The Banana As We Know It Is Dying Again - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2017/12/27/banana-fungus-panama-disease/ <comment><USER2> I managed to get a banana cultivar called an ice cream banana [1] at a farmer's market in Oahu, Hawaii. It was the best banana I've ever had. I wish there was more of a willingness to explore selling a wider variety of bananas. We have 5-10 kinds of apples in my local grocery store in New York and the same is true for the other US states I've lived (including Oklahoma).

Why is only a single banana cultivar typically available in US stores when there are multiple cultivars of apples, pears, and even avocados typically for sale?

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

<comment><USER3> There are, in Brazil you get at least 3 to 5 bananas in every single market.

Some are more sweet like "Prata" some are bigger like "Nanica", some are smaller like "Banana ouro" or one that smells somewhat like an apple called "banana maça".

There is also one for cooking "Banana da terra" used to make fish dishes mainly.

If you go to farmers there are even more.

It's probably a cultural thing, in the Netherlands you can find mainly 2 types, regular international one and the Cooking kind because of Asians mostly, which makes me really sad, Australia is like that as well.

<comment><USER4> "Caturra" and "nanica" are both types of Cavendish. They, as well as "prata" and "maçã" are all part of group AAA and are affected by the fungus.

Just having more types on the market doesn't help, you need types that resist the fungus.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I've seen this story about the Cavendish banana for close to 20 years now. I think the first time was on Slashdot in the late nineties or early aughts. Every time, the article predicts the imminent death of the varietal.

The articles always make a persuasive case. So, why hasn't it happened yet? What is the crucial detail that these articles always leave out?

<comment><USER6> _> So, why hasn't it happened yet? What is the crucial detail that these articles always leave out?_

This article makes the point. The fungus has no quick propogation methods, as it's only spread by moving infected earth: it's simply very resilient once established.

So the last X years have been a slow motion "We know this is a problem. It's becoming a bigger and bigger problem. Eventually it will be an insurmountable problem."

The article also notes that there were a substantial number of "flex years" the last time this happened, as deforestation was used to open up new, un- infected land for banana cultivation.

In summary: it's like the IPv6 problem.

We knew it was coming, but resource exhaustion takes time.

<comment><USER7> I love how a parallel can be drawn between bananas and IPV6

<comment><USER8> Inedible Plantains Version 6?

<comment><USER9> Innocuous Plantains Version 6.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> In south east Asia we get many different types of banana. I've come to prefer many of the less sweet varieties. If the Cavendish goes extinct my hope would be that we stop this mono-culture nonsense and embrace variety much like we have with apples etc.

<comment><USER11> This was a big disappointment for me in moving to North America — how little variety there is in the grocery stores, and how bland the tastes.

Actually I'm overstating it — there's _lots_ of variety in engineered food sounds like breakfast cereals (though interestingly not in potato chip flavors) but the fruit and veggie choices in the supermarkets are pretty limited and boring.

<comment><USER12> Try moving to Norway and then tell me you think that the selection in North America has little variety!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'd be disinclined to refer to Cavendish as a cultivar, let alone a species; they are clones, copied not bred - what sickens one will sicken them all.

<comment><USER14> What makes a cultivar though?

(the clones obviously belong to some species)

On one side, the consistent fruit makes a cultivar. What's the other side?

<comment><USER15> My understanding is how they reproduce. A cultivar reproduces "sexually", and is "true to seed". If you plant the seed you get the same or very similar plant (which produces the same seeds).

To clone is to trick an organism to divide into two or more organisms. This means they have the same strengths and weaknesses because they have nearly the same genes.

Cloning can be done by rooting cuttings of a plant or attaching a cutting of a desirable plant to a root stock of a less desirable version (or a version with qualities like limited height to keep the tree small)

<comment><USER14> Bananas self clone, growing horizontal roots that turn into whole banana plants. So they do propagate themselves.

<comment><USER15> Apparently bananas as we know them are a mostly sterile hybrid of two other trees.

They self propagate like you say (but humans also spread them around). Bananas have a near zero rate of sexual reproduction, if you can get one to produce a seed, it's viability is low.

If you can get the seed to germinate, the resulting "offspring" from that will be distinct from the original banana, a new variety. It will not necessarily be "true to seed". It might be a better banana, or worse.

If you plant a lettuce seed you will get the same lettuce, year over year. Same with peppers and tomatoes, etc. Their traits were bred instead of cloned.

<comment><USER16> While generally correct the last paragraph is a bit off.

You "might" get the same pepper, lettuce or tomato. If the parent was non- hybrid or open pollinated.

If it's a lettuce, pepper or tomato from the grocery store almost for sure it's a hybrid and you won't get the same plant as the parent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Past HN entries on the Cavendish:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13883805](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13883805)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12263727](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12263727)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10653220](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10653220)

<comment><USER18> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15425918](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15425918)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I'll once again post this Damn Interesting article about banana varieties: [https://www.damninteresting.com/the-unfortunate-sex-life- of-...](https://www.damninteresting.com/the-unfortunate-sex-life-of-the- banana/)

</comment><comment><USER20> The Flexport folks published a blog post last year on the coming banana apocalypse: [https://www.flexport.com/blog/supply-chain-of-the- banana/](https://www.flexport.com/blog/supply-chain-of-the-banana/)

It's really worth reading. (There's lots of great stuff on the Flexport blog.)

</comment><comment><USER21> I'll be watching this closely as a precursor of more damage to come. If the fungus is able to make it from Southeast Asia to the Americas, then the rubber plants in Southeast Asia may soon fall to the South American leaf blight. That would cause the complete destruction of the global natural rubber market.

Excellent additional reading in Growing American Rubber by Mark R. Finlay.

<comment><USER22> Also, Fordlandia.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> All ethical thoughts aside for a moment (most of this article actually made me sad), is there any remaining strain of the Gros Michel?

Seems to me from the articles' tone like the Cavendish was more of an inferior stopgap solution. If we start genetic fixing bananas, doesn't it make sense to start on the "better model"?

<comment><USER24> I think that's a great idea, but economically all the investment right now is probably in saving the Cavendish banana. Not only is that what modern customers are familiar with but it's also what the industry is set up to produce.

However, it that succeeds, perhaps it will inspire people to duplicate the feat with the Big Mike / Gros Michel. And inspire investment to back that, both for profit potential from a "new" product and for insurance in case some new problem befalls the Cavendish.

But I'd bet investors don't want to divide their efforts right now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> This Fusarium situation almost seems like timing an economic collapse. I'm not exaggerating when I say I've been reading articles about the coming bananapocalypse since grade school. So maybe we _should_ be convinced it's going to happen, but when? Next year? Next decade? 2045?

</comment><comment><USER26> As an aside, I don't really like the most common banana available in Australia. Growing up in the southern part of India, I distinctly remember 7 varieties which I haven't seen elsewhere. If the death of the most common banana means others may become more commonly available, I'm all for it.

<comment><USER27> I don't think people there care for Cavendish much anyway ;) It isn't considered at par with other varieties.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Is there anywhere that one can get the Gros Michel? I vaguely remember the bananas I ate in Asia tasting different.

<comment><USER29> IIRC, they're still produced in Thailand, so depending on the part of Asia you were in, you may have already had it.

<comment><USER30> Correct, I'm living in Thailand currently and the local bananas all look very much like Gros Michels. They taste great to me and are super cheap, very good joules per money.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> _Though Southeast Asia, where bananas originated, grows dozens of varieties of banana, the Cavendish is the only kind deemed acceptable for export._

This is a pity because a lot of the bananas you see here in SE Asia are more flavorful than the Cavendish anyway. Industrial agriculture's need to produce identical, identifiable, marketable products year after year is responsible for some very destructive and fragile monocultures.

<comment><USER27> Yes indeed, a pity. The "export worthy" Cavendish is not considered worthy in local markets though.

<comment><USER31> It's kind of the Red Delicious of bananas. Somebody just needs to educate consumers about the alternatives.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> The fact that this was a story, then stopped being a story, and is now a thing again, with no interaction on my end, makes me sleep much better at night. Stop caring about the variables you can't control, and you'll live a better life. There were even people who prospered when world war II happened. Bernard Russell said that WWII was one of the best times of his life, personally.

</comment><comment><USER33> I also wonder, if in addition to looking at genetically modifying the banana to be resistant, what about modifying the fungus so that a strain is symbiotic with the banana and instead of killing it's host, it was able to keep going because the host isn't killed?

That's all very hand wavy, but I was thinking, might not another alternative be modifying the enemy (bacteria or virus) so that there is a selective weight to a more beneficial alternate bacteria? Of course, any part of humans trying to manage the food supply, or nature in general, will have unintended downstream consequences, but I wonder if there are some other ways to approach the problem.

Also, of commercial bananas don't replicate via seeds, why do they have seeds at all?

</comment><comment><USER34> I remember when I was in Australia a few years back, a friend told me the government was running an entire campaign to destroy banana plans because they got this thing that led to spots on the banana. But my friend said it didn't hurt the plant or reduce the lifespan of the banana.

But the government started slashing people's plants on their own property to eradicate it. The whole thing was funded by banana farms and forced people to buy from farms rather than grown their own.

I don't think that's what the article is referring to, but do any Australians here remember that campaign? What was that specific disease?

</comment><comment><USER35> [https://abgc.org.au/2015/05/21/what-assistance-is- resistance...](https://abgc.org.au/2015/05/21/what-assistance-is-resistance/)

It seems the industry has been working on -

\- identifying "tolerant" varieties of Cavendish (there's more than one)

\- a GM fusarium-resistant Cavendish

\- management regimes for growing fusarium-tolerant crops in infested soil

Looks like bananas won't be disappearing but could be becoming more expensive for a while.

</comment><comment><USER36> The article seems to promote lab grown method of planting over shoot from parent based method. Ideally the shoot from plants would be much better because if one plantation gets affected it might not affect the other plantations as they are not shared and there is a vast distribution of the same variety.

</comment><comment><USER37> The changes in bananas over time are pretty fascinating.

[https://www.damninteresting.com/the-unfortunate-sex-life- of-...](https://www.damninteresting.com/the-unfortunate-sex-life-of-the- banana/)

</comment><comment><USER38> Would it be possible to grow bananas locally from the seed tip (provided you have a controlled growing environment)?

Also, seeing as these are clones.... Is there any way to _breed_ this species of banana for more variety.

<comment><USER39> Some varieties of banana do rarely breed. IFAIK, cavendish doesn't.

I just don't get why people want to import only that variety. It's not great any any way besides being easy to package. Transportation is quite fast nowadays, it shouldn't be that big a problem.

<comment><USER14> It's not people, it's "the system".

Faster transportation costs more and they have to be shipped before they are ripe and then triggered to ripen in time for sale. And then while they are for sale they probably do better if they are attractive and consistent and known by the consumer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> It seems like there is a single exact fungus which is causing the trouble.

Can someone explain why it is not possible to create some sort of targeted fungus killer, maybe using something like CRISPR?

<comment><USER41> Possibly because...

1) It's really hard and we just don't know how yet

2) Creating an engineered biological weapon and releasing it into the environment just might have some unintended consequences when it starts interacting with all the things out there which could cause it to mutate

I doubt our understanding of biology is strong enough to be sure that we could do something like that without causing major problems. It would, possibly, be more viable to construct an altered version of the fungus itself which could outcompete the one that kills the bananas, which is the kind of approach that has been investigated for controlling other pests such as mosquitos (although in that case they engineer mosquitos which produce sterile female offspring but viable males, so the males keep breeding and producing more sterile females... eventually you run out of fertile females and tada! No more mosquitos).

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> This story again? This is bananas!

</comment><comment><USER43> I see these at a cadence that works with price engineering. I don't believe it. I think it is like "ham supply is constrained this easter" and then they mark up the prices and there are the same number of hams. They were engineering the market, not presenting an actual problem.

This looks like that.

<comment><USER44> Skepticism is a great trait, but it should be your catalyst, not your conclusion. The article(s) showing this have numbers that support the claim, not to mention the history of previous cultivars' demise via similar mechanisms. Do you have something to the contrary?

<comment><AUTHOR>
      Skepticism is a great trait, but it should be your catalyst, not your conclusion.

That's very well put. Can I steal it?

<comment><USER44> MIT license. ;)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is a paid junior high traineeship worth it in the long term? - <AUTHOR> I am a junior at high school and I was offered a position to work as an IT traineeship at a school, due to my background in IT.
It most likly would be for two years, Tuesday and Thursday all day.
I am unsure if it is worthwhile, yes I would be earning a modest amount of money for my age, but it would cut out time out of school.
WHat are your opinions / thoughts? <comment><USER2> You said junior high and I thought you were in middle school (ages 12-14, grades 6-8 for my friends not in the US).

What's your workload like in school? Do you go to a prestigious school, where you're expected to go Ivy League or bust? What do you want to do in 10 years?

I think that having a solid "hey I did this at this age, check me out" is great. If you want to be a writer, having a book published (regardless of whether or not it sells more than 100 copies) is impressive — at your age, it's really impressive to a lot of people.

If you want to be a cook, having a recipe you developed in a mag is amazing. At your age, it's really impressive to a lot of people.

Who do you want to impress? Yourself? Your family? Your peers? Your educators? And _why_ and for _what gain_?

You sound like a very smart kid (I'm 24, so take that as you will), and I'm sure you'll be just fine regardless.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your reply, I rushed my initial post due to the fact that I had to be out somewhere else.

I am finishing Junior High, this year and the job traineeship was offered to me over the two years at Senior High.

MIT, if possible. An interesting job with something to do with computers (and possibly law).

That is partially why I think it would be good do it, for the experience and the right to differenciate myself from others.

Not myself or my family for sure. Possibly my peers and edocators, but rather I hope it would help me get into 'the field'.

Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> EDIT: Sorry, I made a typo, it is a senior high traineeship. Apologies.</comment>


5 False Conceptions About Space - <AUTHOR> http://www.cosmosup.com/5-false-conceptions-about-space/

<comment><USER2> The mods could auto-flag this site and it wouldn't hurt my feelings one bit. As much of a space nerd as I admittedly am, these science-lite and content- free (and not typo-free) articles don't add anything to HN at all.

</comment><comment><USER3> More blogspam. Again. This account seems only ever to post links to this site, quite consistently at about 1 or 2 per day, and they only ever appear to be copies of something else.

Please, stop spamming.</comment>


Why are people against the bailout - revenge? - <AUTHOR> http://www.predictablyirrational.com/?p=301&date=1

<comment><USER2> No. The bailout protects a broken system and pushes the problem downstream. You need to bail water out of the boat, sure, but ya gotta patch the hole up too, or you aren't going to get anyplace.

<comment><AUTHOR> The title is not TFA.

<comment><USER2> Not being dense, but what is TFA?

<comment><AUTHOR> <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/RTFA>

<comment><USER2> Ah, thanks for clearing that up. I actually did read the article, I just happen to disagree that revenge is the primary motivation for the American people's lack of support for the bailout. I may be a bit too idealistic in my assessment though.

<comment><AUTHOR> The reason I thought the article was interesting was not because it purports to explain the actual motivation of people who are not in favor of the bailout. Rather it describes interesting experimental evidence about why that could be a plausible contributor due to a hard-wired aspect of our brains.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


How French "Intellectuals" Ruined the West - <AUTHOR> https://areomagazine.com/2017/03/27/how-french-intellectuals-ruined-the-west-postmodernism-and-its-impact-explained/ <comment><USER2> What's most fun about anti-pomo hit pieces like this one is how decidedly postmodern their polemics are. More frustratingly, there is no unitary postmodernism, because it was a broad confederated movement, so undoubtedly there are postmodern thinkers who the author would sympathize with and others who she would hate.

The author's motivations are revealed in the conclusion:

>Our current crisis is not one of Left versus Right but of consistency, reason, humility and universal liberalism versus inconsistency, irrationalism, zealous certainty and tribal authoritarianism. The future of freedom, equality and justice looks equally bleak whether the postmodern Left or the post-truth Right wins this current war. Those of us who value liberal democracy and the fruits of the Enlightenment and Scientific Revolution and modernity itself must provide a better option.

She's upset that classical liberalism has been abandoned on the right and modernist socialism has been abandoned on the left, and wants to carve out a return to reason for classical liberals in the center. There are two issues with this.

The problem with the idea of the right or liberal "left" returning to classical liberal thought is that the classical liberal thought of the 19th century was unable to answer questions that came up as capitalism and liberal society developed. Different answers led to different traditions: modern liberalism, conservatism, and right-wing libertarianism. You can't just undo 250 years of development and pretend that the world is how it was when Smith and Locke were writing.

The problem with her idea that the left should return to modernist traditions (e.g. the social democratic tradition, communism, anarchism, etc.) is that the left already has. The fastest growing political movement in the United States (and in most European countries, most notably the UK) is socialism. The group spearheading this movement in the US is the DSA, whose largest caucus is the Refoundation Caucus, a Marxist and Leninist (but _not_ Marxist-Leninist) group. Postmodernism has been essentially been absent from the left since the 1990s, with the only exception being the academic "left."

Regardless, despite its many flaws, we are all better off for postmodernism happening. The "inconsistency, irrationalism, zealous certainty and tribal authoritarianism" that the author rails against is exactly what Foucault, Derrida, et al. were writing against. They revealed grand errors in mainstream intellectual thought, and that shouldn't be diminished by the fact that their analyses weren't otherwise very useful.</comment>


The first cash machines used Carbon-14 to check authenticity - <AUTHOR> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6230194.stm

<comment><AUTHOR> If you have access to the IEEE Annals of History of Computing then there's an interesting article that delves into the history of the cash machine in the UK.

[http://www.computer.org/csdl/mags/an/2011/03/man2011030032-a...](http://www.computer.org/csdl/mags/an/2011/03/man2011030032-abs.html)

Prior to the invention of the plastic card this system used paper cheques impregnated with carbon 14 and an associated PIN to 'cash' the cheque and turn it into cash at a machine.

</comment><comment><USER2> Actually this gives me an idea. Could you use carbon dating to compare a bills age with the serial number or date minted to prevent counterfiets?

Or perhaps the treasury could start embedding carbon 14 into bills?

(wow I really need to start patentng this stuff!)

<comment><USER3> Euro notes already have small amounts of the element Europium within them as an anti-forgery mechanism - which might be prior art :-)

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europium>

<comment><USER2> I wonder how they chose that element...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Interestingly he even appears to have predicted Google Wallet.

"He believes fervently that we will soon be swiping our mobile phones at till points, even for small transactions. "</comment>


Hundreds of thousands of people read novels on Instagram - <AUTHOR> https://www.fastcompany.com/90392917/the-next-big-reading-platform-may-be-instagram <comment><USER3> Try it yourself, it's pretty cool like an instant ebook.

Metamorphosis: [https://www.instagram.com/s/aGlnaGxpZ2h0OjE3ODUyMTE0ODA2MzA3...](https://www.instagram.com/s/aGlnaGxpZ2h0OjE3ODUyMTE0ODA2MzA3Njgy?igshid=1s219emfk4x6l&story_media_id=1927598101380494085)

The Raven: [https://www.instagram.com/s/aGlnaGxpZ2h0OjE3OTYyMTk5MTcwMTYz...](https://www.instagram.com/s/aGlnaGxpZ2h0OjE3OTYyMTk5MTcwMTYzNDYy?igshid=pwpd1dm8qi10&story_media_id=1902019574360286528)

Alice In Wonderland: [https://www.instagram.com/s/aGlnaGxpZ2h0OjE3OTQ0MTEwMzE5MTg4...](https://www.instagram.com/s/aGlnaGxpZ2h0OjE3OTQ0MTEwMzE5MTg4NDkx?igshid=a9zsopdzuodn&story_media_id=1851468855614171599)

—

I find the top comment quite cynical, it's literally the same as reading text on an ebook or even paperback. IMO once you get engrossed in a story the medium falls away. It's cool that people are experimenting with a platform in a way maybe not originally intended, but that's the beauty of it. No one can really foresee all the things you can do with a new platform/technology.

<comment><USER4> > it's literally the same as reading text on an ebook or even paperback

Not literally. On an ebook I can add inline notes and then jump to them later (I occasionally do this when a passage sparks an idea). And search text.

<comment><USER5> What ebook reader are you using? I've added a few notes to some books on my Paperwhite Kindle and it's a terrible experience. I have no idea where the notes are and, depending on the document type, it may or may not be synced to all the places I read Kindle books.

The iPad with the Pencil seems promising. If I could underline and scribble notes (that are recognized and indexed) it might be good enough to move me off of Kindle and their great e-ink screens. I have no idea if iBooks does that though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Since a few comments mention the superiority of "real books", maybe those with that opinion see Instagram as downgrading the reading experience.

For some perspective, keep in mind that many famous novels were originally magazine or newspaper installments.[0]

Therefore, reading works like Dumas' "Count of Monte Cristo", Dostoevsky's "Crime & Punishment", or Tolstoy's "Anna Karenina" \-- in consolidated book form -- is the _incorrect method of reading their words_. And the correct way to read Charles Dickens is in partial installments to stop at the cliffhanger and then wait a month to resume the story.

Or maybe, the Instagram'ing of novels can be seen as harmless re-serializing of books.

An aside about what "reading" really is...

Some think that _listening_ to the words of a book (e.g. Audible) instead of seeing the words with eyeballs is also _not really reading_. Does this also mean that blind people are never really "reading" unless their fingers are touching braille?

But the reverse can be true. We're consuming "The Iliad" incorrectly if reading it as a book since it was originally orally transmitted instead of written down.

For some, the physical medium _defines_ what reading is. I don't agree with that but it's clear some really have rigid opinions about how the authors' words are supposed to enter our brains.

EDIT ADD: similar bite-sized reading behavior on smartphones in China explained by a16z Connie Chan. It's not too different from Charles Dickens serializations in the 19th century. Deeplink about China's mobile book economy at 6m25s: [https://youtu.be/78pLIj4xeVs?t=6m25s](https://youtu.be/78pLIj4xeVs?t=6m25s)

[0] [https://booksonthewall.com/blog/serial-novel-a-brief- history...](https://booksonthewall.com/blog/serial-novel-a-brief-history/)

<comment><USER7> You will find a certain argument that you are "reading" _all_ poetry wrong, if you are not reading it aloud.

<comment><USER6> Likewise, "The Iliad" with its repetitions of text that look tedious in written form is really a long poem that's meant to be performed and heard. The oral repetitions are a memory aid for the audience listening to the story. Some historians say the itinerant wanderer would also have a lute to pluck some music accompaniment to add drama to key parts of the poem.

<comment><USER8> The Iliad has nothing on other literature from around the same time and earlier, most of which is Egyptian or Babylonian / Akkadian. The latter, especially, I find damn near un-readable for that reason. What little Ancient Egyptian storytelling we have is similar, lots of repetition probably to make it easier to recite from memory, but (massive exception of Gilgamesh aside—holy crap it's good) they're better storytellers so it's a bit more tolerable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Am I the only one that's skeptical of the claim that "300,000 people are reading books this way"?

That there are 300k people who are now suddenly "reading" books that have been available in a _huge_ variety of formats in the public domain for years because they show up on Instagram?

Show me the actual usage data. How many of these 300k got past page 3?

The design is nice, the presentation is good, yes, but I doubt very seriously the existence of this hidden, neglected population of bibliophiles.

<comment><USER6> _> now suddenly "reading" books that have been available in a huge variety of formats in the public domain for years because they show up on Instagram?_

I can't speak to the 300k number but an increase in readership is plausible because I saw how _reducing friction_ to consume a book can massively change reading habits. E.g. my friend with the new Kindle finally got around to reading the classics like "Madame Bovary" and "Anna Karenina" because she could get ebooks from Amazon for $0.00 (or sometimes a tiny amount like 95 cents).

The previous existence of those public domain books on Gutenberg Project's website was irrelevant since the HTML or TXT files weren't easy to consume unless one printed them out on a printer.

Yes, public domain books have always been sold on Amazon as real paper books but the shipping would end up being $3.99 even for a book costing $0.00.

The Kindle e-reader was the technology to enable her to read public domain books for free with minimum friction. (Even a trip to the public library to check out and later return a physical book for "free" is too much of a hassle.)

I can see how this NYPL project is trying to make a friction-free book reading experience for Instagram users who already own their smartphones. No Kindle purchase necessary. (In my other comment, I mention how millions of Chinese people are reading books on their smartphones.)

<comment><USER9> I hear you, but I remain skeptical about any sort of significant uptick in adoption of, not of e-reading in general, but of _these particular books_.

You mention a friend who read chose to read "Madame Bovary" and "Anna Karenina" upon discovering a cheap and convenient e-book format. Those books are classics in the Western Canon, yes, but they are also slogs, by some measures.

The other thing that happened, and continues to happen in parallel with the explosion of e-reading tech, is an explosion of other things to (copyrighted) read, written in the modern colloquial, (perhaps more) relevant to modern times. The rise of the tepid, self-published novel on Amazon is the best example of this.

I can believe that there is a latent desire out there for more good books to read or a cool new tech to use to read them, but I doubt very much that very old books in the public domain sate that thirst in any significant way. I think your friend is in the minority.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Wow, talking about putting the horse behind the carriage.

So, people don't have the concentration to read a book anymore. But instead of fixing the cause of this, whatever it is, we mangle them through platforms that weren't designed for it and if there is some success, we claim that people are reading again. Of course they are not. It's a whole different experience. It can be nice and it can add to the experiences that we already knew, but it is definitely not the same as reading a book. It is more like seeing the movie adaptation of the book.

Books have remained the same for centuries. If people are suddenly unable to read them anymore, it is far more likely that it is the people that need "fixing", and not the books.

<comment><USER11> > it can add to the experiences that we already knew, but it is definitely not > the same as reading a book. It is more like seeing the movie adaptation of > the book.

In full text, in text only form, verbatim

Explain the distinction you are making again and why do you feel it is a productive distinction to make?

<comment><USER12> The article says there are animations which "bring the story to life". Normal adult readers don't need pictures and animations to aid engagement/understanding - people who are more used to watching movies or reading series of tweets/reaction gifs might.

<comment><USER13> I'm reading a book right now, as an adult, that has illustrations in it.

What harm? It's a little extra fun that the words are wrapped in some lovely illustrations by a well respected illustrator.

It's not detracting from the novel in the least.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Here's [1] NYPL's website for the project.

The site details out the motivation behind the project, provides a list of novels released and to come. It is also loaded with eye candy from the gorgeous animation and design examples.

Not to turn the subject to IP but I think this is a wonderful example of what can be done with the public domain:

>Each book so far in the Insta Novels Collection has come from the public domain.

[https://www.instanovels.work/](https://www.instanovels.work/)

<comment><USER15> It wouldn't be hard to push these to Snapchat too and maybe get kids to read [and get off my lawn].

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Another example of how technologically inferior platforms can be successful given the right exposure. (this is obviously inferior because the user cannot reflow the text, change font color, copy paste, highlight, etc.)

<comment><USER17> Nor in some cases even read at all [https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING- WCAG20/visual-audio-cont...](https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING- WCAG20/visual-audio-contrast-text-presentation.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Isn't this exactly what Steve Jobs hoped would happen when iBooks was introduced? That a new, multimedia format where books "come to life with animations and video" would be born... granted he hoped such creators would do this for the ipad's ebooks and not Insta-Face-App.

</comment><comment><USER19> A part of me is appalled, but another is amused and intrigued. "The street finds its own uses for things," I guess.

</comment><comment><USER20> I'm intrigued, and yet horrified by the amount of bandwidth that all of these images must be consuming.

<comment><USER11> The CDN has already cached it for the company and the users are probably on wifi so why think about it

Even if it was cellular...

<comment><USER21> Well, there's _taste_ , and I agree with GP here - I too find such things distasteful. It's not much waste in the grand scheme of things, but it's still ridiculously wasteful, and the more wastefulness is accepted, the more it adds up everywhere.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> It is likely that if you did an experiment that compared retention and understanding of reading with the real books and these Instagram Stories, the readers of real books would trounce the Instagram readers. I suppose that something is better than nothing but at a certain point, I also wonder, what is the point of doing this? I wonder how many Instagram readers will drop their habits and read more? I also wonder how many of these readers will finish the books? I didn't see that information presented in the article.

<comment> dawg- Any given Instagram reader may not have read a real book in their life - <USER2> maybe they are avid readers who read constantly. All the same, there will always be readers and non-readers.

Literary snobs today imagine a past world where everybody was constantly discussing the finer points of the classic masterpieces every day of their lives. In reality only about 12% of the global population in 1820 was _literate_. And that's just baseline, not to speak of people who actually spent time reading difficult, thoughtful, full-length books.

Thoreau has a great passage in Walden (published in the 1850s) where he complains about people knowing how to read, yet spending their time reading garbage romance novels instead of classics like the Iliad. I think the complaint of people "reading books" on Instagram comes from the exact same place. It's a timeless problem, which is not really a problem.

Even when global literacy reaches 100%, there will still be a very small percentage of people who are hardcore readers. There is a certain kind of person who will sit down with a big heavy paper book and read it cover to cover, and they are not a common species among humans. It's something you are born with, or something that you gain in very early childhood anyway, and nothing Instagram does will ever change that.

So there's really no use in complaining about it one way or the other. Instagrammers will instagram. Some of them will read real books too, and others will not.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> This also reminds me of this company [1] _wavve_ , which I first noticed on Indie Hackers. They basically convert podcasts to videos for social media and generate huge (Stripe-verified) profits from providing the service.

This just shows the enormity of the Instagram user-base. A tiny fraction of niche users on Instagram can add up to a massive market...

[1] [https://www.indiehackers.com/product/wavve](https://www.indiehackers.com/product/wavve)

</comment><comment><USER24> If you'd like to do something similar, but for your blog (or any website really) -- I wrote an app that produces segmented videos in both Instagram Story / square aspect ratios. It's called StoryScroll => [https://neal.rs/app](https://neal.rs/app)

Here's a demo video => [https://youtu.be/u1k1JZtDzuU](https://youtu.be/u1k1JZtDzuU)

</comment><comment><USER25> Ever since I read the A Song of Ice and Fire books on my phone from plain text files I acquired (don't ask me how) on a reader app, paper books feel like a much more inferior experience. On my phone, I can control the text size, the font, can control the screen brightness, have a night mode option, and can read in the dark. Furthermore, my phone is always with me, so I don't need to carry around an additional device or a book.

</comment><comment> ga-vu So if you miss a story, you miss a page. :)))

This is actually... kinda useless.

<comment><USER26> For 300.000 people it is... kinda useful. And the books are shared via the highlight function of Instagram. It's like stories, but they aren't deleted after 24h. They stay in your profile and can be watched again and again until you delete them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Really excited about these kind of steps taken towards multimedia literature and digitalization of it. For quite some time, school textbooks and literature has been brought to touch screen devices or otherwise digitalized on other devices as-is - pages with text as we have known it for long time. Modern tech could enable much more deeper and interactable content for both studies and leisure reading.

<comment><USER28> and yet in my experience most HNers and similar tech communities want all docs in plain text, tex, or very simple markdown

suggest that Wikipedia would be better if it's physics articles had interactive simulations or that stack overflow's failed docs initiative should make room for working examples and get downvoted into oblivion

<comment><USER29> We've seen some interactive education projects on HN (the famous page on raytracing, the one where there's everything about curves, many audio-based projects) and they have had great reception. I think the reason why most devs still prefer plain-text resources over anything else is two-fold: interactive stuff tends to be less standard (because there isn't really a good standard for it) and harder to version than text, but also for interactive education/documentation tools to be accepted, they need to meet a certain high bar of quality, otherwise they are just eye-candy with insufficient value-add. When developing such tools, I believe there is a point of immersion after which they clearly become superior to text materials to most people including otherwise text-heavy devs, but if an author of such interactive tool fails to reach this level, their work is seen as a distraction, because you still need to refer elsewhere. Stack Overflow's documentation examples (as much as I really wished the initiative would succeed) were very far from reaching this bar. They were not organized well, lackluster and were not interactive enough either.

<comment><USER30> > _I think the reason why most devs still prefer plain-text resources over > anything else is..._

I think you missed a vital reason and that is portability and sharability. No one needs to install anything special to read or edit a text file.

It's the digital equivalent of paper and pen when you think about it and that makes it a popular platform for _everyone_ to be able to consume it.

Plus, back when we were all old and dinosaurs roamed the Earth, the text file was the lightest/smallest way to transfer data (read: ideas) between computers.

The practice/behaviour saturated the industry so much that many readmes of today are _still_ on text files.

Maybe there's a correlation to the real world, where we're definitely more apt to consume mediums that don't have superfluous data points than the words/ideas that they're meant to convey? Maybe I'm just talking out of my ass?

Either way, plain-text resources are the easiest to create, share, and consume because there's almost a universality in the standard for text files (except the EOL and CRLF but that's more of an inconvenience than anything).

<comment><USER29> This is what I meant by standardization but I used a wrong term. I completely agree with you. At the basis, there will always need to be plain text, which should result in a wide variety of viewers and editors becoming available. In order for interactive visualizations to succeed among software devs, they can't be a SaaS, they need to become a part of the plumbing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> There's no way 300000 people are actually reading entire books this way. Probably not even 3000. They're just clicking/swiping to get thru their entire stories feed, and these just happen to be in the mix.

</comment><comment><USER32> These look very cool! They clearly put a lot of thought into the design, and it's always nice to see these sorts of novel efforts to encourage reading.</comment>


Original, 10 minute ambiences and music for your tabletop role-playing games - <AUTHOR> http://tabletopaudio.com/

<comment><USER2> This is great. You should have an offer a combined zip file with all the mp3's as a $5 download. I would pay for it.

</comment><comment><USER3> Wow, this is great!

I mean, I stopped playing AD&D about five years ago after our party had shrunk to just two players, then our DM got married, ... Anyway, back then, this would have been _awesome_!!! It was always a struggle to find good background music...

</comment><comment><USER4> My god! I've been wanting this for so long. If your site breaks from being used too much, now you know why.</comment>


Will Bitcoin Make a Good Investment? - <AUTHOR> https://beth.technology/bitcoin-investment/ <comment><USER2> Seeing so many comments (some here, but in general everywhere) still trying to argue and convince people that BTC has no value and you might as well burn your money.

BTC has been around for a decade, how many more decades does it need to be around before people will admit that hey, maybe, for some reason, this has _some sort of value_?

People still arguing that BTC has _no use_.. 10 years of usage, adoption, and rising value would seem to offer a different opinion.

Is it going to be around forever? Who knows. Maybe it goes bust tomorrow, I don't know.

What I do know is this: people are willing to buy it, sell it, and trade for it. The value goes up and down. To me, that makes it a currency that you may be able to invest some money into. Maybe you make some money, maybe you don't.

I would even argue BTC falls under the traditional definition of invest, which is:

> _expend money with the expectation of achieving a profit or material result > by putting it into financial schemes,_

When people buy BTC, they are expecting to achieve a profit. BTC is a financial scheme. Seems fairly cut and dry to me.

<comment><USER3> Ok, what can I buy with BTC vs what can I buy with USD? BTC is useless in comparison.

What exactly do people mean when they say they expect to make money on BTC? Do they mean they'll get more BTC, or that they can sell it for USD or some other currency? Why do you think that is?

<comment><USER2> I don't remember saying anything you can buy with USD you can buy with BTC. I never even hinted that BTC was a replacement for USD in any sense.

I don't know about everyone else, but here's what I mean when I say you can make money on BTC: Buy low, sell high.

<comment><USER3> You said people were arguing BTC had no use. I'm asking what I can use it for?

And, when you say buy low, sell high, low and high relative to what?

<comment><USER2> Do you want a literal list of things you can do with BTC? I feel like your trying to draw me into an argument I never made. I don't think BTC is going to replace USD, I never said it's going to replace USD. But you're in an alternate reality if you don't think people are doing _anything_ with it. What do you think people are doing with BTC? Just buying it and putting it into cold storage forever?

And again, your second question is just baiting for an argument I never made. Of course I mean relative to fiat currency, what else would I have meant?

<comment><USER3> Ok, what legitimate, legal use does BTC have where it has an actual advantage over USD, then? If there is none, then that's what I mean by "BTC is useless."

My second question was getting at precisely the same point: that fiat currency is strictly superior to BTC.

If you can't provide a single legitimate use for it other than as a magical money machine, I would take that as evidence that it's useless.

<comment><USER2> It's odd that if something doesn't have an advantage over something else that it's immediately useless. I also don't know where you think I said that BTC is superior? Something doesn't need to be superior to have a use.

Why do you keep moving the goalposts? First, it's completely useless. Now it might have a use, but if it's not superior it might as well be useless. Oh, and now it has to be legal (in the USA? Mexico? Russia?).

To indulge you, here's a transfer of 194k BTC for $0.00[1]. How much would your bank charge you for an international wire transfer of a few hundred million dollars or more?

[1][https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/1c12443203a48f42cdf7b1acee...](https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/1c12443203a48f42cdf7b1acee5b4b1c1fedc144cb909a3bf5edbffafb0cd204)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Bitcoin is not an investment. It has no underlying rate of return. When you invest in stocks you get dividends. When you invest in bonds you collect coupons. When you invest in real estate you collect rent. Bitcoin is speculation. You are just hoping somebody comes.along and pays more for it than you did. In that sense it's more like gold and silver.

<comment><USER5> This strikes me as a somewhat semantic argument. Many stocks don't pay dividends. Flipping houses would also fall outside of your definition of investing. Buying gold has also been a relatively safe "investment" strategy as well, speculation or not.

Every form of investment is, at its core, speculation on some level. If i pour my savings into Apple and they tank, the dividends would pale in comparison to my losses.

<comment><USER6> Every asset that produces an Income or has a possibility of producing income in the future is an investment. Everything else is speculation.

Buying a commercial property and renting it out is an investment. Buying a house in the hope of selling it for more in the future is not investment.

Same goes for Gold, Bitcoin, momentum trading in stocks in not investment. Buying a stock that does not pay dividend but is a real business that produces something is an investment.

<comment><USER7> By that definition startup investors are speculators not "investors". That seems like an overly narrow definition of the word, compared to how it's normally used.

<comment><USER8> What startups are those that can never produce income? And why are people working on them?

<comment><USER6> How do you know they will never produce income? Can you see the future? If you can, please tell me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Once thing I've noticed about Bitcoin is that there are many "alt-coins" that seem to deliver better on Bitcoin's promises from a technical perspective, but those coins are forever stuck in Bitcoin's shadow because BTC has that first- mover advantage. And as a currency, the first-mover advantage is HUGE, because who wants to convert their investments from a hugely popular coin to one that could disappear tomorrow?

So everyone seems stuck -- we agree cryptocurrency can be an amazing idea, and the first version of it is something of a technical (and economic?) miracle, but now we're stuck with the V1 flaws forever (unless the group governing it decides to 'fix' those flaws, but there's another issue, I don't want you messing with how my money works...)

<comment><USER10> What first mover advantages does it have exactly? I know many people who have bought bitcoins, but absolutely zero people who use it in their day to day lives.

<comment><USER2> The first mover advantage in this case is the fact that early adopters of crypto bought BTC, because BTC was all there was.

Now that those people already have BTC, they are less likely to purchase a second coin. For one, they already have money invested in the space. Secondly, BTC has shown that it has staying power - outlasting many altcoins which came after it - which further solidifies BTC as the top contender (for now).

So, those already invested in BTC have little impetus to change from BTC to another coin == a first mover advantage.

<comment><USER11> Isn't it just as plausible that early adopters bought BTC because that's all there was, then bought altcoins as they appeared in order to diversify their crypto portfolio? It'd be interesting to find out if there are more investors in "crypto" as a strategy versus BTC specifically.

<comment><USER2> I mean, of course that's plausible. If I gave the impression that it wasn't, my bad. I was just hoping to clarify to eugeniub why BTC enjoys a first mover advantage, and why first mover advantage has nothing to do with how often "people use it in their everyday lives".

Assuming a limited amount of resources to invest, someone who is already invested in X, is less likely to remove their money from that and invest into Y, unless Y is _really_ good. All things equal, there is no reason to move from X to Y if X came first and you already invested into X.

So, the first mover advantage for BTC is the fact that new coins need not only be equal (in the eyes of the investor) to BTC, but better enough to convince that investor to move out of BTC in favor of that coin. People who are, _in addition_ , buying other alt coins are still solidifying BTC's first mover advantage if they do not remove their investment in BTC in favor of something else.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Not one word here about why BTC should be worth anything at all. Who cares if someone spent time and electricity to mine it?

The USD is, along with every other major, government-backed currency, already an almost 100% digital currency. I don't see any advantage there. In fact, BTC has the disadvantage of no major government backing it.

If nobody is required to accept it, and I can't do anything with it otherwise, what good is it?

<comment><USER12> What exactly does it mean when people say that a currency is backed by a government? "Backed" to me implies, e.g., redeemable for gold which is clearly not the case for the US dollar. Is it that the government issue bonds denominated in that currency? But that has nothing to do with the money supply per se...?

Please explain.

<comment><USER13> The US government accepts payment for taxes in USD. Even if an American wants nothing to do with USD, and conducts all their exchanges through bartering, they will need to acquire some at some point in order to make tax payments. The value of USD can't fall to 0 as long as the federal government retains the ability to impose taxes.

<comment><USER14> That sounds like a strange argument. Nobody can pay their taxes in gold, still gold has a value, right? And on the other hand, the value of the USD _can_ fall to practically zero, as it happened to many other currencies before, despite the governments of the respective countries imposing taxes in those currencies.

Bitcoins are, of course, _nothing_. But it's a nothing that is pretty guaranteed to stay, to be in rigidly limited supply, and that is easily exchangeable. People give it a value that depends on their expectations of other people's willingness to buy them. Would you buy 10 bitcoins from me at $1000 each? I bet you would without hesitation. We're talking of giving a $1k value to something that is useless and completely immaterial, yet you just know it's an excellent deal.

<comment><USER3> Gold has value because it's useful, among other things. That base level of value is why people started making coins out of it in the first place. It's properties as a physical metal make it easy to store, transport, and protect, all of which are good properties to have as a currency.

<comment><USER15> Industrial demand is only half the story. The value of gold also lies within the fact that unlike fiat currency, it cannot be created out of thin air. Global stockpiles of gold are well known, annual production is small and predictable.

This means that if you sell a car for gold, you can expect that gold to be worth the value of a car a year or two from now. Fiat money does not offer such assurance, it can lose most of its value almost overnight if government turns on printing presses or fucks up in some other way (see Turkish lira or Venezuelan bolivar).

Cryptocurrencies mimick the same properties of gold. Their "base value" comes from the speed/ease of transactions and other useful features (eg cannot be confiscated). Their supply is algorithmically limited and well-known in advance.

<comment><USER3> Industrial demand isn't the entire source of gold's value, that's true. I was more referring to it's usefuln being the source of its value 2700 years ago when people started making coins out of it.

I would argue that, beyond industrial demand and use in jewelry, the thing driving the price is primarily speculation.

> ...if you sell a car for gold, you can expect that gold to be worth the > value of a car a year or two from now.

What you're saying is that the car to gold ratio should be constant if your understanding is correct, right? I don't have data for cars, but I do for houses, and your conclusion is false: [https://www.jmbullion.com/investing- guide/pricing-payments/u...](https://www.jmbullion.com/investing- guide/pricing-payments/us-house-to-silver-ratio-us-home-to-gold-ratio/)

Re:your criticism of fiat money, I would accept that if I lived in Venezuela, Zimbabwe, or Turkey. But, I'm talking about specifically the USD and other established currencies such as GBP and EUR. There is literally no danger that the US, UK, or EU is going to experience hyperinflation short of near total governmental collapse.

Oh, and if you think BTC can't be confiscated, I have news for you: [https://www.theblockcrypto.com/2018/11/07/analysis-the-u- s-h...](https://www.theblockcrypto.com/2018/11/07/analysis-the-u-s-has-seized- nearly-200000-bitcoins-to-date-global-confiscations-are-up-to-453000/)

<comment><USER15> > What you're saying is that the car to gold ratio should be constant if your > understanding is correct, right?

No. I am aware that the value of gold fluctuates, but it is safer than many national currencies, stocks of failing companies or overvalued real-estate. The amount of gold in the world is known and stable and there's no way to massively "print" gold to crash its value. This stable supply is mimicked by algorithms built into cryptocurrencies. As long as there is demand for a something, and there is limited supply of it, it will be worth >0\. Cryptocurrencies satisfy both requirements: they are limited in supply and have demand because of their usefulness (fast & cheap transactions).

> Re:your criticism of fiat money, I would accept that if I lived in > Venezuela, Zimbabwe, or Turkey. But, I'm talking about specifically the USD > and other established currencies such as GBP and EUR. There is literally no > danger that the US, UK, or EU is going to experience hyperinflation short of > near total governmental collapse.

No need for hypotheticals. The government of Cyprus confiscated 47.5% of all holdings above 100 000 EUR in 2013 during its banking crisis. [https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/07/29/bank...](https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/07/29/bank- of-cyprus-depositors-lose-savings/2595837/) Cyprus is full member of the EU and Eurozone, so these risks are not limited to corrupt and failing third- world countries.

> Oh, and if you think BTC can't be confiscated, I have news for you:

Most cryptocurrencies cannot be confiscated by network nodes like traditional banking institutions can freeze or rewrite payments and accounts (see Cyprus above). Only the one who has private keys controls the assets. This is a major feature.

<comment><USER3> Can you spot the effect of the Cyprus bailout on the value of the EUR in this chart? [https://www.fx-exchange.com/currencyimages/2013/eur/the- year...](https://www.fx-exchange.com/currencyimages/2013/eur/the-year- of-2013-eur-usd-exchange-rates-history-graph.png)

What happened immediately after that?

<comment><USER15> If you sold a house for 300k the month before and then government confiscated a third of it, I doubt the value of EUR was of much consolation.

Had the 300k been held in cryptocurrencies, the government would've been powerless to seize a part of it.

<comment><USER3> I thought that was still responding to the stability of the Euro. You're right that if I had 300k EUR in a single, uninsured bank account, the government could confiscate it. That still doesn't address the fact that BTC can be confiscated, as I pointed out previously.

You could have also taken the prudent measure of not having that much money in a single bank account.

<comment><USER15> > That still doesn't address the fact that BTC can be confiscated, as I > pointed out previously.

No, it cannot. No government can issue an order to seize 47.5% of everything over 10 BTC (ca 100k EUR) from a list of accounts. Third parties cannot freeze cryptocurrency accounts or rewrite their balances. That's the major innovation of distributed ledgers (blockchain).

This is a fundamental difference compared to traditional banking where account balances are just fields in a writable database.

At best, they can seize private keys that control accounts, but to achieve that, they must confiscate personal devices (phones, tablets, computers) and examine each of them with forensic tools. This is not viable on a large scale, especially when considering that private keys are easy to hide with plausible deniability (using encryption, steganography, memorization, etc).

News stories about "confiscated" cryptocurrency are nothing more than private keys found on seized computers. No-one can take control over any account by any other means.

<comment><USER3> > No-one can take control over any account by any other means.

I see. I suppose if the US government orders, say, Coinbase, to turn over control of someone's account, they won't do it? You have an example of that happening, right?

<comment><USER15> Coinbase has no control over any cryptocurrency accounts besides their own.

Each cryptocurrency user generates a private key that becomes a wallet and is used to sign transactions. These signed transactions are then broadcast to the internet for balance keeping nodes to keep track of. They do it in a globally distributed manner (no central entity) and earn rewards for their work (like collecting a tiny fraction of the transaction as a fee).

The private key is never disclosed to anyone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Except for a small window around the peak in December 2017, if anyone bought bitcoin anytime during its existence, they would be profitable now.

<comment><USER17> > Except for a small window around the peak

Most people bought during the peak, that's why it was a peak.

As any other pyramidal Scheme the only way to win is to be there first. Later on you are just trying to put other people into the scheme to regain some losses.

<comment><USER16> > Most people bought during the peak, that's why it was a peak.

There is no cure for jumping in with your emotions and money into markets.

How is it any different from buying stocks at its peak? If you bought SPY during 2008 peak bubble, you had to wait for 6-7 years to even break even!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Short answer: hell no. What gives currency value is how often people use said currency to purchase goods, nobody uses Bitcoin, not to the extent of any real currencies anyways.

<comment><USER19> By that logic, gold should be worthless. It isn't.

Bitcoin will probably never be a currency equivalent to fiat, but it surely is a store of value in the long term.

<comment><USER20> Gold has practical, useful applications. Bitcoin is pretty much wishful thinking at best. I'm not sure if bitcoin is worth the CO2 emissions mining it created.

<comment><USER14> > Gold has practical, useful applications.

Yes. But they don't remotely justify its value, which has been established long before its technological applications.

<comment><USER21> They do, gold is rare and useful, supply and demand, that's all.

<comment><USER14> Bitcoin is rare too, and has supply and demand too, so what?

<comment><USER3> You left out "useful."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> IMHO there's only one thing that makes Bitcoin valuable and that's human emotion. And people LOVE Bitcoin, forever.

<comment><USER23> They love it until they loose. It's same with the casino.

<comment><USER22> Sure, and casinos are insanely profitable. Unless you fiddle with them too much. One can bankrupt a casino, but it takes a certain insanity.

<comment><USER23> The casino can refuse to pay so I doubt one can bankrupt a casino.

<comment><USER22> I meant as a casino owner with over leveraging, the same way that individuals can bankrupt themselves.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> There's no such thing as secure third-party custody, as the insurance companies (rightly) limit the amount of total insured Bitcoin volume.

For years I heared people talking about how important role institutions play, but luckily so far Bitcoin remained people's money.

<comment><USER23> People's money? The majority of bitcoin is held by various "people" but that doesn't make it people's money.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Any article which talks about Bitcoin as an investment without mentioning (at least in passing) the currently unregulated exchanges and the role of Tether in the price, is missing a large part of the picture.

The current set of exchanges which are setting the price are totally unregulated banks (effectively) and with Tether (a "stablecoin" that isn't 1:1 backed and which has been rapidly inflating it's supply) there are significant concerns about how much of the price is really reflective of demand.

</comment><comment><USER26> Bitcoin forces reexamination of custody issues from first principles.

Do countries smaller than the largest 100 corporations really need their own central banks ? And if they are themselves consumers of the ecb or the fed, they have custody issues also.

Democracy is the custody of people's power with elected representatives. With immigration people can reallocate the custody of that power.

Not all people need 100% 3rd party custody of money.

Also, bitcoin makes it easy to detect theft and audit 3rd parties more easily.

</comment><comment><USER23> Let me translate that for you:

Would x spins on a slot machine make a good investment?

Btw I have 1.x bitcoin in my wallet. Not as an investment though.

<comment><USER27> If the slot machine had a > 50 percent chance of winning, yes.

Not saying Bitcoin is a good investment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> check out what Munger says about bitcoin, speculate if you want but don't bet the house on it!

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBVDqAHQ4-M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBVDqAHQ4-M)

</comment><comment><USER28> No.

</comment><comment><USER29> I'm starting to turn the corner on this; if you can pick it up on one of its lows, which are pretty extreme as far as I know, like 1/4 of peak, and hold without regard for daily movement, you will probably make money.

I think Bitcoin is largely taking value from individuals trying to stash money pilfered from the public in some way (usually through their public offices, but sometimes through embezzlement, theft, or a previous illegal accumulation that has to be moved in the face of imminent arrest), and opportunities for this sort of large-scale theft come rarely. So upward movements are caused by small groups and happen very quickly. After the theft is made, the first priority is to get the money out of the country (or tied for first with getting your children out of the country), then to get one's self out of the country. The tolerance for loss in exfiltrating this cash is virtually unlimited, in exchange for speed.

Small pops and falls caused by individual incidents will sometimes coincide making a larger pop, and periodically some legal loophole (or prosecution pressure) will open up in come country that puts a lot of people in this situation at the same time. This is inevitable. The small pops are muted due to the selling of previous market moving buyers. The big pops are virtuous circles; they exhaust the supply of previous smugglers, who cash out, and the resulting acceleration in the upward price movement filters to the media, where knife-catchers step in. You probably want to time your sales to the knife-catchers, anticipating the first articles reporting on the price rise.

There will always be western countries where you can cash out. There's no way to suppress a currency designed for money laundering in a west that is entirely financial services and intellectual property; there will always be some official that can be bribed, or a country that needs the tax receipts. Bitcoin can do to nations what Uber and AirBnB do to cities.

I'd bet the floor on bitcoin would probably be a good measure to determine growth in the general world corruption rate; the more good pops, the more people feel like they can hold a little bit longer.

Think of cartels burying cash in fields, and how much they'd be willing to pay to make it spendable. The only other option is to burn it. Going into business to help them from the comfort of your living room is not a bad business.

This article is not good, though, just nonsense reassurance mostly (bitcoin is small, but things that become big start small, so bitcoin will be big.) Worse, the _more_ large institutions are holding bitcoin, the _less_ benefit for individual investors, not more, because they'll absorb the big pops, and do it in a way that they end up holding an optimum amount of BTC all the time using their international nature and their ability to shift losses to offset gains for tax purposes (in short, regulatory arbitrage.) Bitcoin could ultimately end up as an exclusive partnership between thieves avoiding capture and banks avoiding taxes. A sort of high-speed virtualized real estate.

/flight of fancy

</comment><comment><USER30> beth.technology

Solid source.

</comment><comment><USER31> Yes. It will make a good investment:

[https://twitter.com/CL207/status/1142651211310485504?s=20](https://twitter.com/CL207/status/1142651211310485504?s=20)

50-100k a coin by December 2021 is what many are targeting this time.</comment>


Remote hackathon I created happening tomorrow - bit-mask https://hackanywhere.com/ <comment> bit-mask Had an idea for a remote hackathon, so I created and launched one a couple days ago.

It takes place tomorrow at 10am PST. So far just have a handful of friends joining to hack with. Might become more of a weekly meetup on Discord to just continually work on ideas.

If anyone is interested please join! Could be a nice way to meet new people, work on your projects/startup ideas, and have others to get feedback from.</comment>


Non-Newtonian Fluid on a Speaker Cone [video] - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zoTKXXNQIU <comment><USER2> Or just do this at home(we did at work). No need to ruin a speaker.

1) Mix cornstarch with water in shallow plastic bowl. 2) Hold the bowl firmly against an office-grade subwoofer 3) Turn bass+volume to max 4) Start experimenting with music (or noise generators of different frequencies)

We had about 10 minutes of similar effects before the headache hit.

</comment><comment><USER3> At first, I thought it was some kind of ferrofluid — those tend to behave rather similarly — but this is just corn starch, which behaves strangely when agitated like that.

</comment><comment><USER4> Preious submission: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1327656>

Also, non-Newtonian fluids have been mentioned several times:

<http://searchyc.com/non-newtonian+fluid>

</comment><comment><USER5> This is way better than the Big Bang Theory episode that did that. Dunno why, but theirs sucked compared to this.

</comment><comment><USER6> Spontaneous generation!

</comment><comment><USER7> Does anyone have a link to a Newtonian Fluid for comparison?

<comment><USER8> Here you go: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HvHMIMYbBk></comment></comment>


Hackers Breach Medicare/Medicaid Services Portal, Get Data on 75,000 - <AUTHOR> https://www.apnews.com/212e1e36b10945968704bd7e86598a65 <comment><USER2> Link to the actual explanation of what happened from The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services:

[https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/press-releases/cms- responding-s...](https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/press-releases/cms-responding- suspicious-activity-agent-and-broker-exchanges-portal)

</comment><comment><USER3> Please can we change the title. The article itself says the title is wrong:

> "nothing happened" to the HealthCare.gov website used by the general public. > "This concerns the agent and broker portal, which is not accessible to the > general public," he said.

Nothing to do with HealthCare.gov, a portal that allows "insurance agents and brokers to directly enroll customers" in Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services was compromised.

Healthcare.gov also allows enrollment in Medicare and Medicaid Services, but both healthcare.gov and the broker portal are simply enrollment agents. Breaching one doesn't infer the other is breached.

Alternative title:

> Hackers Breach Medicare/Medicaid Services Portal, Get Data on 75,000

<comment><USER4> I guess the operative phrase is "HealthCare.gov System" but it is a sleight of hand. Given it's a less public system I guess it makes the breach more interesting.

<comment><USER5> it's alot about the clickss</comment></comment></comment>


Marissa Mayer - Lean In - <AUTHOR> http://leanin.org/stories/marissa-mayer/ <comment><USER2> > "I'm doing a CEO search. It's a Fortune 500 company. It's in the consumer > Internet space. It's in Silicon Valley—you wouldn't even have to move. It's > the perfect job for you. The board is asking for you by name. Are you > interested? It's Yahoo."

Is this really how she got the call? What was the point of all the anonymity if the recruiter was just going to say "It's Yahoo" at the end anyway? All of that could've been reduced to four sentences:

1\. I'm doing a CEO search. 2\. It's Yahoo. 3\. The board is asking for you by name. (Maybe) 4\. Are you interested?</comment>


Three Words You Should Never Use in an Email [Hacker News Nation] - <AUTHOR> http://blog.onemonthrails.com/how-to-write-better-emails-hacker-news-nation/

<comment><USER2> Oh FFS, a 22 minute video? I'll bet if you had a transcription I could read it in sub 3 minutes and get all the value I was ever going to get.

No, I don't care how important and wonderful you think your news is, I will not watch a 22 minute video to find out if there's value.</comment>


Ask HN: How many of you commute every day to work and how far? - <AUTHOR> <comment><AUTHOR> Despite all of those remote jobs, there are still companies in IT that ignore ability to work remote. So some of us still commute every day several miles (kilometers), myself included: 100 km per day (50 km in one direction). What do you think drives company CEOs to ignore remote work?

</comment><comment><USER2> The remote jobs seem to go to people in low cost locations, here in LA I have to commute 5 hours round trip, keep my sanity by using the bus so I can sleep up and back.

</comment><comment><USER3> 120 mi (193 km) round trip. Spend at most 2 hours behind the wheel but only 1-ish hour(s) on a good day

</comment><comment><USER4> 1 hour 30mins on London's hellish national rail & underground trains each way

</comment><comment><USER5> 40 miles each way (80 total). 2 hours on the road each day. :-(

</comment><comment><USER6> 50 mi (80km) round trip.</comment>


Higher Education: Too many degrees are a waste of money. - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21600131-too-many-degrees-are-waste-money-return-higher-education-would-be-much-better

<comment><USER2> I think we just need to break that expectation of going to college right after high school. Some kids really aren't ready, and then they make ill-informed decisions (sign on to a fat loan, study something they're not sure about, etc). Since graduating in 2007, I've had the misfortune of seeing my friends struggle trying to figure everything. More times than not, a few regret jumping into college right away, or wished they strongly considered other alternatives before college.

Side story related to higher education: My friend's counselor suggested she apply to school in this manner: Apply to 3 Ivy leagues, then 3 reputable out of state schools, then 1 in state school.

What kind of advice is that to give to an 18-year old who only has an inkling of what they'd like to do after college? I swear this guy misguided many students.

<comment><USER3> I'm just coming to the end of my degree, but something that amazed me was just how many of my school friends changed their degrees in the first year, or dropped out of university all together. I think it must have been nearly 50% of my friends changed significantly what they were doing within the first year, many within the first semester.

My brother has also just started university and he told me he's seen exactly the same thing. Of the 9 close friends that went off to university at the same time as him, only 2 are still on their courses. A few dropped out, most changed courses but won't be able to start the new courses until the next academic year.

Very few people know what they want to do at 18, and many don't know what studying their chosen subject will really be like.

I was really surprised by this because I knew what course I wanted to do at university when I was 13, I thought it was Electronic Engineering, until I found out that Computer Science existed, at which point I immediately recognised that as what I wanted to do. I assumed everyone was like that, but I have friends who at 21-23 are still trying to work out what they want to do.

<comment><USER4> I'm 30. I have either been in full time education or full time job since I graduated. I am still trying to work out what I want to do. I'm led to believe this is normal.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> >An angry art history professor forced him to apologise, but he was right.

Oh come on. He apologized? Nobody can stick to what they say anymore?

Of course you aren't going to get a well paying job with a Spanish degree unless perhaps you wanted to teach Spanish. That should be obvious, but for some reason it isn't for kids these days.

For the last 20ish years all you hear is "you have to go to college." In college you can study almost anything, so some people will pick useless degrees because they are just checking off the box "college" without any forethought whatsoever.

I am telling you, the cost of college scared me off so much that there would be no way I'd go unless I was pretty sure that it would pay off. I did go, and it did pay off, and I am now debt free, but while I was there I was constantly thinking about all the debt I was accumulating without (at the time) any way to pay off. It was a huge gamble on the future. It was heavy on my shoulders. I don't know why other kids don't feel that way.

I knew an English major who didn't know the difference between you're and your...

</comment><comment><USER6> The greatest things I got as a direct result of my time at an undergraduate university are my relationships, specifically my wife and daughter.

It just occurred to me how nonsensical a similar title would be: "Too many families are a waste of money".

Maybe it's ok to not consider what we are calling "education" a purely financial investment.

<comment><USER7> This is the reality for so many that is conveniently ignored by many posts such as this.

My major (finance) has _almost_ nothing to do with my day to day work. But I became best friends with my cofounder our freshman year, met his high school friend and our third cofounder my sophomore year, met my wife my senior year, and utilized our university network to hire our 4th cofounder & CTO after graduation.

I've done two startups with the first two cofounders and by tapping into my wife's network found our first angel investors.

Majors and degrees are important (I'd be in a different position if I'd gone through with the switch to engineering sophomore year), but I met my wife in my final finance credit senior year. I'll take the relationships - along with a semi-practical degree.

[that is _if_ you insist on going to school - definitely not for everyone or necessary]

<comment><USER8> problem is you're being charged for those relationships, in most cases at a relatively exorbant rate

its not obvious what the replacement value of those relationships are

but you can probably meet and matain relationships with people without paying tuition dollars to do so

in different words: "I met a great cofounder and wife at college" doesn't seem to logically follow to "you have to go to college to meet a great cofounder and wife"

so is seems like a stretch to really give the college (full? much?) credit for those relationships

<comment><USER9> >> "I met a great cofounder and wife at college" doesn't seem to logically follow to "you have to go to college to meet a great cofounder and wife"

It sure helps. Where else in your life are you going to be surrounded by thousands of other young people that you can date, or classes full of like- minded individuals who you might start a business with?

<comment><USER8> there many many professional and hobbyist clubs where you can meet like mind individuals that won't require you to spend the 10+ years in debt

similarly there are many many social organizations you can meet young people to date, there are also establishments that sell food and beverages where young people tend to congregate 2-3 nights a week

if all that fails, there are websites that let you contact people for both purposes (albeit the signal to noise for those might be poor)

college is obviously convient for both purposes, but its a mistake, both on a societal level and a personal level, to give college monopoly pricing power if that's what you're in the market for

<comment> barry-cotter _there many many professional and hobbyist clubs where you can meet like mind individuals that won 't require you to spend the 10+ years in debt_

How many of them have entrance standards as stringent as the Ivy League? The hardest part isn't what you do while you're there, it's getting in. And how else are parents going to pay for their children to spend so much time around the best class of plausible mates they can find for their children?

<comment><USER8> serious question - what is the value of stringent entrance requirements so far has it applies to your personal network?

is it so that you don't have to spend resources maintaining a network with those that don't meet them?

for what its worth, any professional and hobbyist club with close proximity to a prestigous school will probably put you in contact with a number of people in that school

you don't have to go to Harvard, MIT, Stanford wherever, to meet/ socialize with students from that school

you probably have to be doing something of interest, to make yourself an attractive socialization member from the other side of that equation, but that probably true (though obviously to a lesser extent) even if your a student of one of those schools

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It is normal here that about 50% change studies here (Netherlands) in the first year. We even have some rules that make it easier to switch the first half year, and you will get an extra year of scholarships. Because kids are just clueless and usually pick whatever their friends pick. We get a few days we can walk around at campus, and attend a few classes, but that's it.

Also. There are a lot of studies here I feel shouldn't even be university level. However we must not forget that just being 4 years in college and learning whatever you like has. We should never discourage learning. We might want to encourage studies/trades that provide more benefits for our society and economy as a whole. How about free tuition for such studies?

<comment><USER11> I'm not Dutch, but I have allowed myself to be told that in the Dutch university system nearly every applicant gets accepted, and those with insufficient course credits get kicked out at the end of first year. Is there even a hint of truth in that?

<comment><USER12> It's mostly true. Most universities require that incoming bachelor's degree students to have finished either a matching pre-university secondary education program or pass a test (only for people of 21+ years old) that checks whether a student has the required Dutch/English/math skills. After this, universities are allowed to boot students that fail to pass 50, 80 or 100% of the courses in the first or second year (actual percentages differ per university).

On the other hand, master's degree programs tend to require a bachelor's degree that has sufficient overlap in terms of courses. So to start a Computer Science master's degree, you'd probably need some bachelor's degree in engineering, math or physics. If you for instance got a bachelor's degree in Psychology, you'd probably need to attend several courses in order to be allowed to join.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> As a holder of five degrees, I haven't found them to be a waste.

Well, three of them came in getting my PhD in physics. Along the way, I got an MA and some degree called a Master of Philosophy (M. Phil. for short). So for three of them I got paid with a stipend, though you could argue my opportunity costs were greater than the roughly $27,000 per year I got paid.

Then I went back for an MBA. I'm still paying it off, but I've used it to improve my quality of life more than I think I would have without that degree. I work fewer hours than most people and consider myself consistently happier and more effective than most people I know, in particular than I was before the leadership classes I took.

Incidentally, they're all from Columbia, so they all happen to be Ivy League degrees too.

<comment><USER5> >though you could argue my opportunity costs were greater than the roughly $27,000 per year I got paid

Could be...

With the job market the way it is and stagnant wages and rising cost of living, I know quite a few people who would love to make $27,000 a year and would consider that a good income.

Some college graduates....

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Higher Education is on the brink of a crisis. Most hard skills can be learnt online nowadays via MOOCs for things like machine learning, maths, coding or via youtube for things like mastering a particular tool.

I believe in the future higher education will focus on developing soft skills like leadership, negotiation or majoring in a very specific topic through PhDs.

Clayton Christensen has expanded a lot on the topic and provides very good food for thoughts: [http://www.businessinsider.com/clay-christensen-higher- educa...](http://www.businessinsider.com/clay-christensen-higher-education-on- the-edge-2013-2)

</comment><comment><USER15> Slightly off-topic, but there is a curious situation in the UK where people doing one course at one university seem to have a disproportionate amount of power:

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11136511](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11136511)

[NB I'm _not_ implying that this is a bad, or indeed a good, thing - just I've started paying much more attention to university courses now that my son is in his mid teens!]

<comment><USER16> Somehow, I can't be too surprised that the top-level politicians are disproportionately drawn from those who majored in politics at the country's best university.

(Where are you from? To my (US English) ears, a "course" is a class, the kind of thing that might happen every mon/wed/fri in the afternoons, but the article you link is clearly talking about a "major" (as in "I majored in politics & economics"). They refer to it as a "degree", which is also, to me, completely normal use ("my degree was in politics & economics").)

<comment><USER17> In the UK most universities don't really have the concept of 'major' and 'minor' \- you simple have your degree, which might involve you doing other learning around the subject.

In this context, 'degree' and 'course' are often used interchangeably. 'Degree Course' in UK English is perhaps equivalent to 'Degree Program' in US.

To be perhaps more pedantic, your 'degree' might be the subject ('I have a Degree in Computer Science'), whereas your course would be the particular program ('I took the University of Bristol's Computer Science course'). In this instance, the commentor is referring to not just any PPE Degree qualification, but the PPE Course at Oxford.

<comment><USER16> I find your comment somewhat confusing. As I read it, you say that your 'degree' is the subject (this is also true in the US; 'degree' can be used with exactly the same semantics as 'major') and the 'course' refers to the university you studied at. But the comment I replied to refers specifically to "one course at one university", which implies that those are separate dimensions of variation; the same course might exist at different universities. In US usage, that's not surprising; lots of colleges have e.g. a "remedial algebra" course. If 'course' refers to the subject, that's also not surprising; lots of colleges will let you earn a degree in math (though not, one hopes, if you had to take remedial algebra). But if a 'course' is defined by the university that houses it, it cannot possibly exist at more than one university.

My main point is that it's not even mildly surprising that students from Oxford should be disproportionately present in the UK government or anywhere else of significance. I have a feeling that, as important as the effect of a PPE degree may be, the effect of an Oxford degree is much stronger.

My minor point was that even after considering Oxford vs. no-name, it's not particularly surprising to see people with politics degrees going into politics.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> 'Solving' higher education is a really, really difficult problem. The size and complexity is mind boggling. It is actually a much more difficult problem than healthcare since with healthcare we have external models that can be copied - with higher education we are not even sure what the problem is.

<comment><USER15> Ironically, I think the solution to solving the higher education problem is actually education of prospective students (and ideally their parents) on what a University course is actually good and bad at and what is actually expected of you as a student to maximize the value you can get from the experience.

People need to be given enough information to actually conclude that it might not actually be a good idea for them. Of course, as with all manner of high- value products getting sensible advice can be _very_ difficult.

<comment><USER16> I'd go the other way. Stop sending students to college while someone else pays. People will do all manner of self-education for something they're buying. College today is mostly just a weird, expensive coming-of-age ritual, with (IMO) most of the cost in wasted time rather than wasted money. And not sending your children to college is easily analogized to, under other circumstances, not having your son circumcized or whatever the ingroup marker is. As long as the value of college is "you're not a real person unless you've done it", nobody's going to focus on course content.

<comment><USER15> "Stop sending students to college while someone else pays."

I fear that might be going too far in the opposite direction - I went to University in the UK in the 1980s and because my parents weren't very well off I didn't pay a penny (fees were paid and I got a grant to live off during term time). In terms of the amount I've paid back in taxes this was a _very_ good investment (e.g. going to University meant I went on to do post-grad study where I met the co-founder of the company I started _and_ met the guy who was an angel investor).

<comment><USER18> I think this thread is proving my point. We are collectively a group of really smart people and we can't agree on anything in regards what the problem is - we can't even agree we don't know :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The short version is that we need to do a better job distinguishing academics from job training.

</comment><comment><USER20> "Too many degrees are a waste of money. The return on higher education would be much better if college were cheaper."

I find this highly ironic when my alma mater keeps raising the prices, yet this year they somehow had a $9.7 Million shortfall:

[http://bangordailynews.com/2014/03/28/education/university-o...](http://bangordailynews.com/2014/03/28/education/university- of-maine-to-cut-61-positions-dip-into-savings-to-address-9-7-million- shortfall/)

I simply don't understand where the vast amount of tuition money is going.

<comment><USER19> If it's anything like the colleges in this area, much of that money is going towards endless construction of "student life" type facilities, designed to market the campus towards visiting 17-year olds who will soon be able to mortgage away their future spending power.

<comment><USER21> Same thing happens which clinics and health providers... new and more new buildings. And with two large competing clinics in town its costing the local region more. Both are trying to out due the other. Every time I visit I look around and think "this is what I'm paying for?" I'm okay with the 70's orange chairs, I don't need a dozen fish tanks and bird cages, I'm guessing all that cool looking glass facade is poor at insulating against outside heat and cold...

EDIT: I suppose these "costs" are probably just a drop in the bucket compared to other expenses. Doctor's salaries are higher do to competing for the "best" doctors (similar to the situation in SV with Apple/Google/etc.) and I'm guessing it's "wasteful" to have two or each machine (one at each clinic/hospital) if they aren't currently being utilized "enough".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I think we should be more worried about all the degrees that are a waste of time.

</comment><comment><USER22> Went to the same school as the girl who got the Spanish degree, Kennnesaw State University. I had no shortage of finding job opportunity. Its all about the degree, most of the business school kids were finding decent jobs too.

Even though its a lesser known college most of us in STEM majors easily found jobs with small-large companies in Atlanta.

Its all about your what your degree is in, not how many you have.

</comment><comment><USER23> Cambridge BA-zero cost Cambridge MA-cost me a postage stamp.

</comment><comment><USER24> What is education? Think about it for a moment... Is it fancy phrases added to our names like Dr, Phd, Md, etc. or is it something that we internalize and apply in the real world for the betterment of mankind?

<comment><USER25> Degrees bring fancy titles. Education? Not necessarily.</comment></comment>


Has WordPress Lost its Magic? - <AUTHOR> http://archetyped.com/blog/has-wordpress-lost-its-magic/

<comment><USER2> I tend to agree wit the article author. I dislike the decades long trend towards low contrast icons, especially on keyboards and electronics. I regularly stay at a hotel where the alarm clocks have a bright blue face with black lettering. I cant read it in the middle of the night without putting my glaces on. These may be fine from twenty-somethings, but when your eyes are of the keypunch generation, they are illegible in low light.

</comment><comment><USER3> Interesting I clicked on this to tell me something magical about Wordpress because all I think of it is the opposite of magical....it is confusing, abstracted and clunky with "workarounds" everywhere that end up painting you into corners too often (IMO)

<comment><USER4> I really, really, really wish the themes were simpler. And that it used templating instead of having the php and html all mixed together. Which is perfectly valid usage for php but still frustrating when you just want to deal with changing the html around.

<comment><AUTHOR> "True" templating would be very interesting in WordPress, and it's not impossible that this may happen (someday). Nonetheless, a good theme author would keep the intermingling of PHP in the HTML to a minimum.

<comment><USER4> There is, apparently a twig plugin. I couldn't actually get it to work though.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


MobMov creates a new guerrilla theater while reviving drive-in culture - <AUTHOR> http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/30/DDAIR9BH32.DTL

<comment><USER2> This is brilliant! It creates a venue for films that can't achieve wide distribution through theaters without taking away the social aspects of going to a movie and taking away the allure of the big screen.

There's definitely potential in this kind of thing.

</comment><comment><USER3> But it's still illegal.

Do laws count when they are completely unenforceable?

<comment><USER4> Correction: this is NOT illegal.

It's illegal to show films that you don't obtain licenses for, but if you get the rights, it's perfectly legal.

<comment><USER5> Ever tried getting a license from MPAA?! Good luck trying to break that cartel!

<comment><USER4> You're right, you wouldn't have much luck getting a film licensed by the MPAA. They're just there to crack your kneecaps if you don't.

Swank is the most well known company that sells rights for public performances of blockbuster films. Costs average between $150 and $300 for "non-theatrical" showings (where you aren't selling any tickets)

But why shell out such ungodly sums for the muddied films of the masses? The mobmov makes small showings (< 50 people) feasible, so we can show more special-interest independent films.

And independent films are so much easier to license. For the showing featured in the Chronicle, we watched a wonderful Canadian film called A Simple Curve. It's not something to draw the crowds, but this, at least in my experience, means a more thoughtful and meaningful script. Our showing was licensed through the film distributor (filmmovement.com) directly for a small fee.

So no, you'll never see a movie like Tranformers playing on the wall of your local dilapidated warehouse.

The good news is that independent filmmakers don't like the system either. It restricts their creativity and screws them at every turn. My hope is that as independent filmmakers find out about this new avenue for release, we'll start to see new films produced that are ever more inventive and unique.</comment></comment></comment></comment>