in each fingertip instead of pressure sensors. Could then maybe control without a camera.

<comment><USER3> They already have a good estimate of the finger tip pose from the angular measurements of all the internal degrees of freedom (presumably from angular encoders?). And I'm not sure any IMU small enough to fit into the fingertip will be accurate enough to provide really useful additional pose information.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> I'd like to see it roll a coin on its knuckles. Or maybe some card tricks.

</comment><comment><USER38> I immediately thought of the robotic arm from Terminator 2. It's pretty cool.

</comment><comment><USER39> Terrifyingly amazing.

</comment><comment><USER40> This is a perfect example of how AI is taking over the world by storm. I don't know how people don't realize that there will be no jobs left for billions of people. Yes, billions. Not Millions.

I don't quite get the "New Jobs will be created" fallacy.

Let me explain: What is job? An Abstract way of looking at it: A job is something that requires a set skills to accomplish a task. What most politicians don't get: Researchers like OpenAi teach machines SKILLS not jobs.

A little thought experiment: Let's say humans are capable of 100 skills. Skills can be anything from: driving, seeing, hearing, reading, walking, carrying, drawing etc.

Usually, a low paying job requires little to no traning. For example: Someone in a warehouse that picks the stuff you have ordered. The skill that are required are: walking, picking and using a device. A High paying jobs usually requires more skills and/or experience.

We train machines to see better, hear better, sort faster etc. Any new job will require some sort of skills out the set of skills that can be trained. But the moment you create this job, it will be automated, because a machine can do it better and faster.

We need to adress this now, otherwise i don't see a bright future for the generations to come.

<comment><USER15> > I don't quite get the "New Jobs will be created" fallacy.

Nobody 20 years ago would have imagined the job of mobile app developer. The mobile phone replaced many devices and probably many jobs in manufacturing, but also created new domains that we couldn't have imagined and empowered people in the developing world (and elsewhere).

> We need to address this now, otherwise i don't see a bright future for the > generations to come.

You look at things the wrong way. Humans have always had a job which can't be taken away by corporations - the job of caring for oneself and one's needs. If we don't have corporate jobs, then we can become self reliant at individual, community and country level and find ways to support ourselves. We can build houses, teach children, provide medical care and many other things with jobless people for jobless people. We can even use automation for our own benefit, like we do with open source software.

<comment><USER41> What you fail to address is that the success of software is that it does so much more with so much fewer people. A mobile app developer might be a new job but it actually replaces (indirectly) the jobs of dozens to hundreds of people. That's why it's a success in the first place.

My job as a developer is, in a real sense, to eliminate as much work from people as possible. If I wasn't doing that, there'd be no point to my job. We don't just make software for the hell of it.

<comment><USER15> No, what you're failing to understand is that the cell phone has created new opportunities even for the poorest people of the world. It opens up commerce, payments, short time borrowing, education, hiring, finding a spouse and many other things that lead to a successful life. On the whole it was a boon for humanity - in other words, it was worse for all of us, rich or poor, before it existed.

<comment><USER41> The world may very well be a better place and frankly saving people from work is actually a good thing. But I disagree with the idea that the computer/mobile/AI revolution is adding more jobs than it takes away. There are not more app developers than their were factory laborers.

Most people would be surprised that US manufacturing is at the highest level in history. And they are surprised because manufacturing employment is at the lowest levels.

Is it good that Americans are not doing highly physically demanding manufacturing jobs? Sure. But what are the long term consequences of productivity without people? Every industry is more productive with drastically fewer people and they're improving on that equation every day. Not just factories but also white collar office work too. When self-driving vehicles become the norm, a massive amount of people will no longer have jobs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Nice work. I see a future of robots ruling homo sapiens vividly.

<comment><USER43> Dexterity is their secret weapon!

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Let's be honest - the only thing we care about is "are the programming jobs safe?!" Well, are they?

P.S. I am trying to help a newer dev atm, and I realize I always have only one question for them while basically doing their work "What. the. hell. are. the. business. requirements?"

Suddenly, this makes me feel much more like a business analyst than a code monkey, though being a decent code monkey is definitely a pre-req.

<comment><USER23> > Let's be honest - the only thing we care about is "are the programming jobs > safe?!" Well, are they?

As a sofware developer myself, I'd love to ever see a world where my work is not needed anymore. Wouldn't that be awesome to have worked so hard toward automation that you can automate your own job?</comment></comment>


The Slow Web Movement - <AUTHOR> http://blog.idonethis.com/post/21267449208/the-slow-web-movement

<comment><USER2> This is, I think, the best takeaway:

"We also can't assume actual value creation based on engagement with the product."

We work in a medium which can facilitate low-value yet frighteningly addictive user-experiences. Almost everyone I know absolutely hates using Facebook but the little boost they get from seeing notifications or the thrill of seeing embarrassingly revealing pictures of someone they knew from high-school is enough to keep them coming back. Now I'm not necessarily saying Facebook is low-value, I'm just saying that value should not be measured by the time users spend on the site. Much of that time is completely wasted and only momentarily enjoyable. I realize everybody's running a business and trying to get paid but there has to be a better way than by creating an addictive product that has a negative impact on users. As far as I'm concerned, Farmville and its ilk are one step above cigarettes... uninspiring gameplay, terrible reviews, basically no reason to use them except for the fact that once you start it's really hard to give up those little pings of satisfaction when you click a cow.

Now do I think iDoneThis is a valuable service? I'm not sure I'd pay for it just yet but I think they do a good job of creating a product which is reasonably useful and unobtrusive. I've definitely mentioned it positively to other people when it has come up but it's not indispensable. I think that with "accomplishment tracking" they've set their sights a little low if they aim to produce something which is indispensable to individuals but perhaps for small businesses it can be quite useful (this seems to be who they're targeting now).

On the other hand, iDoneThis is in a unique position to proscribe such a value based approach. They make a productivity app which is supposed to help you get things done, not take away time from your work. Could this strategy ever work for Facebook?

</comment><comment><USER3> This part really resonates with me, I really hope that this does occur one day (unlikely though), your heart (stress) and mental health are as important if not more then any job:

"High time pressure over extended periods of time leads to both poor inner work life and poor performance." History will probably laugh at our time's attempt to impose a mentality of industrial production upon creative work.

</comment><comment><USER4> great service, especially for a distributed team. helps everyone keep abreast of what everyone else is doing, and has helped me manage contractors.

I cannot recommend this product more to founders with small teams. Easily the best money I'm spending on collaboration tools.

</comment><comment><USER5> Very inspiring. Thanks. We're doing this at FeedForward: <http://www.feed- forward.net> \-- trying to change the way artists communicate with each other (for the better...) is liking watching grass grow, but every now and then you see some real growth from an artist, or two people work together to create something new who never knew each other but for FeedForward and that creates value -- at least for me!!

</comment><comment><USER6> iDoneThis is one of my favorite services. It's one of the bast parts of my day when I go through the day that just ended in order to reply to their email.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm really glad to hear that.

</comment></comment><comment> wes-exp You had me at "The Slow Web Movement". I'm sold!

</comment><comment><USER7> I like it. But I have never found a way to monetize what I do. So I am skeptical. Can you make money doing something that adds real value? I would like to think so but my life choices have left me deeply in debt, jobless, homeless and trying to file bankruptcy. No, I don't think I did anything wrong. Like most U.S. bankruptcies, my situation is rooted in expensive health problems. But, at the same time, trying to share what worked for me has brought me personal attacks, not money. Next month my web hosting expires. I am searching my soul, trying to decide what to do. I am very much leaning towards wiping my internet slate clean, not bothering to try to find a means to back it up, and looking for a means to make money rather than continuing to try to make the world a better place.

Best of luck to this company. I hope their ideals pay off for them. My current skepticism is very much a personal matter and not intended as raining on their parade.</comment>


When is it time to give up? - <AUTHOR> I've spent two years trying to build my website and have tried for over a month to get people to join it with no luck at all. I know it takes time for websites to gain traction, but do you think the idea is stupid and I should try something else? I don't like the idea of having wasted 2 years with nothing to show for it.
Website:  https://www.doityourselfnation.org/ <comment><USER2> A month isn't a very long time. Despite the occasional story you see in the press about some new site that is a literal "overnight sensation", you should probably give it a bit longer. Most "overnight sensations" take a LONG time to become such.

That said..

 _but do you think the idea is stupid and I should try something else?_

I spent a few minutes looking around the site and still don't really know what "the idea" is. I mean, yeah, I see that you can share videos and stuff, but I don't get what makes this site distinct. I can share videos on Youtube, why should I use this site? Are you trying to appeal to a certain community or topic? Is the key element the monetization aspect, or is just the sharing? What's the "leaderboard" link at the top for and why would I care about a "leaderboard"? And how does it go from videos to the stuff about flipbooks and what-not?

I just feel like you need more / better messaging, right front and center, that articulates exactly what/who this site is for and why they should use it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for your feedback. It was supposed to be a website that combined YouTube, Amazon, and Facebook together along with other aspects like uploading flip books. The leaderboard was an attempt to add a gamification aspect to the website where others could compete for top views, sales, endorsements, ect... I was hoping that the homepage could convey the message of being able to upload books, video's, files, and products free of charge and earn money doing so, but it looks like it doesn't do a good job.

<comment><USER2> _the message of being able to upload books, video 's, files, and products free of charge and earn money doing so_

Well there ya go. Add that sentence, almost exactly like that, right at the top of page. Something like

Content Creators: Upload books, video's, files, and products free of charge and earn money doing so!

would go a long way towards making the site's purpose more clear. You'll still have to sell people that you can deliver on that promise, but there's probably a segment of people out there, that if you can get them on the site, will say "Oh, I'd kinda like to do that".

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the great advice. Having a header to give an exact idea of what the website is would probably help.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Failure is a necessary part of the path to success. Nobody gets it right at first. You must get help identifying why you have failed and redesign accordingly. Then, you must iterate (probably multiple times).

Good luck!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! I'll definitely take your advice!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> When I visit this URL in Firefox on Android I get a warning that says "This connection is untrusted". That might be turning away visitors.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, someone else told me this issue which I relayed to Amazon Web Services and they said they didn't see the problem when testing it for themselves.</comment></comment>


Easier Deployment of Rails Apps on Jelastic Cloud. Have Fun - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/gerardo-navarro/capistrano-jelastic/ <comment><USER2> This would make a good "Show HN". Adding "Show HN: " to the front of the title will put it in that area.</comment>


Searchcode: Source code search engine - <AUTHOR> https://searchcode.com/ <comment><USER2> Well did not expect this to pop up again. Creator of searchcode.com here so feel free to ask questions. However preemptively,

Why it is not 100% free software [http://www.boyter.org/2014/10/searchcode- com-100-free-softwa...](http://www.boyter.org/2014/10/searchcode-com-100-free- software/)

My responses to the previous discussion on HN [http://www.boyter.org/2014/07/feedback- loop/](http://www.boyter.org/2014/07/feedback-loop/) and the last discussion [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7947075](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7947075)

I am currently working on an offline version you can download and run yourself, probably going to be called searchcode server with a pricing model similar to octopus deploy. You can register your interest here [https://searchcode.com/product/](https://searchcode.com/product/)

Some information about how searchcode works (Django MySQL Sphinx Nginx Celery), [http://www.boyter.org/2014/06/searchcode/](http://www.boyter.org/2014/06/searchcode/) and [http://www.boyter.org/2014/06/sphinx- searchcode/](http://www.boyter.org/2014/06/sphinx-searchcode/)

You can read more about its development on my personal blog [http://www.boyter.org/category/searchcode/](http://www.boyter.org/category/searchcode/)

Feel free to ask any questions or provide feedback.

<comment><USER3> Well, but couldn't you just don't offer any support? If you would publish it on Github, you could just 'unwatch' it and maybe let the community support itself. Of course, bug reports and contributions are nice, so you could have a few trusted colloborateurs, who forward those few useful 'issues' to you

EDIT: I meant my comment more in the way of "Do you actually have an obligation to support your free software?". It's understandable, that, with open-sourcing code, you will get a lot of support load, but it will only affect you, if you actually plan to respond to them (That's why I proposed 'unwatch'ing it. It may seem stupid, but I thought this could be a way out for OP. Just code-dump the project, add a commit here and then, but never try to offer support/respond to questions etc.

But even then, I'm perfectly fine with not open-sourcing it. It's still an awesome and useful tool. Great work OP!

<comment><USER2> I am going to assume you are referring to why its not free software.

Yes I could. I can guarantee I would still get a deluge of email asking about how to set things up. The amount I deal with from my Decoding Captcha's article is more than I can bear.

However it is something I may do in the future. Certainly if I ever shut it down I will release all source.

<comment><USER4> I can't believe the first comment here is making a problem out of it not being free. Sadly the vocal majority of HN will berat you for not making all your code open source and the product free; but don't think for a second they know anything about what they're talking about. As a sole developer you have to support yourself somehow. This project is full of high-quality features so good job! Your effort is to be commended.

<comment><USER2> Thank you!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> it looks like there's a bunch of stuff out there that this doesn't find. it seems limited to specific silos like github and so on.

the debian code search, on the other hand, has access to all software shipped with debian: [https://codesearch.debian.net/](https://codesearch.debian.net/)

this is arguably another silo, but the diversity of software in there is also interesting.

<comment><USER2> Yes there are a few reasons for that. Mostly cost (it runs on 2 servers) and it can only index things that are publicly exposed. Since the majority of code released is in github it tends to skew towards it as the main source.

It does however index the following (and more) repository locations, Github, Bitbucket, Fedora Project, Google Code, CodePlex, Sourceforge, Tizen Project, Google Android, Minix3, Seek Quarry, Gitorious and a collection of sources from GNU Savannah.

Im always looking to add more, so if you know of say a github for fossil projects (tarpit would be an excellent name for this BTW) let me know so I can add and index them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Nice and useful, I didn't know how many projects is using my project [https://searchcode.com/?q=sorl.thumbnail](https://searchcode.com/?q=sorl.thumbnail)

</comment><comment><USER7> This is brilliant tool. Bye Bye MSDN searching for F# samples, I have a new home ;)

</comment><comment><USER8> Really cool. Would be great if it would dedupe identical documents, since a lot of repos are forks of other repos with minimal changes.

<comment><USER2> It actually does to an extent (its an offline process I need to run again actually).

Have a look at this search [https://searchcode.com/?q=jquery+mobile](https://searchcode.com/?q=jquery+mobile) notice that after a bit next to each result the text "Show 100 matches" appears? These are the duplicated identified by the system (limited to 100 results but all dupes should be gone).

The matching is a little fuzzy as well to try and clear out minor revisions of the same file or simple whitespace replacements etc...</comment></comment>


How long until a search engine gets sued for discrimination? - <AUTHOR>

I'm sure some crazy case has happened already before, but what I mean is something a little more serious.
When there is a position so dominant such as Google's or Bing/Yahoo's, I think it's natural to think that a case of discrimination, if well motivated, could be taken seriously.
If there was something that was sort of unifying before was the search result. That depended on what I searched and some algorithm, but it didn't depend on who I was.
Now things are slightly shifting towards a personal search. Google already said that eventually the local search won't be possible to deactivate. In addition to that the search is becoming more and more related to social network results (what your friends searched or commented on) and if Facebook will play a role in it I'm sure this will only become more relevant to search results.
Now, if I live in a specific area and I have specific friends, wouldn't this slow down my search for something different or prevent me from finding something different from what you would expect me to being looking for being a resident of an area and having certain friends?
This might seem too abstract but there is actually a million possibilities. It all goes back to the fact that now the search engine won't treat me anymore as anyone else, but it'll guess what I like or want based on my neighborhood and my circle of friends (read: if I lived in a wealthy/safe town my search would be different than if I lived in a poor/higher-crime area).
I think the solution could just be to have a couple of "dimmers" on how 'local' or how 'social' I want my search results to be.
After all, I don't need any locality or sociality if I'm searching for topics involving food in general, while I might like to have more local/social results if I want to know about what good food I could eat near where I am.
This could start from local/social but could be extended to more parameters of the search algorithms. For example, it would be so helpful to get rid of all the forums sometimes or limit my research to the forum in other occasions...
Isn't it better under all points of view (and it wouldn't even be hard for the users) to allow them to easily choose which parameters are more important to them in a search as opposed to guessing a series of parameters that work for everybody? <comment><USER2> Interesting thought, we can think about this as an extension of group polarization theory in psychology (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_polarization>). In group polarization, belonging to a group with specific views will actually expand any individual member's views in that direction; being in a group of pro-YC people will make me think even more fondly of YC.

So we end up more influenced by the people (and really, searches) that we're surrounded by. When Facebook introduced their new chat window, with the "top friends" (who you talk to and interact with most) at the top, I actually thought that was group polarization in the way - you'll talk more to the people you talk to, and less to the people we don't. I think Google is a more interesting example because we're dealing with knowledge, and not just interactions.

Don't think it'll wind up to be discriminatory, because we can't pinpoint and compare one search to another. From a business side, group polarization is the basis behind all ads - let's show you things we think you'll like, and if you do like them, then you'll click, and start liking them even more. So Google benefits from group polarization, and it's essentially another form of targeted knowledge/advertising for the end user.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, this is exactly what I mean. But this is going even further, when the search depends on the physical location, not only on my friends, it could really impact how a young person can find things online, and how their interests could be slightly pushed towards their local/social area.

The point being, I don't even think it's better targeting, because it doesn't really focus on the user but on where the user is, while one of the good things about the Internet was that whatever I liked, I could have had the same chances of finding what I wanted no matter where I was. Now the where changes things. For some topics it's for the good, for others I believe it's not.</comment></comment>


Is a New Raspberry Pi Coming? - <AUTHOR> http://www.averagemanvsraspberrypi.com/2015/11/new-raspberry-pi.html <comment><USER2> I would be kinda sad, since I recently bought a Raspberry pi 2, but I would also be very happy if a gigabit version came out.</comment>


Algorithmic Trading of Cryptocurrency Based on Twitter Sentiment Analysis [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://cs229.stanford.edu/proj2015/029_report.pdf <comment><AUTHOR> Github project based on the paper [https://github.com/mluders/tweetwise](https://github.com/mluders/tweetwise)</comment>


Ask HN: Counting # of protestors? - <AUTHOR> I was at the anti-trump rally in Los Angeles today. The LAPD estimated the crowd size to be 8,000 however that number seemed very low to me. I'm wondering if anyone has some software than can look at footage to estimate crowd size. There are a few shots that capture the majority of the protest today like this: https://instagram.com/p/BMuxQDcjdI4/<p>Would love to have a hard count of how many ppl were there - not an estimation! <comment><USER2> You can post the image to an imageboard of your choice and write that those are 8.000 people. Somebody won't trust you and count it.

</comment><comment><USER3> I remember stories about this from the Obama inauguration. IIRC, someone (google?) used areal shots, divide it into segments, assign those segments to different densities, and count the people in samples from all densities.

</comment><comment><USER4> relevant: [http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a7121/the-curious- sc...](http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a7121/the-curious-science-of- counting-a-crowd/) and [http://www.gkstill.com/Support/crowd- density/CrowdDensity-1....](http://www.gkstill.com/Support/crowd- density/CrowdDensity-1.html)

I checked: about 20 per "row". To get the number of rows, figure out how long the street is and then divide by 2 metres. That's roughly how many people there are.

EDIT:

according to Wikipedia, Wiltshire Blvd is 25km long. I somehow don't think there are that many people in the crowd

</comment><comment><USER5> that's an extremely hard problem to solve.

I think doing an order of magnitude estimation would be your best bet.

</comment><comment><USER6> lets just say there must not be enough to win Hillary the presidency!</comment>


Russia in marathon reading of Tolstoy's War and Peace on web - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35037327 <comment><USER2> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10698834](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10698834)</comment>


NASA finds DNA components in meteorites, says they originated in space - <AUTHOR> http://www.space.com/12569-meteorites-dna-building-blocks-discovery.html <comment><USER2> So one thing to keep in mind here is that according to NASA, the meteorite itself is generating these compounds:

 _Thirdly, the team found these nucleobases -- both the biological and non- biological ones -- were produced in a completely non-biological reaction. "In the lab, an identical suite of nucleobases and nucleobase analogs were generated in non-biological chemical reactions containing hydrogen cyanide, ammonia, and water. This provides a plausible mechanism for their synthesis in the asteroid parent bodies, and supports the notion that they are extraterrestrial," says Callahan._ (from the NASA article: [http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/dna- meteorit...](http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/dna- meteorites.html))

This does not mean that there is developed life on another planet that then traveled to us. What it does mean is that the building blocks of life that were seeded on earth are probably pretty common and therefore were probably also seeded elsewhere.

<comment><USER3> It means that the components of life are a "naturally" occurring things, which appear all over the universe, and do not require life to produce them. This in turn implies that life, not just any life, but carbon based, DNA using life, could be more common in the universe then previously thought. And this implies that we here on Earth are even less of an unique snowflake then we thought.

<comment><USER4> If we, here on Earth, are not unique precious snowflakes, then that makes the Fermi Paradox even more paradoxical.

<comment><USER5> And along those same lines, adds more weight to the implications of the Great Filter argument. That is, if the early steps in the path to intelligent life are really not that unlikely, then the later steps to advanced intelligent life are more unlikely.

<comment><USER6> Or, as Carl Sagan often suggested, intelligent life is likely to destroy itself, perhaps if a civilization's technological progress outpaces its ethical capacity.

<comment><USER7> Alternatively successful communication over vast distances turns out to be impossible or at least very rare.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Before anyone gets too excited:

Amino acids on a comet, 2009: [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17628-found-first- amin...](http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17628-found-first-amino-acid- on-a-comet.html)

Amino acids in interstellar space, 2002: [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2558-amino-acid- found-...](http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2558-amino-acid-found-in- deep-space.html)

and a few more examples exist if you google "amino acids in space".

We've known about amino acids in space for a long time. Amino acids exist all over the damn place.

<comment><USER9> Not left over smudges from the former inhabitants of planet Krypton? Ah shucks :-).

The interesting point here was the nuceobases (vs the amino acids). Mars water should be interesting to look at.

And of course a sample return mission to Ceres would be interesting as long as we didn't open the capsule in an uncontrolled environment :-).

<comment><USER10> Are you concerned about the capsule getting contaminated, or about Earth getting contaminated? I'd bet on the Earth's microbes to dominate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The original NASA article: [http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/dna- meteorit...](http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/dna- meteorites.html)

<comment><USER12> Thanks for the link. Makes me wonder, if life did come from space then we will have to start exploring space more seriously. The possibility of a aliens existing somewhere else cannot be ignored any longer.

<comment><USER13> This HN thread links to an article that describes the enormous difficulties in interstellar travel: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2639456>

<comment><USER14> Mind you... space exploration does not have to be interstellar. There are probably lots of interesting discoveries to be had here in our own backyard.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> While NASA's discovery of nucleobases as opposed to amino acids is certainly interesting, there's a long way between "hey, nucleobases on an asteroid," and "wow, the entire genome of a living creature." There's a big jump in complexity, structure, and organization between organic chemistry and the multi-trillion cell organism we call homosapien.

The comparison in complexity is the rough equivalent of finding a few MOV/JMP/ADD instructions in a random text file as opposed to the source tree for the Linux kernel (I might be underestimating the human genome a little here).

<comment><USER16> Why on earth would you compare these to the human genome, instead of the smallest archeobacteria? Evolution adds complexity over time, we _know_ this, we just need something to replicate first.

A better analogy than the Linux kernel might be a quine.

<comment><USER17> There is still an enormous jump in complexity between a few nucleobases and the smallest archeobacteria. Maybe a full Linux kernel is not the best illustration, but the idea of a kernel in general is a remarkably apt one. At the least, we're talking stuxnet or something.

Even the simplest life is incredibly sophisticated.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I have always been curious as to how religion will tackle proof of alien life. Do aliens get to go to heaven?

<comment><USER19> My religion has taught me there was alien life since I was a child. I was also taught that all humans and all animal life will be resurrected. It's not too hard to extrapolate that intelligent alien species, should they exist, would as well. So maybe the answer to your question is "It depends on the religion."

<comment><USER20> If you don't mind sharing and I mean this respectfully, could you inform us which religion is this?

<comment><USER19> I'm Mormon (or more pedantically I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) so kbutler caught me.

He's quoting from the Doctrine & Covenants (like the Pauline epistles in that they're letters written by someone claiming to speak messages from God, but not like them in that they were written in the 1830s and 40s in America) and it's this more modern scripture that tends to talk about these kind of things. Basically any decent religion will start out with "Be nice to your neighbors" but when you start asking "Why?" it is inevitable going to end up in a discussion about the nature of the universe and its the modern scripture that tends to crystallize that a bit.

The example I was thinking of: [http://lds.org/scriptures/dc- testament/dc/29.23-26?lang=eng#...](http://lds.org/scriptures/dc- testament/dc/29.23-26?lang=eng#22)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> My biggest fear is dying before mankind finds the definite scientific answer to death and our origin/s. We seem to be so near (~ one century away).

<comment><USER22> This is _really_ your biggest fear? Or is that just a figure of speech. I'm genuinely curious, as while I think this "answer" might be intellectually satisfying to some degree, I see it as making little difference in practical matters.

I also think it's an answer that will never come. I don't see any inconsistency between a universe created by God and any scientific observations we make within that creation.

<comment><USER21> _I see it as making little difference in practical matters_

It changes everything. It is like being 30 years old and finding you were adopted. You want to know where you come from.

Edit: But besides what you and I think, what will it mean to the world if religion was "proven" to be man-made, as well as the idea of a Higher Power.

<comment><USER23> _what will it mean to the world if religion was "proven" to be man-made_

A successful and complete theory of the origin of life wouldn't do _that_. Not every religion claims seriously that God directly created life. To my knowledge, it's really only a serious problem for people who live in the Religion:Christian/Protestant/Evangelical/Fundamentalist folder, which is really not a big fraction of the people on the drive.

For example, I am Evangelical, and I wouldn't be bothered by either the success or failure of a scientific theory of the origin of life. Miracles are a part of my worldview, as are machines. I know that God created life, but whether he used a miracle or a machine, I don't know. I have seen him use one or the other at different times, so I would consider either an acceptable explanation. Now, I'm kind of interested as to what _happened_ , but it doesn't affect my doctrine much either way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I vaguely recall from highschool bio that the Miller-Urey experiment demonstrated that it's surprisingly easy to produce a lot of organic stuff by abiotic means. Does anyone with some real knowledge about this area care to explain how surprising this actually is?

<comment><USER25> > lot of organic stuff

The organic compounds produced by the Miller Urey experiments were mostly amino acids and some sugars (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment>). These are the building blocks for most of the things that constitute a cell. This discovery may better our understanding of the origins of DNA and RNA - which are the blueprints for putting together the building blocks to make a cell.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Universe is only 13 billion years old, life on Earth started ~4.5 billion years ago, and the travel times are pretty long. Even if DNA came from outer space, it would have had to start somewhere. At some point it must have developed from inorganic components.

<comment><USER27> The current theory is that the organic material actually originated on the asteroids themselves - on a class known as "CM2 Meteorites". ([http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/dna- meteorit...](http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/dna- meteorites.html) \- last couple of paragraphs)

Also according to that article, we've successfully reproduced the process of creating organic matter from inorganic matter.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> No, NASA says they _can_ originate in space. There is a difference.

<comment><USER27> NASA is confident that these, at least, did. (Of course, they could also have simultaneously been created terrestrially - but that doesn't change the fact that they were also created in space.)

 _We have three lines of evidence that together give us confidence these DNA building blocks actually were created in space._ ([http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/dna- meteorit...](http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/dna- meteorites.html))

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> This item - <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2863503> \- is intended to be the same thing, but incorrectly points to a generic front page. A pointer has been put there to direct people here.

</comment><comment><USER30> Amino acids have also been made by slamming meteorite like material into earth like material at impact speeds (impact chemistry creates them due to the greate pressures and energy involved).

<comment><USER31> Meteorite/comets hitting the sphere of the Earth. The sperm reaching the egg cell. The answer to the beginning is at the beginning.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> This could just be the most significant news in all of human history. Mind blowing that there's now evidence that the building blocks of life exist off- Earth.

</comment><comment><USER33> cool. i have found components of my compiled code in ancient mesoamerican, indian and arabic math

</comment><comment><USER34> I should not have watched Falling Skies before reading this...

<comment><USER35> I should not have watched Falling Skies either, but mostly because it sucks so bad. :-(

<comment><USER36> WHAT!!! I have to say the show started out slow but it turned out really good.

<comment><USER35> It's gotten better, and the story is not that bad, but most of the actors are just completely terrible. There is just nothing in their characters to care about.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


How to Be a Happier Person in 2020, According to Therapists - <AUTHOR> https://www.huffingtonpost.in/entry/20-ways-to-be-a-happier-person-in-2020-according-to-therapists_in_5e0ab487e4b0b2520d1a40db <comment><USER2> No 17, see a therapist. Who would have thought?</comment>


I Landed My First Web Developer Role Without a Degree or Bootcamp - <AUTHOR> https://dev.to/taeluralexis/how-i-landed-my-first-web-developer-role-without-a-degree-or-bootcamp-lessons-learned-resources-tips-39ag <comment><USER2> Cool journey.

I also got into software dev without a degree though I did it differently.

I did side work for years until eventually someone offered me a full time job, did that for a couple of years then moved on, kept moving every couple of years until eventually I was a tech lead/senior at a major company.

Took longer but I never expected the career I ended up with either.

Turns out what I'd done as a hobby since the 80s as a kid paid off better than I expected.

My one piece of advice to anyone taking the same route is that you are better than you think (impostor syndrome is real and particularly if you are self taught) and never stop learning.

It's a vast field and there is always something new and interesting to look at.

</comment><comment><USER3> Well done!</comment>


Growing a Beard (or "How I wrote my first useful Node project") - <AUTHOR> http://blog.sematext.com/2015/07/15/logging-cli-writing-first-node-project/

<comment><USER2> Did you keep the beard?

</comment><comment><USER3> :)</comment>


The VC Comic - <AUTHOR> http://www.thevc.com

<comment><AUTHOR> The best VC comics ever, it's a shame they don't publish new ones.</comment>


Introducing time.cloudflare.com - <AUTHOR> https://blog.cloudflare.com/secure-time/ <comment><USER2> Likely soon-to-be fixed but the developer docs link is broken: [https://developers.cloudflare.com/time- services](https://developers.cloudflare.com/time-services)

<comment><AUTHOR> [https://developers.cloudflare.com/time- services/](https://developers.cloudflare.com/time-services/) should work. Getting a redirect added.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> > Today I'm proud to help introduce a service that would have made my life > from 2015 through 2019 a whole lot harder

Surely the author means easier?

<comment><USER4> The blog says they were trying to test an attack against a secure system and failed until they used an NTP vulnerability to roll back the clock on the PC. If NTP was secured against that vulnerability, their test attack would have failed and made their project more difficult.</comment></comment>


How to keep doing the right thing? - <AUTHOR> I'm not religious.
I'm not a Puritan. I love OSHO books, I've read more than 30 of his books. I like relativism. I try to understand the diverse cultures and customs.
I know that I am not the right person, honest and sincere. Obviously, I have my prejudices, fears, traumas, envy, etc.
I know that right and wrong is very relative, timeless.
In the country where I live (Brazil), many people (majority?) Do not respect the laws of traffic, construction, betrayal, etc.
The level of social corruption is enormous.
I know this is normal all over the world. But at very different levels.
I know that the fear of being punished by law, or by people is a good reason, to continue (try?) To do the right thing.
But often, I do not find a reason, to continue to do the right thing (try?).
Doing right does not always cost a lot of money, effort, time, patience, etc. But sometimes, yes.
What motivates you to do the right thing?
Or, you should ask first:
What is right?
How to know or define what is right?
One of the biggest problems, is to feel like a sucker, loser. This feeling is what bothers me a lot.
Or should I ask, how can I not feel like a sucker, loser? <comment><USER3> If you had to choose one person - a real person, or an imaginary one - <USER2> watch you through your whole life, and know everything you do and why you do it; not judging or disciplining you, but just being aware of your inner self ... who would that person be? Who would you choose, and why?

Would you choose someone you respect? Someone you would not wish to hurt or shame? Would it be someone who brings out the best in yourself? Would you want to earn their respect for yourself?

Would you choose someone who rates people as winners and losers, bosses and suckers? Someone who doesn't care how they make others feel, so long as they're the ones on top? Would you want to earn their approval as another winner on their level?

The choice you make will tell you where your self-respect lies. Look after your self-respect. Other things can disappear from your life, either temporarily or permanently: health, wealth, love, security, friends, luck, dignity, purpose, joy. They're not always in your control. But self-respect is in your own keeping. And it can be enough, by itself, to make you feel that life is still worth living, and that you're glad to be who you are.

Seek Joy. Seek the company of people you admire. You can seek their company through the internet, books and film as much as by actually meeting.

Who are your heroes? Try to keep them, and what's heroic about them, in mind. Recognise they are human too, though.

</comment><comment><USER4> Ah, the deep questions are pestering you. Rest assured that this period is normal, in time it will work out by itself. In this state it seems that we need just one more tidbit of wisdom to resolve our doubts, the thing is: this wisdom must come from within, not from the outside.

I too, come from a corrupt country with similar problems (Mexico), and having experienced living in more developed countries I observe that the range of "wickedness" to "goodness" is much wider in our developing nations. It is true indeed that one can feel like a sucker when it's the cheaters, the liars, and the corrupt who apparently come out ahead in life. But it's all bullshit! How can a liar, a cheater, and a corrupt person find true love, his true passion, his true meaning?

These people do what they do because they are primates trying to impress other primates to get laid more. They do so not out of evil, but out of ignorance. The path of righteousness is one of truth, integrity and authenticity. The key to not feeling like a sucker is to accept everything life puts forward, and to seek justice only for others, not for yourself.

      The sage is kind to the kind.
      The wise sage is also kind to the unkind.
      Because the nature of the sage's being Is kindness.

Lao Tse

</comment><comment><USER5> Find the people loving you, your mother and father best, or your siblings, parteners.

Know more about them, their expectation, theri desire, their fear, their confusion, their pain, try to make them happy, as much as you can, in any possible ways.

You should not care about too much about yourself, life on yourself is meanningless, people live together from early ages. First, you ought to make the people nearest to you happy, if you do good, then you can make more people happy.

This is the simplest way. I also have wonder about such kind of problems about right or wrong, meaning, life solution, religion, philosophy for a long time. I even went to be a buddhism monk for several years, but problems never disappear.

Now I accept that human are social annimal, so melding into the people near you, you will feel not like a sucker/loser. I understand the feeling very well. But it's difficult to change, I have pay great to have some kind of change in my life.

Remeber, doing the smallest thing with obvious meaning to people loving you and you love, is much more meaningful than doing hugest thing with little help.

That's my experience.

</comment><comment><USER6> I think there are two fundamental questions: Is there such thing as right and wrong? And if so, how does one know what is right and what is wrong?

A commenter below says right and wrong are only human constructs, but that raises the question of "which humans?" Arthur Leff calls this the "grand sez who?" Is right and wrong a preference, as I might prefer meat to cheese? If so, then who's to say my preferences are more or less valid than anyone else's?

Most people act as if there is a right and wrong beyond preference. Public discourse is full of criticism of "wrong" behaviors and attitudes. Is it wrong to be racist (for example)? Is it wrong to dislike cheese? Are those two different? Why?

I think they are different, and I'd bet most people do, too. If right and wrong are merely human preferences, then no one's "right" is better than my "right." If right and wrong is a human construct we're just arguing about which cheese tastes better.

But I do believe that right and wrong exist, and I believe that God determines what is right and wrong. My motivation to do right and avoid wrong (not that I do it well) is to please God. I'd like to be the kind of man that pleases God. And that's enough for me.

To answer your original questions - the fundamental moral tenets of all the great world religions are pretty much the same (not to say all religions are the same or equally true, but the moral teachings are the same). Follow them.

Do it because it's right, and you're a person who does the right thing. You're not a loser if you're pleasing God.

Good luck to you!

<comment><USER7> > Is there such thing as right and wrong?

Yes.

> And if so, how does one know what is right and what is wrong?

It all boils down to life and death. Right is anything that promotes life, wrong is anything that brings death.

This usually translates to right being anything that brings pleasure, while wrong anything that causes pain. After all that's how the brain is wired.

On the other hand we are social creatures and sometimes there is conflict, something that is right for the individual maybe is wrong for the community. It is widely accepted that right of the many is greater than the right of the one, and hence we have the laws.

So yes, there is right and wrong, and they are very clearly defined.

The problem that the OP has, is that most individuals in his country do what is right for themselves but wrong for the many and hence OP feels like a sucker because she/he does what is wrong for herself/himself but right for the many.

But if we go back to the roots of right and wrong, if most of the people in the community choose to do the wrong thing, then doing the right thing is not doing the right thing anymore.

Confused? Let me give you an example. Let's say we have 10 persons locked in a room. Each day we give a stick of bread to a random person. The community has decided that every day they will share the bread among all of them, as it is the best for the community(nobody will die of starvation). In this case, when you get the bread it is very clear that the right thing to do is to share it.

Now what happens if the majority of the individuals in the room, don't do the right thing, and don't share the bread when they get it, but keep it for themselves?

If a person gets the bread is it right to keep it to herself/himself or to share it?

Surprisingly the right thing to do, both for the individual and for the community, is to keep it, as the community will not really benefit if that person starves to death.

Of course, something even better would be for that person to try to convince everybody to start sharing the bread again.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Honestly, I do the right thing(note: what I perceive in a given moment as the right thing) because I like being able to look at myself in the mirror every morning.

I do the _right_ think for _me_. And quite often this right thing can be to go against rules, or my boss, because I feel a decision is not going to help my patients.

Because that to me is ultimately what matters - right, wrong, don't but how I _feel_ , is true.

I don't care that other's get away with loads of crap and go unpunished. I was built with a conscience, some people were not. These latter characters may get away with it for most of their lives, they may not. But i'm not gonna worry about it, and just focus on what i'm doing, not worrying about what other people are doing.

</comment><comment> Kepler-125c You have to understand that little things make a difference. You don't have to be the next Julian Assange.

For example, who was the guy who convinced the WhatsApp folk to implement E2E encryption?

Small actions can have large, positive consequences.

</comment><comment><USER9> To your last point, how not to feel like a sucker, I take a lot of quiet pride in my own ability to choose. Whether a moral choice is popular/respected or not, you at least have sovereignty over yourself--it's empowering to know that you make moral choices on your own, and that you have strength to choose what's "right" no matter what other forces might try to sway you.

</comment><comment><USER10> knowing that right and wrong are only human constructs. All is permitted, but the rewards that come with being in the right are not tangible, only expressed through your faith. do right because you know its right, not because of the consequences or gain. good luck in that world. the fact that you can see above it all, means you are already above it.

</comment><comment><USER11> _Mere Christianity_ by C. S. Lewis

 _More Than a Carpenter_ by Josh McDowell

</comment><comment><USER12> I'm a Christian (Latter-Day Saint) and also adhere to Buddhist precepts. I meditate two hours a day. I don't eat animals and regularly pick up litter in my neighborhood.

I do these things because I decided to be a good person. That's the kind of man I want to be and my actions make it reality. No matter what happens in the world around me, with God's help I'll always be a good person.

It's like the Zen saying about the mountain and the cloud. The blue mountain and the white cloud depend on each other, but the white cloud will always be the white cloud and the blue mountain will always be the blue mountain.

TL;DR: Don't let the world tell you who you are and how to act. Ask God for wisdom and let that be an anchor for you.

<comment><USER13> > I'm a Christian (Latter-Day Saint) and also adhere to Buddhist precepts. I > meditate two hours a day. I don't eat animals and regularly pick up litter > in my neighborhood.

Very interesting, especially in a world where many people view religious practices as entirely mutually exclusive. As a Buddhist myself, good on you for doing this. Things need not be as black and white as some believe.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> For one thing, I am not entirely convinced right and wrong exist in any objective sense. The way I see it, to be able to define some things as good and some things bad, you have to accept that the good things are "better" than the bad things. I am not certain this is true. Is acting in anger better than acting in temperance? Is murder better than mercy? It all seems very situational to me, and by nature of being a theory, ethical schools of thought are general guidelines for a large percentage of situations. None of which can anticipate every situation, and any I want to adhere to must be perfect for each situation.

Instead, I focus on what I desire and not what is "right." I do what I want, as it were. But with that comes an obligation to _know_ what I want. Self- reflection is key: what do I want most, what do I want now, are these things the same in this situation as opposed to my last situation, etc... It might seem a little self-centered, but I am the one affecting the world and I am the one person that can know my desires better than any other person. Plus, I don't think my have been anything incredibly un-altruistic yet. At the very least, it has done a lot to reduce the amount of regret I feel over my decisions (which is a start at least).

</comment><comment><USER15> The Dalai Lama said the purpose of life is to be happy. It's not straightforward to figure out what that is, but it's worth trying.</comment>


Lap lock – leave your MacBook unattended worry free for a short time - <AUTHOR> http://beta.vyte.in/laplock-www/

<comment><USER2> I'm one of the developers. We created the app and service this weekend at a hackathon so it's still very new.

We know there are limitations (especially: if you close the MacBook, the alarm will not work) but we're working on it. So thanks for all the feedback, it's very useful to know what areas we should address.

If you would like to write to us directly: @laplockapp. Thanks!

</comment><comment><USER3> 1\. Wait, what happens if the thief closes the macbook first?

2\. Even if it works, wouldn't this be useless since the thief would not know about the app running? Ie most theft prevention mechanisms works because they manifestly inform the potential thief that it's not worth his trouble to bother with this one.

But if this is just an app running in the background - there is no 'warning' shown.

</comment><comment><USER4> Not like anyone's actually going to do anything when someone walks off with your laptop anyway.

Witness how car alarms are regularly ignored.

.

<comment><USER5> 1\. It also sends you a notification (SMS or Yo notification), so you can do something about it 2\. In a cafe or coworking space, when people steal stuff, they just pretend they're theirs. Bit harder to pretend in this case if you can't unlock it

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Have to agree with a previous poster; I would imagine it's more likely that people would stare at the thief running out of the venue, rather than get involved and take a risk.

You can pick up a drawstring gymsack for a couple of bucks. It scrunches up to a very small size in your daily carry, and you can ensure any valuables are secure on your back if you have to be away for a short time while the rest of your stuff stays at the table. Low tech, but has been effective for me so far.

</comment><comment><USER7> Nifty, except in public places I usually have speakers muted (I assume Macs have the same capability). I also always close the lid prior to unplugging - does this require changing power management settings?

<comment><USER5> Actually the speakers settings are set to loud just before the alarm goes off

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is pretty similar to [https://www.virtualock.com](https://www.virtualock.com) who also provide a Windows version.

</comment><comment><USER9> Wow -- that was fast: "You have OS X 10.9.5. The application requires OS X 10.10 or later."

<comment><USER10> Even though the icon looks like it was made for OS X < 10.10.

<comment><USER5> Well OS X 10.10 is about flat design. Could you think of a flatter icon? :-)

<comment><USER10> It's mostly that it looks very bad in dark mode.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Your first feature request is going to be for it to work without the power cord :)

<comment><USER12> I think it could actually be done. I know my MBPr has accelerometers in it that can be accessed.

(visit [http://mrdoob.com/projects/chromeexperiments/google- gravity/](http://mrdoob.com/projects/chromeexperiments/google-gravity/) with Chrome on a MBPr)

<comment><USER11> So the thief should steal slowly? :)

<comment><USER2> Hehe verrrrrryyy slooowwwwly.

The MacBooks with mechanical hard drives have the motion sensors.

<comment><USER12> I believe that's why they were originally added, to protect the disk in the event of a drop. My early 2013 13" MBPr definitely has both an SSD and accelerometers, though I don't know if they kept them for later models. Cool app/idea btw!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The more a think about it, the more genius this application is. Well done!

</comment><comment><USER14> this is really cool, i'm surprised something like this hasn't been implemented years ago

it would be nice if you could text back the PC to turn on it's speakers like a car alarm

</comment><comment><USER15> An SMS when it's unlocked would also be great to see.</comment>


Peter Thiel on The End of the Future - <AUTHOR> http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/278758

<comment><USER2> Thiel ignores---perhaps deliberately, given his political leanings---the most obvious explanation for the paradox of technological progress without economic growth: that a rising economic tide _doesn't_ necessarily lift all boats. He acknowledges 'a trend towards greater inequality' but doesn't pause to consider whether the fruits of economic progress are being sucked up by the wealthiest 1%, and that is why the rest see economic stagnation while (as he also acknowledges) corporate profits _rose_ as a percent of GDP.</comment>


The oddness of Isaac Newton - <AUTHOR> https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/isaac-newton-oddness/ <comment><USER2> To me, the only odd thing here is that people think Isaac Newton is/was odd because he was interested in religion, alchemy, etc. Being a scientific "genius," isn't mutually exclusive with being interested in other things that weren't scientific.

<comment><USER3> As Lawrence Principe points out in his _Secrets Of Alchemy_ , Alchemy was in fact the precursor to our modern notion of 'Chemistry'. The alchemists had theoretical foundations for their work which were inspired by and often incorporated 'unscientific' notions of divinity. At the same time however it's very important to remember that in contemporary terms this wasn't unusual, it's only in hindsight that we can say Newton's mathematical work was more scientific than his theological or alchemical work. (Having read this scholarly book on the subject which spares the bullshit, I quite recommend it.)

To people with the 'Magicians Mindset' as Keynes might put it, the world has a rational soul underlying it which can be teased out by careful study of all things. If you're a Christian and start with this prior belief, then it makes perfect sense that you should expect your theological studies to inform your understanding of the natural world and your understanding of the natural world to inform theological studies. This is a mindset where metaphors and abstract connections are not of the human mind. Rather, they represent features of the territory showing us God's divine authorship of the world.

Another good book that outlines some of this is Hall's _The Secret Teachings Of All Ages_ , which discusses the essentially Aryan (Indo-Iranian) thesis that all theological traditions discuss the same underlying esoteric doctrine which itself descends from one civilization. Having been written in 1928, Hall speculates Atlantis. (Naturally, you should take this text with perhaps more than just a grain of salt.) As far as I know the modern version of this thesis usually places the ultimate originating civilization in India.

[https://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Alchemy-Lawrence-M- Principe/d...](https://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Alchemy-Lawrence-M- Principe/dp/022610379X)

[https://archive.org/details/The_Secret_Teachings_Of_All_Ages...](https://archive.org/details/The_Secret_Teachings_Of_All_Ages_- _Manly_P_Hall)

<comment><USER4> These alchemical principles you mention are probably derived from the Neoplatonic philosophy of Plotinus and Proclus, which is a pretty fascinating school of metaphysics with a significant mystical component. These Platonic influences are highly visible in Catholic and Orthodox churches today, having been transmitted through Augustine, Pseudo-Dionysius, and Origen. Hundreds of years ago, it made perfect sense for one person to be both a scientist and a theologian.

Also, "The Secret Teachings Of All Ages" sounds quite similar to the perennial philosophy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I don't think it was odd in the context of medieval and early Renaissance Europe for scientists to also delve into theology and Biblical exegesis. What's odd is how today's society elevates certain historical figures to the level of prophets in certain narrow areas of study, yet completely ignores or obscures their contributions in other areas. I never knew Newton was a staunch Arian before today, much like how I never knew that Pythagoras was a strict vegetarian, or that Socrates had a hatred of democracy, before researching them myself. Modern education is very careful to remove any trace of unorthodox viewpoints from its pantheon of scholars.

<comment><USER6> > Modern education is very careful to remove any trace of unorthodox > viewpoints from its pantheon of scholars.

It's not just modern education/history. It's said that history is written by people who either love or hate someone or some event. Also, history has innate biases of the writer. It's why we focus primarily on western history while arabs, indians, chinese, etc have their own version of history. All history throughout history is peppered with half truths and embellishments or sometimes outright propaganda.

> I never knew Newton was a staunch Arian before today, much like how I never > knew that Pythagoras was a strict vegetarian, or that Socrates had a hatred > of democracy

Or how columbus was an absolute genocidal butcher along with being a great discoverer. Or how genghis khan and the mongols were extremely cosmopolitan/egalitarian/merciful as well as been brutal conquerors. Or how the soviet union was at the forefront of the workers, lgbt, women's rights movement while being a horrific totalitarian nightmare. Or how Mao united a divided and brutalized china and freed china from european colonization while also starving tens of millions of chinese.

Depending on where you grow up and what history you are taught, you'll only see a particular snapshot. It's only when you make the effort yourself that you get to see the larger picture rather than the one framed by others.

<comment><USER4> > the soviet union was at the forefront of the lgbt right's movement

No way. Source? I am almost certain this is wrong.

<comment><USER7> Roaring 20s were pretty liberal in USSR too - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_history_in_Russia#LGBT_Hi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_history_in_Russia#LGBT_History_after_the_October_Revolution:_1917%E2%80%931933)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Good writeup! For a fictionalization (well informed by the same resources cited by this article) of Newton's oddness, Neal Stephenson's Baroque Cycle books are an excellent pseudo-historical romp: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Baroque_Cycle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Baroque_Cycle)

<comment><USER9> Finished the cycle last year, can't recommend it enough. The only problem is how well it intertwines the fictional from the non fictional, I'm not actually sure which parts I know about Newton's oddness is true or not.

<comment><USER10> Everyone should read that, and Cryptonomicon.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This makes me think that approaching scripture intellectually must be a waste of time.

If Newton couldn't distill any worthy insights after a lifetime of study, then there mustn't be anything to find.

I mean reading the scriptures allegorically, or as poetry or with the 'right brain' can be a valuable thing to do, but to parse them too finely seems like the wrong way to go about it.

<comment><USER12> > .. worthy insights ..

I'm curious how you would define that. As far as I understand, Newton's life was definitely colored and shaped by his theological pursuits-questioning their 'worthy'ness is raising the more fundamental argument of faith.

<comment><USER11> I mean that if Newton had found some groundbreaking insights through his lifetime of studying scripture, that we would likely have heard about them: the way we heard about calculus or gravitational theory or optics.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The classic on this topic is Keynes' Newton, the Man.

[http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/history/Extras/Keynes_New...](http://www- groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/history/Extras/Keynes_Newton.html)

> Newton was not the first of the age of reason. He was the last of the > magicians, the last of the Babylonians and Sumerians, the last great mind > which looked out on the visible and intellectual world with the same eyes as > those who began to build our intellectual inheritance rather less than > 10,000 years ago.

<comment><USER14> This is a really obnoxious quote by Keynes, who wasn't the perfect rationalist himself - might even consider _him_ a magician as well, therefore Newton was certainly not the "last"

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Why can't scientific people be spiritual? If anything, science claims only the realm of that which can be externally observed and verified, and falsified. Spirituality is similar, only that it is the exploration of that which can only be seen an experienced for oneself, internally. And any good spirituality, like any good science, doesn't try to make absolute claims.

<comment><USER16> Of course they can be 'spiritual' (i've known several), with one clear philosophical caveat: religion, by definition, is dogma which requires faith. Faith requires, by definition, that one accept as truth universal aspects with no evidence. Being a good scientist requires, among other things, to accept nothing without supporting data - which is the opposite of faith. So, religious scientists who i have known notably split their understanding of the universe in two. Over coffee with one of these chaps i'll never forget his saying "Well, there's my professional system of belief, and there's my personal awareness, and I strive to keep them separate at all times." Just for the record, i couldn't manage to do that.

<comment><USER17> > Faith requires, by definition, that one accept as truth universal aspects > with no evidence.

FWIW I'd disagree with this definition. To give a really simple example: believing in an intelligent creator based on design in nature. That's not "no evidence". Holding to a naturalistic theory of origins that explains apparent design by a long sequence of chance occurrences is equally a faith commitment.

> Over coffee with one of these chaps i'll never forget his saying "Well, > there's my professional system of belief, and there's my personal awareness, > and I strive to keep them separate at all times." Just for the record, i > couldn't manage to do that.

I agree there. One of the underlying causes of the scientific explosion around the Renaissance is the idea that the universe follows rules and can be understood, and it's _because_ it's created by God that motivated many Christian scientists like Newton, Kepler, Pascal, and others to believe that we can fruitfully explore and understand its workings. It's bizarre to me that someone would try to hold in mind a universe where different aspects are actually at odds with each other.

Edit: for instance, here's an example of Kepler's motivations for scientific discovery: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kepler#Christianity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kepler#Christianity)

<comment><USER18> >To give a really simple example: believing in an intelligent creator based on design in nature. That's not "no evidence". Holding to a naturalistic theory of origins that explains apparent design by a long sequence of chance occurrences is equally a faith commitment.

I agree that modern science still requires faith as much of what we believe is inherently difficult to definitively prove. What I'm struggling to understand is how you can say that these competing theories require an _equal_ faith commitment. By what measurement? How are the competing theories equally plausible? I actually agree when you say that the complexity of nature is "not 'no evidence'" and would add that the notion of an intelligent creator was probably the most plausible explanation available when the notion was conceived. However, plausibility has to be reevaluated and compared in the face of contrary evidence supporting other plausible theories, and I simply can't see how the competing evidence can be judged as supporting equally plausible theories.

<comment><USER19> I can give you an example/analogy that I personally believe in: I think that science and religion (the part that comes directly from scripture without intermediaries) are two ends of a really tangled morass long rope/thread. They might be different colours, thicknesses, and different textures, but they ultimately converge to being the one same thing. I think of religion as being a sort of mission statement (the why) with a some general guidelines of how to behave and what to expect (e.g. a interface in object-oriented programming), and science being a sort of detailed, meticulous set of steps (the how) to extract information from the environment and observable objects (e.g a concrete class that is supposed implementing the interface). Unfortunately/fortunately, the compiler doesn't yell at you if you aren't implementing the interface correctly, so you have to figure it out for yourself.

<comment><USER20> > directly from scripture without intermediaries

Either scripture itself was written down by intermediaries or you're already presupposing the existence of deities. (Those deities also require an explanation or you really are just talking about faith without evidence.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I've been looking for an excuse to post this to HN, and here's the perfect thread. If you (like me) are afflicted since childhood with both Science and Religion, and you don't mind chewing through something a bit meaty, this is an excellent discussion of the relation between Science and Religion.

[http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/86-FREEZE- FRA...](http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/86-FREEZE-FRAME- IMAGES.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER22> A very nice video about the work of Newton and Liebniz (with the actual papers on a table read by the host)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObPg3ki9GOI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObPg3ki9GOI)

</comment><comment><USER23> One thing I learned here was that Newton was anti-trinitarian. In Christan circles he is often held up as an example of Christian scientist, but I've never heard it mentioned that he was also technically a heretic.</comment>


Bitcoin Guarantees Strong, Not Eventual, Consistency - <AUTHOR> http://hackingdistributed.com/2016/03/01/bitcoin-guarantees-strong-not-eventual-consistency/ <comment><USER2> ... but with as little as 15% of mining capacity concentrated in a single miner, z=6 doesn't even provide a 99.9% guarantee, let alone achieving a rate lower than the proverbial radiation-induced bit flip. (see the famous bitcoin paper [https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf](https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf) down on page 8)</comment>


Facebook thinks the answer to its fake news problems is Wikipedia - <AUTHOR> https://www.fastcompany.com/40477586/facebook-thinks-the-answer-to-its-fake-news-problems-is-wikipedia <comment><USER2> Jesus H. Christ all they're doing is adding a link to something else on the internet and they think that's even remote attempting to fix the problem?? How many product managers and engineers came together to build that solution?

This is just awful. Has anyone looked at certain wikipedia pages for towns or politicians? They're all written by PR flaks and Chamber of Commerce committees.

Facebook, in their desire to do nothing and spend no money, wants to push the responsibility of this onto the free web?? Did they even make a donation to Wikipedia??

Facebook (and Google) are utterly incompetent, atrophied husks of corporations devoid of all creativity. They offer nothing, build nothing, and do nothing. This is so sad.

FYI here is the Oct 5th official release: [https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2017/10/news-feed-fyi-new- test-...](https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2017/10/news-feed-fyi-new-test-to- provide-context-about-articles/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Oh what a surprise, the guy in charge of this "idea", Andrew Anker (tagged in press release), went to a private boarding school in Connecticut that has an endowment of $500 million.

For anyone wondering why I'm pointing this out, it's not that I'm anti- intellectual but just a vague sense that the more prestigious one's education the greater threat to society / less competent they seem to be.

It is a generalization, but it comes specifically from this book:

Excellent Sheep: The Miseducation of the American Elite and the Way to a Meaningful Life [https://www.amazon.com/dp/1476702721](https://www.amazon.com/dp/1476702721)

EDIT: Anker was a board member of Pando, a site of some integrity and which chose to switch to the subscription model (good choice), so want to mention that at least. Thanks for supporting them Anker, sorry you had to go over 100% to the dark side though.</comment>


Ask HN: What new non-technical thing are you looking forward to in 2016? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I am extremely curious to see how the GOP deals with Trump.

Climate change has opened up a favorite, remote camp site early. I am eager to go early and explore places and see things, like rocks, normally covered in water, or plants early in their cycle, not normally seen. That is kind of technical though...

My youngest moved out. Looking forward to figuring out how to live as a couple again!

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I'm looking forward to a bunch of reading, starting with 'Mindset' by Carol Dweck but also 'Daemon' by Daniel Suarez for something non-work related. I read too much non-fiction at present and having a break that doesn't involve screens is important.

<comment><USER3> There's a sequel to Daemon, you might as well pick it up now!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Now that there's snow in the hills, there might be a good deer season in 2016. In 2015, they were all hiding in the farmers' fields at the bottom of the valleys (in eastern Washington) because all the regular vegetation was dead higher up.</comment>


Rewiring the Brain to Create New Senses - <AUTHOR> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/rewiring-the-brain-to-create-new-senses <comment><USER2> Fragmentation of the senses - everyone would be wired differently and one day we might not be able to ask "Did you feel that?" and assume the other person know what we mean.</comment>


Greta Lighthouse – site performance insights based on real user conditions - <AUTHOR> https://lighthouse.greta.io/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hey HN! I'm Dennis, CTO & co-founder of Greta, [https://greta.io](https://greta.io) \- a tool to help monitor and improve your content delivery in real-time.

Based on the Google Lighthouse scoring, we released a new tool to generate a report providing deeper and more accurate insights into your users' perceived performance. We are considering parameters such as geography and type of device to simulate real user conditions. We think this is valuable and hope you'll find it too! We're happy to get feedback or answer any questions you might have!</comment>


Show HN: Centralize product management and track time – Try for free - <AUTHOR> https://taskbite.io <comment><USER2> wth... the site keeps switching between themes about every 500ms. never seen that before.</comment>