A Basic Guide for Curious Minds: Review of "Thing Explainer" - <AUTHOR> http://www.gatesnotes.com/Books/Thing-Explainer <comment><USER2> Amused that the first sentence is "Terminology is an occupational hazard of philanthropy", I think he meant "hard words are often used by people who give money away"

<comment><USER3> An occupational hazard is a danger that engaging in a profession opens you up to. Like injuries in football, or getting sued for malpractice as a doctor.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Gates is spot on and Munro extraordinary. Too often managers feel obliged to use technical language where none is either needed nor natural.

People talking about budgets and fiscal planning making use of hi-tech specific, bio-tech, etc. Anything which passively indicates that they are up to date on cant and argot of totally unrelated fields but serve as signal of being at the edge or on the cusp of all things new and modern and professional.

Examples, using MM for millions, or K for thousands (is that metric K or computing K), or saying "spend" as a noun. Having to sound like one knows and is up to date with all the different industry terminologies must be taxing.

Best of all is when a person is actually familiar with the terminology and senses the forced nature of the out of context use. They can only smile at the stilted use.

<comment><USER5> Two great essays on language that is neither needed nor natural:

[http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit...](http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit/)

 _" I am going to translate a passage of good English into modern English of the worst sort. Here is a well-known verse from Ecclesiastes:

        I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

Here it is in modern English:

        Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.

"_

[http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~pam/papers/goodwriting.h...](http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~pam/papers/goodwriting.html) : targeted at legal writing, but the suggestion to have a point and stick to it is universally applicable.

<comment><USER6> Can you format the quotations as quotations (leading "> ", I think) rather than indenting them? As it is, you have to scroll right to read the entire quotation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Reminds me of this[0] talk by Guy Steele where he explicitly defines any word outside of a given set before he can use that term in his speech. Interesting language exercise, definitely worth a watch!

[0] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ahvzDzKdB0&feature=youtu.be](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ahvzDzKdB0&feature=youtu.be)

</comment><comment><USER8> Yeah, the book is real fun. Amazon seems to have sent it early and I am not complaining.

It's a lot of text in comparison to the original poster-comic and a lot of stuff seems very repetitive (it's bound to be, right?) since many principles of planes, submarines, rockets are the same (physics). Still a fun read if you don't plow through it in one sitting.

<comment><USER9> Do you think it would be educational for children, or is it mostly an amusing curiosity for adults?

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm now hoping for a book titled "How to build civilization from scratch".

<comment><USER11> This book comes close: The Knowledge: How To Rebuild Our World After An Apocalypse

[http://www.amazon.co.uk/Knowledge-Rebuild-World-After- Apocal...](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Knowledge-Rebuild-World-After- Apocalypse/dp/0099575833/)

<comment><USER12> Most of the trouble building a world after Apocalypse, is all those working hard against you - the raiders and thieves and generally chaotic elements. Otherwise, it'd be no harder than setting up a new town somewhere.

<comment><USER11> In the book he does distinguish between two types of apocalypse - the first is where lots of people die, such as in a global plague or nuclear war. The second type is where the number of people is the same, but infrastructure is wiped out such as a massive solar flare.

In the latter you'll have massive famine and also likely fighting against other survivors.

<comment><USER12> In any breakdown of society, you'll have broken desperate people who turn to raiding instead of rebuilding. I don't think the two will be very much different?

<comment><USER13> In the former case, you have a few people and (relatively) a lot of resources. In the latter, you have a lot of people and nowhere near enough resources. That's going to lead to more desperate violence, by many orders of magnitude.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Love the idea. But maybe he should expand his vocabulary a little bit beyond 1000 words. Saying "food holder" instead of "dish", obscures instead of clarifies, which defeats the purpose. Same for "up goer" instead of "rocket". And "funny voice air" instead of "helium". I'm intrigued enough to pick up the book, but I know stuff like that will just be annoying.

<comment><USER15> I don't think it's necessarily meant to clarify. I think it's an exercise in constrained writing.

<comment><USER14> Maybe you're right. But to me, the purpose of using plain words instead of technical jargon, is to clarify meaning. On the other hand, maybe he's just trying to be funny.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I would just like to take this opportunity to do my annual joke that Bill Gates should try and monetise his blog with affiliate links or he'll never make any money.

</comment><comment><USER16> What rule allowed him to use the word "goer"?

<comment><USER17> Here's the thing– the "rules" of grammar only really exist to facilitate effective communication.

Every so often, a skilled communicator chooses to bend a rule in order to make a point. If the point is well made, it sticks, and people start imitating it.

Next thing you know, the newly-coined word becomes an "actual" word with real currency. (I put "actual" in quotes, because if you think about it, all words are made up. All "rules" are really just general guidelines.)

<comment><USER18> All the rules are made up too! Like fashion, language is one of those things where popularity rules.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This would make a great Wikipedia! Score for brevity and using words with high frequency.

<comment><USER20> There is the Simple English wikipedia: [https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page](https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Although I enjoy the Saturn 5 "Up goer five" description, I doubt that "goer" is in the top 1,000 most common words...

Edit: He's taken the common word list and added different forms as he needed them. Go -> goer and goers, because he wanted to use them. Grow is allowed, but grower and growers are not, because he didn't need them.

<comment><USER22> Looking at the simplewriter's JS [1] that lists the legal words [2], it appears to have 3634 entries in it. I assume that under the "rules" alternate forms of the top 1000 words are permitted. I'm not sure the "rules" have been explained elsewhere. (Perhaps in the book but that's not out yet.)

"goer" is a legal form of go. I mention this because I actually thought for a moment myself it might not be, but of course Googling it revealed it is extensively used in compound words like "movie-goer". Not sure I've ever seen it in the wild standing on its own, but I'll concede the point. One must grant a certain amount of flexibility here...

(And from the "surprisingly klunky translation" department, what player of Final Fantasy X could forget the Blitzball team name the Luca Goers? [3])

[1]: [http://xkcd.com/simplewriter/](http://xkcd.com/simplewriter/)

[2]: [http://xkcd.com/simplewriter/words.js](http://xkcd.com/simplewriter/words.js)

[3]: [http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/Luca_Goers](http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/Luca_Goers)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I wonder at what point does using fewer words become detrimental to understanding.

<comment><USER24> I think it depends entirely on the audience. If a word is appropriate, and your audience is comfortable with it, then not using it is detrimental.

What if _some_ of your audience knows the word? Then it's a judgement call.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I wonder why this book doesn't explain the fractional reserve banking system. Oh wait, never mind, I know why.

<comment><USER26> Some of your money that is left in the bank is given to other people so long as they promise to give back even more money. Even though the bank doesn't have all the money that it has taken, so long as most people do not ask for their money at the same time the bank will always have enough for people that want their money back. The bank gives you some extra money for letting them do this. When a lot of people believe the bank can't give their money back, it may cause everyone to try and take their money out. This is called a bank run and can be very bad.

It checks out: [http://xkcd.com/simplewriter/](http://xkcd.com/simplewriter/)

<comment><USER27> That's the description of banking we were taught in school and though it's not wrong, in practice, banks don't really work that way.

Banks deposits are a tiny source of the money banks loan. In practice, they loan out a portion of the collateral that they get when issuing a loan.

Example: They give Bob a house loan for $100K and in return they get the deed to a house worth $110K and an IOU from Bob for $100K (plus some interest). The bank can now treat the house as a $100-110K asset on their own balance sheet and loan part of that asset ($90K) out to another borrower.

Or something like that. ;-)

<comment><USER28> Its weirder than you think. No banks have owned loans for a very long time. They're resold to various quasi government-ish organizations (think, like the IRS or the federal reserve, although not the IRS) in exchange for cash raised by selling mortgage backed security bonds. All kinds of random individual and orgs own those bonds. They pay off pretty well almost a sure thing when the first derivative of interest rates is negative, not so well at zero to positive.

Banks and mortgage brokers act as commissioned sales forces for the MBS bond market, basically.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Subprime mortgage bonds are making a comeback - <AUTHOR> https://www.curbed.com/2018/3/30/17179750/subprime-mortgage-bonds-comeback <comment><USER2> The big difference between sub-prime and non-prime is "ability to pay"</comment>


Amazon AWS Outage Shows Data in the Cloud Is Not Always Safe - <AUTHOR> https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/technology/amazon-aws-outage-shows-data-in-the-cloud-is-not-always-safe/ <comment><USER2> It seems awfully odd to write a full article about this without mentioning that S3 has completely different guarantees due to the cross-AZ design. I tend to think that you probably can trust the cloud from a data integrity standpoint, but I would never feel safe depending on EBS.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is a terrible article. EBS can fail. The article even has a screenshot where Amazon is clear about the reliability ratings. If you want durable storage, S3 is the best option. Replicate it across regions for even more protection.

EBS is for storage volumes attached to virtual machines. There are many many use cases in which a slightly higher failure rate is absolutely fine and for which the lower cost and higher performance of EBS are the more desirable tradeoff. But again, it's clearly stated in all the docs that EBS has a 0.1% annual failure rate. There are trivially easy tools built in to AWS to enable backups of EBS volumes. If the data on your EBS volumes is critical, then use those tools!

<comment><USER4> Is that 0.1% for non-snapshotted data? I'm under the impression that if you snapshot your data, EBS can recover some failures from the S3-backed snapshot transparently, increasing durability.

I obviously don't know the technical details, but it seems plausible to me that with a proper implementation snapshots could provide additional durability by reducing the amount of low-redundancy data that is "in danger" during disk failure recovery.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Data on prem is not always safe either. We've had irrecoverable storage failures from well known storage providers... That's why backups exist.

<comment><USER6> Arguably most on prem infrastructure is more susceptible to failure than cloud data centers

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> That .1-.2% data loss advertised has to happen to someone, statistics do not lie.

<comment><USER8> Is that for S3, or EBS?

<comment><USER9> EBS. S3 is much better:

> Amazon S3 Standard, S3 Standard–IA, S3 One Zone-IA, and S3 Glacier are all > designed to provide 99.999999999% durability of objects over a given year.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> tj-teej __Data in one geographic region is not always safe, period. __

Cloud aside, if you store data on Baremetal in one location (or boxes of tapes) and that location burns down, it 's gone.

If you have mission-critical data to store, it should be spread between regions, if not cloud-providers.

</comment><comment> david-cako AWS runs on servers, electricity, and drives like the rest of the internet.

If your application and data are single-AZ it is not fault tolerant. If that datacenter goes down or the EBS volume fails, at the very least your application will have downtime.

EBS is replicated within the AZ but that is not guaranteeing you fault tolerance. You must take snapshots and store them across AZs, like any other mission critical S3 object.

</comment><comment><USER10> Man runs snowflake server in the cloud, and is surprised when it fails.

To be blunt, if you treat your cloud instances as anything other than disposable and ephemeral: you're doing it wrong.

<comment><USER4> It's a good reminder anyway. There are lots of people involved with tech who genuinely don't seem to understand that things fail, even in "the cloud".

As for pet servers in the cloud, not having them is the ideal, but it's not nearly always realistic. It's not "wrong" to run a pet server in the cloud if it's the only reasonable option you have given all other constraints involved.

A real failure-resistant system is often expensive, and sometimes simply not worth the investment.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What advice would you give to your younger self? - <AUTHOR> For all you more experienced awesome people out there, what advice did you wish some one gave you when you were starting out? <comment><USER2> \- Work on becoming self-suficient. Don't rely on a job.

\- Jobs are just a means to an end. Not the main part of your life.

\- Stress is never worth the moments of happiness it creates. Hard work is.

\- Put yourself through hell. You will find out who you are and what you want.

\- Don't trust the media or mainstream thinking. They're in it for the money.

\- Most people are emotional. If you use logic and reason, you will fail miserably.

<comment><USER3> "\- Most people are emotional. If you use logic and reason, you will fail miserably."

Can you explain this one further please?

<comment><USER4> It is an excellent piece of advice! What I think he means is that most people don't react to what you do but how what you do makes them feel. People that are geared towards logical thinking should run a small emulation inside their head of how their actions would make their loved ones feel in response to their actions or inactions (yeap that last one is more tricky...). It doesn't have to be rational or fair all the time and requires you either are similar to that person so you can predict what they will feel or that you understand that person and can imagine what they would feel.

If you are a logical person and you don't master this then people will think you are inconsiderate and will subconsciously punish you for your lack of empathy...

EDIT: To emulate better the opposite sex seek advice from a completely honest outspoken friend of that sex.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Don't join a frat or sorority in college. I don't care if it's a 'nerdy' or 'good guys' frat at an elite university (my experience), it will be a very dumb time sink, and the networking from it is not worth it when you can get involved in other groups which offer useful connections as well.

And really, really try to become as fiercely independent as possible. Otherwise you almost certainly will start measuring yourself by others' standards, it becomes increasing worse the older you get. (You'd be surprised how common fresh out of college people think "Oh I must get into x,y,z incubator or nail down funding so I don't look like a failure and can still command lots of respect in my social circles and stand out as a 'successful young person' at parties"). It's disgusting at its worst, and it's a sufficient condition for sliding into mediocrity.

<comment><USER6> As a counter, joining a fraternity was the best decision I had ever made. After my first few years of college, I still had no social network and very few friends. After rushing a fraternity, I became part of an ultra-inclusive group and made friends and bonds that have lasted the rest of my life.

Don't rush a fraternity or sorority for the connections - you'll be sorely disappointed when you find out 95% of the other members are just normal people from a normal background. The few connections that may be valuable business- wise probably won't even be in your field.

Do rush a fraternity/sorority if you're looking to make friends and get the social college experience. If you have a history of having a hard time making friends, there are few options that are better than joining greek org.

Don't rush a fraternity/sorority if you have a tight schedule. Parent comment is serious, they're a huge time sink - especially during your pledging semester.

Do rush a fraternity/sorority if you want a head start in social/management experience. I can't tell you how hard it is to promote engineers into management positions because the vast majority don't have the social skills required to reward, pressure, or inspire their underlings. Getting involved in a fraternal organization will get you extremely valuable leadership experience, experience in how to organize people, and most importantly, experience in how to inspire people to do the things you need to get done.

I honestly can admit that I wouldn't be where I am today without the social skills I learned during my tenure in a fraternity. While the vast majority of bad press about the greek system are puff pieces meant to enrage people, do know that the greek system is not for everyone.

<comment><USER5> Just to summarize your points as I see them. Only join a fraternity if...

a) You don't have social skills, so you can learn them (even though I think this can be achieved through plenty of other organizations on campus)

b) You aspire to be in management, i.e. not technical trades or career paths that don't require heavy person sacrifice and investment (like STEM or startups... again something that I also think can be achieved in other groups on campus - if even just the 'business fraternity' which a lot of uni's have, which is actually a club and not a 'fraternity').

I am glad however, that joining a fraternity worked out for you. I do also think almost everyone looks favorably on their college experience and have trouble imagining it had they made different choices.

But again, it's a massive time sink, and if there is something you are truly serious, ambitious about pursuing, a fraternity will absolutely work against you. If you just want to have 'a college experience', and if you don't really know what you want to do, then sure, join a fraternity.

(As a final note, the successful people I know from my fraternity are working basically non technical finance jobs (non technical in the sense there aren't heavy prerequisites before you start except be generally good at math) at ibanks or hedge funds that their parents or network got them, basically jobs where you can afford to mess around most of college, so long as you have your connection.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> -Work to live, not live to work.

-Time is your most valuable and most finite resource. Don't waste it on working 24x7 for companies who will take advantage of your desire to do so.

-Ask yourself if what you're doing will matter to anyone in 10 years, 5 years, tomorrow. Especially in a corporate environment.

-Never sacrifice friends or family for work. There will always be work; you will lose (in some way, drifting or death) persons, and regret the couldas.

-There's always a shiny new gadget, and they repeat every decade or so.

-Set aside the computer/smartphone and do something without it a couple of hours a day. Woodworking. Cooking. Trainsets or scale models.

-Exercise a couple of hours a day.

And finally:

-Never, ever move to Des Moines. Unless you're an actuary.

<comment><USER8> Could you please clarify on the last point?

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Romantically, this: [http://jakeseliger.com/2014/11/11/getting-good-with- women-an...](http://jakeseliger.com/2014/11/11/getting-good-with-women-and- how-ive-done-almost-everything-in-my-life-wrong) .

Otherwise, I'd say that you have one life, and that everything important thing anyone has ever done has been accomplished one deliberate decision, and one day, at a time. Today you have a day. What will you do to further your long term goals? What will you do to eliminate or remove distractions? Those are the most important questions you can ask, every day.

<comment><USER10> >Romantically, this

Thanks for an inspring and helpful read! This actually helps me (a 17 year old) out a lot.

<comment><USER11> Regarding romance: If you want a wife, make _many_ male friends. Consistently be honourable, selfless, and good. Volunteer for your friends. Go out of your way. The networking effect is subtle, but your name will "spread through the marketplace".

Don't hunt for your spouse as a lone-wolf ...there's nothing that way but isolation.

<comment><USER5> I agree about marriage, but if you want the experience of dating around, for shorter, medium term relationships, you really have little choice but to hunt as a 'lone wolf.' (You don't want to end up on dates with girls who have 'husband' on the back of their minds, which is often what the settled down social circle delivers... and anyways it can be more rewarding to 'win' someone on your own instead of having them 'delivered' to you.). So seems a little dramatic to say there's only isolation since less committed romantic involvements can be fulfilling too, and some would even argue (thinking "Sex at Dawn" author/ TED talk) that it's what your biology craves.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Hi, I am you from decades in the future. I have experienced some crazy stuff, highs and lows, and I would like give you the benefit of my wisdom.

I'd like to but I still don't know shit. Just keep doing what you are doing I guess. Maybe eat a little less. I am still struggling to lose all that weight you put on me.

</comment><comment><USER13> People who don't know you, do not care about what you do. Stop worrying about their opinion. Most people who know you, do care. Show you care for them.

The impostor syndrome is real and you may have it.

Do not take rejection personally.

Never stop cycling.

You always look stupid in hindsight and your current you seems to know everything. This never changes.

<comment><USER14> What do you mean by "cycling"?

<comment><USER9> Riding a bicycle. I find cycling very satisfying for all sorts of reasons, and although it can seem easy to compromise on cycling (infrastructure isn't there, car is easier, whatever) it's a joy when it's happening.

<comment><USER15> Follow-up to that. If you go into cycling do not bother about equipment, but about the cycling.

<comment><USER16> I rode a bike that I rescued from the dump for over a year. Besides a new chain, tubes and loving maintenance it was a nice solid 70s era bike. I swear it was made out of iron pipe. Oddly, it came with track drop bars.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> \- Adults lie, or don't understand, or just don't want to deal. You were recommended not to proceed in math beyond Algebra I, even though you'd gotten a B. You (wisely) thought that was bunkum and continued on to Alg II and geometry, number theory, set theory, matrix theory, etc and ended up with a Bachelor's in computer science. Good call.

\- That stupid counselor who blithely told you to "be confident"? You had no idea what those words meant, much less how to do it, because you didn't understand how to see the things you learned & accomplished as _skills that other people don 't have_. That seems weirdly egotistical, I know, but confidence is knowing you know how to do stuff, and that knowledge is special.

\- Don't stagnate. Past conditions are not an indicator of future conditions.

\- Learn how to congratulate yourself and learn to like yourself sooner than I did.

</comment><comment><USER18> Don't trust advice from rich old white men.

Get investing in Stocks as early as possible with a buy and hold strategy for companies you believe in.

Sex isn't worth the pedestal it's often placed on.

FOMO (Fear of missing out) is a life killer. You'll never be able to do all the cool things all the time.

Find a mentor.

<comment><USER19> People often talk down on sex, I've noticed. Why is that so? Is it because people can use sex as an excuse to procrastinate?

<comment><USER20> I think it is because a lot of people waste a lot of time thinking and fantasizing instead of living. And a lot of that thinking, especially recurring thoughts, is sexual in nature.

<comment><USER18> AND sacrificing time/resources on what should most likely be categorized as entertainment is a bad idea.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> \- Eat properly. You will feel and look like shit if you don't.

\- Sleep properly. You're gaining nothing by staying up to 4am, for some misplaced fear of missing out.

\- You are worth more than you think.

\- Surround yourself by people smarter than you. Ask for their help. You will learn more this way.

\- Stay curious. If you're convinced that you know it all, you're probably entirely wrong.

</comment><comment><USER22> 1\. Don't over-estimate your ability to manage idiots--especially lazy idiots. They don't want to be managed or to improve. 2\. Don't loan money to a business partner. 3\. You are wrong about many things. Most importantly, you are wrong about how much people value quality vs. price. Your customer is the shopkeep--not the end user. 4\. Don't hire inexperienced people. 5\. Be more judicious in deciding if something is worth getting upset over. 6\. Being a perfectionist will cripple your profits. Just get it done. 7\. Be calculated in every decision you make. That's the only way to make money. 8\. Focus on consumable goods. Sell razor blades, not razors.

</comment><comment><USER11> Stop being tyrannized by the fear of being wrong. Read Plato and Plotinus earlier. Try to see the _essence_ of what others are saying, the _essence_ of what you're learning, the _essence_ what you're doing, etc.

</comment><comment><USER23> Exercise: Don't do things other people tell you to do. Do things you think might be fun. Don't run, don't go to the gym. Sign up for Taekwondo, Pilates, dancing or swimming lessons.

If something is worth doing it's worth doing right: If you really want to learn something spend at least 15 minutes every day studying it. If you can't commit to that, stop wasting your time.

Some university classes are boring but that's not a reason to dismiss them. You never know what knowledge might become useful to you a few years down the road.

</comment><comment><USER24> You really are good enough to make a living as a programmer.

Trust your own instincts when it comes to new technology.

No one ever had "I wished I'd worked harder" on their gravestone.

</comment><comment><USER25> Do not read, much less sign up for, Hacker News or Reddit.

<comment><USER3> I realize this may be in jest, but I personally have learned so much from both sites. I view my time on both sites as quite productive, especially reading threads like these.

<comment><USER25> There's a lot to learn from both sites, don't get me wrong. The problem is finding the right balance between learning and wasting time, which turns out to be a pretty difficult thing to do once you get sucked in.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> \- Take your work more seriously

\- Don't use your emotions when deciding

\- Don't eat that much and make exercising everyday a habit

\- Don't listen to that school counselor; never EVER go to public school

\- Spend less

\- Care less about grades more about work

\- Don't move to Kayışdağı

\- Leave your parents' house before 18

Not that important but it was an then-expensive lesson:

\- Don't buy that Samsung Omnia, get the iPhone

<comment><USER27> As an American, some of these were difficult for me to relate to.

<comment><USER26> I'm guessing you are mentioning these points:

\- Don't listen to that school counselor; never EVER go to public school

She told me and my family to opt for public school in high school but quality of education was[0] very low and I was already making money as a software developer at that time. Private schools have access; better network for the future and most of them have excellent education.

\- Care less about grades more about work

Again, I was in a shitty school that gave me nothing. Working towards a better career would be better choice.

\- Leave your parents' house before 18

This is a personal opinion. It was clear that I was going to move to a different city but I've never had to do any chores at home. So, my first year, I failed at some basic tasks in the house since I had no experience. If I was living in a separate house before moving to a different city; somewhere close to my parents, it would've been better.

[0] still very low.

I need to point out that all of these opinions are rare in my country. Combination of a rich family, love for technology, hunger for knowledge and luck is the reason why my opinions are like this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> 'That thing you're doing, you're much better at it than you realise'

To which I hope my younger self would retort

'That thing you're doing, you're not half as good at it as you think you are'

</comment><comment><USER29> Index funds with dividends reinvested. Put more in, sooner.

<comment><USER11> To self: 1\. Read Graham's intelligent investor. 2\. Discover the Harry Browne ("Permanent") portfolio sooner ( [http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/permanent-portfolio- dis...](http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/permanent-portfolio-discussion/) ). 3\. Investigate a brokerage window account through your company's retirement plan earlier. 4\. Pay attention to P/E and P/B ratios. 5\. Review the holdings of your index funds and consider whether ownership of growth stocks is acceptable to you. 6. Consider investing in value or dividend-growth index funds rather than a generic S&P 500 index.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Making and keeping friends requires effort.

</comment><comment><USER31> Figure out who you are and why you do what you do, then when you know who you are, stop trying to be anything else.

</comment><comment><USER32> Listen to your mentors and keep them close at hand. I was lucky to have a number of good ones early in my career. When you have a tough decision to make, seek their advice, don't bear it alone.

When I found myself without a mentor for a period of time, I tended to go astray.

</comment><comment><USER33> \- Do not borrow money, except from your parents.

\- Tell your dad to keep those AAPL stocks.

\- Never work with Oracle (the company).

</comment><comment><USER34> Whatever spirit you hold, keep it intact. If you have a broken leg, and the spirit compels you to run, then run. It's better to limp and have a spirit, than to be without pain, without spirit, painless, spiritless.

</comment><comment><USER35> Meditate 2 hours a day. Be patient and you'll see a dramatic difference.

</comment><comment><USER36> realize that high school band could teach you everything you need. If you wanted to move up a chair, understand what it takes and master that. When you were set up for a challenge(the method used to move up a chair) you basically looked at all the required music and figured out which was the section the you would have to play. The Challenge was set up so that the instructor would listen to both players play the section selected, from another room, and decide who performed the best. That's how it is in life...and it has worked well for me.

</comment><comment><USER37> Spend more time with your kids when they are young, even if the activity is a little boring. People, especially your family, matter more than anything else.

</comment><comment><USER38> Buy lots of MSFT. Borrow money and buy more of it.

<comment><USER39> If you were here for the MSFT stock, you were also here for the .com registrations, APPL, GOOG and Bitcoin.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> If I could go back in time, I wish I could stop procrastination and become better at prioritizing things.

</comment><comment><USER41> "No, you are really not bad at programming. Give it another go, you can do it."

</comment><comment><USER42> Avoid failure is imposibble. Try find smart way to failure fast and not hurt too much

</comment><comment><USER43> Enjoy the every moment of your life...........and reduce the game time

</comment><comment><USER44> Don't wait.

</comment><comment><USER45> be patient.

</comment><comment><USER46> Pursue a career in medicine. That way you can be absolutely sure you're working hard for a reason.

</comment><comment><USER47> money is an amazing and fun thing to have but the pursuit of it alone is empty. It's so easy to just nod your head at the above statement and agree, deep down believing it's true but that your pursuit is somehow more justified. Don't ever embark on a project because it's "part of an x billion dollar industry", don't ever tell yourself you'll do more of x or y once you "save up and get a bit more padding". Don't rip off someone else's idea because you will never truly understand it the way they do. Don't let a project define your life, you have to be bigger than the project and know that if it fails you will be just fine. Don't ever be the 'idea guy' or 'the money guy' \- if you don't fully understand a project and the industry it's in, you're going to get fleeced. If you're really good at X, why would you spend all of your time doing Y? Because Y is a 50 billion dollar industry? lol. This applies to the stock market too - if you're good at code and not so good with securities (impulsive?) - why would you spend so much time researching how to thrive int he stock market? Is it because you truly love the idea of the stock exchange and owning a part of a company as a long term investment - or are you trying to make quick and easy money? What would you think if an expert stock broker came to you with his idea for making an amazing iPhone app, that he's putting trading on hold until his app is finished? You'd maybe tell that guy to slow down for a minute.

Write your ideas down - every single one - because eventually you'll have many per day and although you will only ever develop a very small percent, those ideas build on each other and become something amazing. Be an expert in one field, but be proficient in many many more- the truly amazing ideas come from connections make across multiple disciplines that haven't been seen before because historically people are told to excel in just one area. Those truly amazing ideas, good chance you won't develop most of them either but you will delight yourself with the ability to be creative at a moments notice and it will give you the confidence that you can accomplish very big things, and it will be backed up.

Know when a project has lost steam and know when to drop it, when to tell the team members it's time to work or quit. Don't be afraid to trash a project even if it has some potential. If you have a crappy codebase on a non-trivial project - if it was created by 1 or 2 people it's probably a lot faster in the long run to just rewrite the thing very clean. Team is important - only work with people who really impress you - if you think you're better than everyone else on the team in every area - you have selected/joined a really bad team. Know how to spot other people who give a crap and want to develop cool things. Learn from other experts who know something you don't. Never be afraid to admit you were wrong or misspoke. don't act like you know it all - the feeling that you 'know a lot' after studying something for a few weeks must be some kind of common thing, but after another few months you start to realize how very little you know. Don't be satisfied with a cursory knowledge of a programming language if you have decided to use it in a project.

Don't ignore best practices, they help you progress a lot faster and become mentally organized. Don't overcomment code - also don't obsessively refactor to the point the code is unreadable. Make sure you're always learning something new.

Find out your favorite way to learn: reading, classes, videos, hacking. These are great but after you know the intro stuff, start to read the official documentation.

You know how you say "I can't believe how ignorant I was just 2 years ago"?- well in 2 years you'll be saying the same thing hopefully - that means you're ignorant now and you just don't realize it. Be humble, keep up the pace, keep learning - don't be lazy you ignorant fucker!

If you're stuck on a coding problem and have been sitting more than a few hours frustrated- get some help and talk to someone (and stretch). Those ruts that can last 10, 20 hours - they are not good, they are incredibly wasteful and they hurt. Speaking of sitting - get a damn aeron (or whatever your favorite chair is) - even if you're poor it's worth it. Don't be afraid to spend on really good equipment, it all pays off. Always be open to paying more for quality, but avoid paying more simply because of brand. Avoid getting the 'base version' of a product without carefully considering all of the 'add ons' and determine if they are actually valuable to you (again on the aeron, the only people who I have really heard say they've very unhappy with it seem to have the cheaper, not-so-adjustable version -it's like paying 20% more to get 50% more.

If you ever think you will get into creating electronics, don't throw away old things with PCBs - at the least pull those things out.

Autodidacticism is a wonderful thing as is contextual knowledge - do your best to eventually back up those things you learned with some formal book study. Also - peer programming is an amazing thing, do it at every chance you get. Try your best to find answers to your own questions. Learn more about yourself, try to figure out what makes you motivated, happy, tired, overemotional. When you're stressed and emotional your ability to think logically and be effective is drastically reduced.

Enjoy the things you like, food, music, books, fashion - based on what makes you happy - try never to buy anything with the thought in your head of how you're going to feel when other people see you - it's an insidious thought that I assume we all get but if you recognize it you can squash it. Don't be afraid to listen to a genre of music because it's been stereotyped - if you like corny music then forget it - listen to the corny music and if anyone laughs at you, you can smile and not care a single bit. If you act with indifference to peoples insults or ad hoc arguments they'll become insanely frustrated - don't continue a debate on ad nauseum. If someone always says you need to have the last word - that's a pretty good time to stop taking because not only has the argument become pointless... but yea.

ok that's a lot - a nice reflection for sure.

</comment><comment><USER48> \- Never work on things that won't sell.

\- Keep up with market trends.

\- Strategize marketing/sales first, implement later.

</comment><comment><USER49> Don't go to Canada.

<comment><USER48> Why not?

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> Nothing fixes itself

</comment><comment><USER51> Learn Lisp sooner.

<comment><USER16> The only way to learn Lisp, is to write a Lisp.

<comment><USER52> On the other hand, people tell me that writing a Lisp is one of the easier language endeavors.

<comment><USER51> Sure, but those people tend to be convinced that the job is done when (+ 1 1) evaluates to 2. Ask them whether their lexical variables are properly shadowing symbol macros, and you will likely get a blank stare.

"a Lisp" is not quite the same thing as "a fully conforming implementation of a mature reference standard, like ANSI Common Lisp or, or R6RS Scheme or what have you".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Don't go to the fucking doctor.</comment>


EU Parliament recommends Jabber instead of WhatsApp and checks signal - <AUTHOR> https://www.en24.news/2019/10/eu-parliament-recommends-jabber-instead-of-whatsapp-and-checks-signal.html <comment><USER2> I don't think a centralized and by-default unencrypted XMPP server for all MPs would be a good solution.

Signal isn't ideal either, as it requires sharing the phone number.

I'm biased since I work for Threema, but any decentralized end-to-end encrypted messenger that does not require a phone number would be a good fit in my eyes.

[https://www.securemessagingapps.com/](https://www.securemessagingapps.com/) gives a good overview on the tradeoffs.</comment>


China's excessive coronavirus public monitoring could be here to stay - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/09/the-new-normal-chinas-excessive-coronavirus-public-monitoring-could-be-here-to-stay <comment><USER2> In other cities in China it's possible to check other people's travel history and get them to do facial recognition on their phone. (So you can't just give your friend your phone). Many restaurants would do this before letting customers come in. Worth also saying that the restaurants are only in the last few days opening their doors for sit down customers and so this is a new thing. People are frustrated in downloading another app and jumping throug hoops but also keen to eat inside when outdoors is still chilly.

I guess the point is, the results of the surveillance is done by each other not just by big brother.</comment>


Learning to Code - <AUTHOR> http://novicetoninja.tumblr.com/

<comment><USER2> Thanks for starting the blog. I've doubted myself after trying to learn programming for a long time with the same intentions of building my own MVPs...and the same growing pile of web development books!

I don't know when it will happen but I'll begin planning for my Sweat Lodge.

<comment><AUTHOR> The two secrets as I see it are:

1\. you need to start with a project instead of just blindly reading technical books.

2\. Having a mentor really helps.</comment></comment>


Android One - <AUTHOR> http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/for-next-five-billion-android-one.html

<comment><USER2> > To help ensure a consistent experience, Android One devices will receive the > latest versions of Android directly from Google.

Finally! Hopefully we'll see all new Android devices going this direction in the future, with carriers and handset/tablet vendors (who have no incentive to support a device that's already been sold) removed from the software side of things entirely.

That's one of the most significant differences with Chrome OS, where the software stack always comes directly from Google no matter who you get your Chrome device from.

</comment><comment><USER3> I just came back from a month in the subcontinent. Practically everyone has a modern smartphone from some Chinese company or other. Good ones with modern specs, running Android 4.4. Many children had better phones than mine. And I am talking about regular people, shopkeepers, etc.

Their main problem is that there are no worthwhile mobile data networks. The ones they have are slow, expensive and with very poor coverage. This is the problem to solve - hardware is already a commodity at this point.

</comment><comment><USER4> I am a long time Android user and recently pre-ordered an iPhone 6. Many people I know have done the same.

But after reading this post, I don't think Google cares. They're aiming at getting a phone in the hands of millions without the means to get a legit smart phone.

<comment><USER5> "I am a long time Android user and recently pre-ordered an iPhone 6."

Okay, i'll bite. The iphone6 seems like a slightly better iphone 5 (hardware wise) What was the hardware feature that drove you to this?

(If it was IOS 8, that's interesting, but you make it sound like the iPhone 6 offered something over and above the iPhone 5S that made you want it over an android device, so i'm really curious what it was)

<comment><USER4> I was tired of being left out. Indy games always release iOS first and sometimes don't even port to Android. Cool apps that come out like Hyperlapse are also iOS first. Even Google's own apps release features an iOS before Android. Device fragmentation plagues Google's apps. Hardware-wise, they're all more or less the same.

In terms of iPhone 5s vs. 6 it's really just the timing. I was disappointed with this year's Google I/O and felt I should get the newest device.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> A dupe of [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8317943](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8317943).

</comment><comment><USER7> It looks like Google is trying to become more like Apple. Seeing that Apple does not make its own hardware (and it's made by contractors like FoxConn), the similarities are pretty high between A-1 and Apple.

Not an Apple fanboi, but I like the whole iOS ecosystem: less noise, things "just work", etc.</comment>


Chernobyl's Hot Mess, "The Elephant's Foot," Is Still Lethal - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/blog/chernobyls-hot-mess-the-elephants-foot-is-still-lethal <comment><USER2> (2013)

Since this article was published, the "New Safe Confinement" has been completed: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_New_Safe_Confineme...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_New_Safe_Confinement)

<comment><USER3> Yes and the foot is still just as lethal inside it and will be for quite some time, your point is?

Great estimation here for how long and how much-

[https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/8hp7l5/what_is_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/8hp7l5/what_is_the_expected_life_timeline_of_the/)

"The elephants will probably go away long before the radiation all goes away."

<comment><USER4> Now this is a wild guess on my part, not being a nuclear engineer and all, but I reckon that the foot is probably not just as lethal now it is inside this 'New Safe Confinement' thingy, unless they have gone and named it really, really badly.

<comment><USER5> The elephant's foot is quite deep under the reactor in a lower level of the complex. So I don't think it specifically is any more or less safe since you have to go to a lot of effort to get near enough for it to hurt you.

The New Safe Confinement has a different purpose - to stop radioactive dust and debris from the reactor itself (a bit higher up) from spreading into the nearby area and being spread by the wind in case the hastily constructed original containment structure collapses (they are going to remove that old structure now the NSC is finished so that doesn't happen, I believe).

<comment><USER6> TFA does note:

> Born of human error, continually generating copious heat, the Elephant's > Foot is still melting into the base of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. If > it hits ground water, it could trigger another catastrophic explosion or > leach radioactive material into the water nearby residents drink.

I had never heard that it was "still melting into the base of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant". Given that it's only 10% as radioactive as it was initially, that seems unlikely.

<comment><USER5> This article (from 2016, three years later than TFA) says it's estimated to be 'slightly higher than the ambient temperature' - [https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-famous-photo-of- ch...](https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-famous-photo-of-chernobyls- most-dangerous-radioactive-material-was-a-selfie)

While it reaching groundwater was definitely a concern in the 80's, I don't think it's actually moved significantly or is expected to in the future.

<comment><USER6> Thanks. That's more or less what I expected.

"China Syndrome" was an influential film. But until Fukushima, I don't believe that we saw melted core "lava" reach groundwater.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Someone who took a photo of it, up close, was surprisingly still alive in 2014, according to this article: [https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the- famous-photo-of-ch...](https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-famous-photo- of-chernobyls-most-dangerous-radioactive-material-was-a-selfie)

</comment><comment><USER8> The title of this post needs a "(2013)" tag added. This is an older article, and is out of date.

</comment><comment><USER9> > "The Elephant's Foot," Is Still Lethal

Oh, I assumed that it'd be safe after a couple decades...

<comment><USER10> Maybe a after a couple thousand decades :-)

<comment><USER11> Yea, the title doesn't reflect the scale of the consequences.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It's featured in somewhat distorted shape in "Stalker: Shadow of Chernobyl" in one of the underground tunnels.

[https://i.imgur.com/TVvbcan.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/TVvbcan.jpg)

<comment><USER13> Looks like that's just a generic solidified corium flow. Elephant's Foot just happens to be a famous solidified corium flow.

<comment><USER14> How many corium flows are there that there can be a generic one? Or a famous one?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> That would be true if exactly one isotope decade into a stable isotope. With more complex decay chains etc that does not always apply. [https://sushkom.com](https://sushkom.com)

</comment><comment><USER16> It's only lethal if you attempt coitus or ingestion.

<comment><USER16> Before the dreaded HN grey curtain of we-dont-like-you descends on my post... while most of the article is well written, two helpings of TRIPE in this article jumped out at me. I'd expect better from a writer for Scientific American.

The first,"the Elephant's Foot is still melting into the base of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. If it hits ground water, it could trigger another catastrophic explosion or leach radioactive material into the water nearby residents drink."

This is ludicrous! The thing is only slightly temperature-hot. Was the writer reacting to that famous jiggly time lapse photo with the waving flashlight... that just HAPPENS to trigger everyone's molten China Syndrome fantasy? More about the photo, and apologies to anyone (like the article's silly author) who thought the photographer had died a horrible death whispering the word, "Rosebud".

[https://www.quora.com/Is-the-elephants-foot-still- hot](https://www.quora.com/Is-the-elephants-foot-still-hot)

The other piece of TRIPE is a dangerous general malaise of willful containment ignorance. Storing nuclear waste was never considered the best idea, not even in Fermi's day. It is the competent science writer's job to communicate that wringing our poor hands in despair and waiting oodle-thousands of years is not the only option.

It is safely contained within our own time frame, and IF we should desire to grind it up and render it with technology we NOW POSSESS with actual means just beyond the corner (bombarding it with fast neutrons, reaping heat energy in the process)to result in a short decay product that is a few hundred years from walk-away safe.

Now we cannot financially afford to do that on this day or the next, but that is no cause for a SCIENCE article to fail to remind us that its current dangerous state is from a lack of follow-through and not of possibility.

It's not enough to just present the truth about radiation and nuclear energy any more. Too much noise. We must push back at the ignorance and hysteria, make sure the young do not grow up steeped in superstition.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I am surprised I can't find more recent photos, I would have assumed robots would be regularly sent over the years to monitor it.

<comment><USER18> Nope.

1\. the room with the elephant foot is hardly accessible now; 2\. nothing interesting happens with it, no need to monitor

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> > The Elephant's Foot will be there for centuries

Does that mean it won't bleed into water supply before then?

<comment><USER20> The "foot" is composed of (now) solid material, and sitting on a concrete pad onto which the reactor building was constructed. Around the building is the "New Safe Confinement" structure.

So no, it will not bleed out.

<comment><USER13> Does the New Safe Confinement also extend into the ground?

<comment><USER21> It doesn't, but after the disaster, the basement areas were eventually filled with a lot more concrete. It's not just the very thick concrete pad between it and the groundwater, and it no longer generates enough heat to threaten to melt through.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> If you can, find the documentary BBC Horizon, Inside Chernobyl's Sarcophagus. I first saw this in the 90s as a kid and I was blown away. Absolutely crazy situation at the time. Hats off to the Liquidators and the scientists who tried to mitigate this mess. Many died and have been forgotten since.</comment>


Schedule for How to Do Map Stuff: A Live Community Sharing Event - <AUTHOR> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQYEF0OVrMNF47enGSAAeZvDCnC7JdlCY4Bu5aCSPGfHyOI6pROi12svuM64QUG3xkeQN4IsT027jHv/pubhtml <comment><AUTHOR> This is apparently tomorrow. I found it via Reddit, but posted the original source.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/gis/comments/g9vihq/in_less_than_24...](https://www.reddit.com/r/gis/comments/g9vihq/in_less_than_24h_there_will_be_a_full_day_online/)</comment>


For a Better Society, Teach Philosophy in High Schools - <AUTHOR> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-shammas/for-a-better-society-teac_b_2356718.html <comment><AUTHOR> I agree with the article that a general problem of our society is a lack of teaching thinking and analysis skills. As someone with a background in philosophy, philosophical tutelage can't really begin until someone is at a college age and a college maturity, at least with the American understanding of maturity. I assume that if the school system were completely destroyed then rebuilt with critical thinking at its core rather than obedience and conformity, it would be possible to have more mature students who could handle learning philosophy in high school.

High schools do in fact serve to create bare minimum interchangeable peons who are not mentally competent to apply critical thinking or analysis. Forcing a philosophy class into the curriculum won't change the fact that it won't be taught correctly, as the emphasis is on sitting still in the seat and turning in homework rather than genuine contemplation and forming of a cognitive capacity.

With that being said: our population needs a massive boost in thinking ability, so something's gotta give. It's been a dream of mine to someday make a kind of school to teach critical thinking and other thinking skills-- but the children today are not capable of taking advantage of such a school with the way the education system is currently.</comment>


Neil Armstrong's reply to a Moon landing skeptic - <AUTHOR> https://kottke.org/20/06/teacher-tells-off-neil-armstrong-for-faking-the-moon-landing <comment><USER2> _They would have you believe that the United States Government perpetrated a gigantic fraud on its citizenry._

Well, it certainly wouldn't be the first time that happened, by any government. The "Weapons of Mass Destruction" lie could be described using the exact same sentence, and that wasn't even twenty years ago.

Not defending the moon landing doubters, or conspiracy theorists in general, but: the proper response to these things isn't to point and laugh. It's to recognize their origins - a (often justified) loss of trust in institutions and governmental narratives - and work on addressing and fixing them.

Edit: commenters seem to be focusing on a single example, which I presented as an illustrative point for a much deeper and more important phenomenon. You're missing the forest for the trees.

<comment><USER3> Oh and didn't the WMD fraud come out internally ? Tell me one NASA or JPL scientist officially on the mission who is claiming that it was fake ?

Stop being contrarian for the sake of it .

<comment><USER2> As I said, I'm not defending the moon landing doubters. But it seems obvious to me that the recent increase in conspiracy theories is a direct result of unethical institutional and government actions coming to light.

<comment><USER4> Like flat earth and anti-vax? To me, it seems more obvious that that's the effect of attention and manipulation in media, both "classic" and social.

A suspicious attitude institutions has always existed: from the government down to the grocer, who pushes the scales down while weighing. The more the attention is drawn towards it, the greater the suspicion gets, and I feel that especially divisive attention feeds suspicion. When behavior of an institution, such as the Trump administration, is not beyond reproach, it feeds the attention cycle.

<comment><USER2> The Flat Earth thing makes no sense to me, but regarding Anti-Vax: again, not defending them, but it's trivially easy to find examples of governments (worldwide) deceptively giving people medicine which had a negative effect on their health, whether as experimentation, sterilization, or otherwise. The fact that vaccines are scientifically known to be safe is just lost in the noise.

I attribute the rise of conspiracy theories to an overabundance of information; doing the research on each individual topic is just overwhelming to the average person and subsequently a simplistic conspiracy theory has appeal.

<comment><USER5> My pet theory on the flat Earth is that it's been pushed in order to compile lists of extremely gullible people by scraping social media so that these lists can be used later. For what? Who knows. Targets of scams, marketing, propaganda...

<comment><USER6> Nah, some AI just figured out it was an easy way to get more clicks on YouTube.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Armstrong's exact argument about the vast numbers conspirators that would be required to keep perfect secrecy is exactly what I use when people try to claim that the coronavirus is some kind of hoax or that there's some kind of conspiracy about vaccines.

Have you ever tried to get thousands of people to cooperate on anything, let alone perpetuate a massive lie, when they have nothing to gain personally from doing so?

<comment><USER8> They don't have to lie. You can have 90% of those 400k people do legit work, but still fake the landing. Maybe they built the rocket but encountered some technical bottleneck and had to fake the landing. Not a skeptic myself, but the argument that 400k people needed to keep a secret is pretty weak.

<comment><USER9> If the moon landing was indeed infeasible from a technical perspective at that time, those people would know, that their designs were inadequate or flawed. The "some people might think they do legit work" argument doesn't really hold, because they would either know it was an impossible feat, or it would possible and no need to fake the landing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I read it somewhere that the best way to respond to conspiracy theorist is to make a more outlandish claim:

\- Moon landing was fake.

\- You believe in the Moon?!

<comment><USER11> The best way is to use the Socratic method, if you have a lot of time. If you throw enough wilful ignorance, compliments, kindness, genuine interest and an endless amount of questions at someone, you'll eventually get them arguing with them selves. It's really the only way to move someone, because you're not really convincing them of anything, they are doing that themselves.

Of course in the modern day and age, such a conversation is rarely going to happen.

<comment><USER12> > The best way is to use the Socratic method, if you have a lot of time. If > you throw enough wilful ignorance, compliments, kindness, genuine interest > and an endless amount of questions at someone, you'll eventually get them > arguing with them selves. It's really the only way to move someone, because > you're not really convincing them of anything, they are doing that > themselves.

That's probably the most succinct description of rhetoric using the Socratic method I have seen to date; highlighting the way its used in effective discourse is as a guide to a conclusion rather than an argument. Very well put.

> Of course in the modern day and age, such a conversation is rarely going to > happen.

Agreed. But even in Plato's time this was rare, too. Which is why The Republic was written the way that it was: a Philosophical discourse approached with this method in mind told via (hypothetical?) dialogue(s) amongst other Philosophers and eventually members of the State to reveal a premise that most could arrive on their own with enough inquiry as to the onerous Nature of the State--even in it's ideal portrayal of the coming Golden Age of the Hellenic Era ushered in by Alexander--and 'good.'

It could have been written merely as proofs with the elucidation of its applications and usecases, as was typical of the time, but instead it took the time to navigate the reader on the likely rebuttals and discourses one may encounter when exploring the Nature of the topic.

To this day I think it stands the time as the most seminal work(s) on Anarchism, it took me 5 readings of all of the books: the first being when I was a sophomore in High School still exploring the ideology and the last being after the death of Grothendieck. Which is probably contrary to what Plato wanted as he himself was an aristocrat who benefited greatly due to his status and standing in Athenian Society that was only possible because of the centralized power of the Athenian-Polis.

All of Plato's work before or since were not comparable and Diogenes, who Plato referred to as 'Socrates gone mad' but also one of the most dedicated Moral Ethicists to have ever existed in my view, was there to remind him of the futility of it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> What gets me most about these fools is they completely ignore how much such a huge fake job would cost. It would be so expensive that you could cut the budget in half and just...go to the moon.

<comment><USER14> Why would faking it with a soundstage and some actors in a room, and some small models, cost so much more? A big budget Hollywood film like James Bond Moonraker (1979) was 1/1000th the cost of the Apollo program, and with no famous actors/actresses, simpler script, TV quality, surely a fake would be cheaper than that?

If someone thought it was fake, they ought to be asking where the budget really went and whose pockets it lined.

<comment><USER15> Because all of the technology and machinery necessary to go to the moon was designed and built. The massive and massively expensive Saturn V rockets(many of them) were designed, built and launched to witnesses. The LEM, CSM, suites, computers, and etc were all built. The simulators were built and simulations run. Etc and etc and etc; hundreds of thousands of people invovled.

So, pretty much all the cost of going to the Moon and now add on the cost of faking it and maintaining that lie for 50 years.

<comment><USER16> And they would know that "maintaining that lie for N years" would prove useless as soon as the powerful cameras in lunar orbit would photograph the landing sites. Who would participate in such a lie knowing 100% it will be exposed, eventually...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The saddest and most worrysome aspect of the exchange is actually the sender of the letter being a teacher.

"As a teacher of young children, I have a duty to tell them history..."

<comment><USER18> "Yourselfs"

3/10, could try harder.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> The best argument I ever heard was that it would be more expensive to fake the moon landing than to actually go.

Thousands of people saw the Apollo rockets take off. They would have had to do that part anyway, and that was the most expensive part of the mission.

</comment><comment><USER20> Armstrong's reference to the moon reflectors brought back memories of this classic Big Bang clip:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e5CtbbZL-k&feature=youtu.be](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e5CtbbZL-k&feature=youtu.be)

In this context I can easily imagine that Zack is the teacher.

<comment><USER21> not sure why I feel the urge to reply :) but Zack is the very opposite of that teacher. Zack is asking questions and wants to learn. That teacher just tries to push her opinion on someone, leaving to room for reply, no room for a conversation, exactly what no teacher should do, no one in general but especially someone who should promote discussions, questioning and argumentation

<comment><USER20> The way I look at this is Zack reminds me of the collective group of people who truly struggle with basic science.

As Armstrong points out in his reply, it only takes a very basic level of scientific/forensic examination to easily prove the moon landings happened.

But all of that falls on deaf ears (much like in the clip) when you are responding to someone with a Zack level of scientific ability.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The worst part about this is that it's a teacher who's believing the fake Moon landing conspiracy theory. I had a teacher in primary school who, one day, filled our heads with nonsense by Erich von daniken. When you're young and a teacher does that it tends to stick in your head.

</comment><comment><USER23> Didn't they come back with lunar soil samples? Armstrong reply was brilliant, but I would have also added: "here's some samples we took by ourselves, feel free to meet us at xyz lab and analyze them".

And btw, who the heck allows a negationist like that one to teach children?

<comment><USER24> > who the heck allows a negationist like that one to teach children?

Heh, I strongly disagree with a _lot_ of what is taught in public schools. I even got some Fs in high school for telling teachers they were wrong.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Most men would have soiled myself if they were put into a position of having to reboot the rocket and make it back to Earth. And then seeing how one of the astronauts kept his cool when one of the components for redeparture failed. Just incredible!

<comment><USER26> The whole thing seems like instant death every moment. Perhaps as test pilots they all got used to just trying to get on with things, but maybe they really did soil themselves like us mortals?

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> While we laugh at skeptics, often they serve a valuable purpose. Skeptics have often revolutionized our understanding of the universe. Like Galileo.

We should be careful of unquestioningly believing "established" facts.

<comment><USER27> Unfortunately we're now using the word skeptics for 2 totally different things \- questioning dogma with sound reasoning and reasonable first principles \- trusting one's own belief against overwhelming evidence of the contrary.

Galileo squarely belongs to the former, while flat earthers and moon landing 'skeptics' belong to the latter. Let's not conflate the two.

<comment><USER24> I suspect you don't realize how firmly people at the time believed in revealed truth and the evidence of their own eyes that the sun revolved around the Earth.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I admire Armstrong for taking the time to write such a thoughtful letter. With the exception of people who are close to me, I usually calculate that it's not worth my time to engage and try to refute a conspiracy theory.

</comment><comment><USER29> As he finished up a video call with his parents who were stuck in Europe, he knew he was right. The wold was so naive.

He dictated the last few words on his latest iPhone to save time before telling Siri to send the email - magically connecting himself to the fraudulent spaceman, bits of data flying over air in an instant.

"We are still thousands of years away from having the technology to fly to the moon", he chuckled. He turned his lights off, sank back into his bed. Content.

</comment><comment><USER30> this is my favorite site that debunks all the moon landing conspiracy theories. [http://www.clavius.org/](http://www.clavius.org/)

</comment><comment><USER31> The letter is great, but it doesn't have the same impact Buzz Aldrins reaction to the skeptic had.

<comment><USER32> For those who haven't seen Aldrin punching a conspiracy theorist in the face:

[https://youtu.be/jc7gsdonMHw](https://youtu.be/jc7gsdonMHw)

<comment><USER33> There is something extremely funny about someone wanting an accomplished astronaut to swear that the most important event in their lives actually happened _on a Bible_ , which we all know is an accurate representation of historical facts...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Well, here lies the difference between US and EU.

In US, you try to reason with lunatics who believe the earth is flat and other nonsense.

In EU, we treat lunatics like lunatics.

</comment><comment><USER35> I think the sad part is there are people who still fall prey today to this and many other conspiracies, anti-vaxx just to name one.

But this is a core tenant of freedom of speech and information, so not matter how objectively wrong, I'll defend the teacher's right to say it.

There will always be those who fall into fringe ideas regardless of how disprovable they are because they choose to believe the moon is made of cheese. The tool of critical thinking not being applied well can easily end up here.

</comment><comment><USER36> This is the sort of craziness that led to the Dark Ages after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. We humans are pretty much our own worst enemies.

<comment><USER37> I can't see the parallel between the willful ignorance displayed and the "Dark Ages." Do you think the migrating tribes just refused to believe those aqueducts existed?

<comment><USER38> The rise of the Church made most of the ancient culture to be believed false of demonic. Philosophers were the first put to the fire. Temples were destroyed, along with the books inside them. With the end of the Roman state, there was nobody left in Europe to maintain the engineering knowledge acquired by the ancient.

<comment><USER39> That doesn't really sound like a good summary of centuries of Roman and post- Roman history.

History is complicated, but I would say that the Western European dark ages of 500-1000AD were caused neither by moon landing skepticism (or the 6th century equivalent thereof) nor its opposite.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> If Elon can't get us to the Moon by 2030, I'm putting my tinfoil hat on.

Does this sound like a group of guys who just accomplished the most impressive feat of human innovation?

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

<comment><USER41> Honestly, it really does. Nothing about that suggests they are making up anything. It's throughly organic; off the top of their heads. None of the body language or vocalization suggests deception to me. They include esoteric details and caveats without hesitation. It's fun to watch, thanks for posting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Saw a video of him responding to another skeptic by beating the shit out of him [0]. Honestly when people are that deluded a good knock on the head might be a more persuasive argument...

[0] [https://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2019/0...](https://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2019/07/19/lunar- landing-denier-we-never-went-moon/1702676001/)

[Edit] Mixed up Neil with Buzz... oops. -_-

<comment><USER24> I'd imagine Buzz would be pretty mad if he found out you were mistaking Neil for him, given that Buzz has lived most of his life in Neil's shadow.

As for me, I credit them _both_ _equally_ for being the first men on the moon. They both landed at the same moment. Whether the bootheel or the landing gear hit is not relevant.

<comment><USER42> > I'd imagine Buzz would be pretty mad

He's already knocked one dude out. Might as well add me to the list ;)

I agree with your sentiment. My mind honestly can't wrap itself around the terrifying sense of wonder and vulnerability those guys must have felt being up there and looking back at earth. Incredible.</comment></comment></comment>


Why Don't We Hear About More Species Going Extinct? - <AUTHOR> https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/extinction-countdown/why-dont-we-hear-about-more-species-going-extinct/ <comment><USER3> One of the big things that comes to my mind is that kids who grow up in cities are literally, tangibly cut off from wild natural environments. They often end up not even knowing how to recognize practically any species of plants and animals. So how can you really value a diversity you've barely ever encountered in your own life?

relevant research: [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0193993)

<comment><USER3> FWIW I was super lucky to grow up on an abandoned farm with a huge patch of woods, streams, and swamps. It was sad to eventually figure out that there was just no way to make that experience scale to the whole US population (even if they wanted it too). Of course it was also lonely sometimes and required quite a bit of driving, so I'm not going to defend it as an ecological or social utopia.

Nevertheless, I think it was really good to be around so many plants and animals as a kid.

<comment><USER4> Why do you say it would be impossible to scale it? The US has 330 million people, and 2.3 billion acres of land. That's averages out to 7 acres of land for every man, woman, and child. 700 acres for a little residential area of 100 people. Of course some of the land is barren and other parts have to be used for agriculture, but the numbers are just so large here that I don't think it matters so much.

Of course this is all just pie in the sky since it never _will_ happen, but I think it's interesting to think about. It's easy to forget how huge our country really is. Urban areas only make up 3% of our entire landmass.

<comment><USER5> > Urban areas only make up 3% of our entire landmass.

And 80% of our population. Yet our political system was conceived in an era when those numbers were roughly comparable. It amazes me that more people do not see this as a problem.

<comment><USER6> The US political system isn't trying to use states as a proxy for population measure. The US is a federation of states that only agreed to join the federation on the condition that they get a certain guarantee of clout within the federation.

<comment><USER7> Does not mean that a political system is a god given commandment that can not change to move to a better system. And if some states did agree to join a model, it would be the 13 original colonies. I suspect (but do not know) that the other 37 were annexed.

<comment><USER6> The only two states that were annexed are Texas and Hawaii. Most other territory of today's states was purchased although some of it was ceded to the US, particularly much of the Southwest was ceded to the US by Mexico as a result of the Mexican-American war of the 1840s. (This doesn't include Puerto Rico and a number of unincorporated territories which were a mix of annexed and purchased.)

<comment><USER7> Tomato, tomato: ha ha. A war is a war, the losing side gives up, the winning side gets what the losing side gave

Annex: add (territory) to one's own territory by appropriation

Cede: give up (power or territory)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm never clear in what it means to lose biodiversity. Rainforests are < 10% of the earths land mass but contain a massive proportion of biodiversity. There are many species that live in small segments of a single rainforest. We cut down rainforests all the time. I would assume naively that if we reduce 1% of rainforest area we lose some single digit percent of the earth's biodiversity.

Reducing biodiversity in other ecosystems would take a lot more effort (not to make it sound like a goal).

It wouldn't be incorrect to say the earth's biodiversity is rapidly dropping, purely due to the Amazon. What do we mean?

<comment><USER9> One use of the term was in reference to novel biological compounds. In that context species diversity means quite a bit with millions of samples not being significantly more useful than hundreds.

With so many medical compounds arising from plant or animal life it's not an unreasonable idea that a major drug has been lost with the loss of tropical species. Though, this seems to be less important with advances in biotechnology.

<comment><USER10> The irony though is that the rainforest is actually one of the least biodiverse parts of the world for that particular purpose. Sure, the rainforest is biodiverse for megafauna and, to a lesser degree, megaflora, but if you really want to mine biodiversity for biochemicals, you ought to care about bacteria and fungi, which reproduce and gene-share like crazy. The best places for that are places which drive resource competition and don't have jerk megaflora fumigating the area with simple terpenes -- the desert. However, the desert is less photographically charismatic (in terms of showing 'life') and probably also researchers would rather ask for grants to visit the rainforest or go scuba diving, so that biases the public's perception of where biodiversity exists.

[https://www.pnas.org/content/103/3/626.short](https://www.pnas.org/content/103/3/626.short)

<comment><USER9> In terms of medicine, the further an organism is from humans the less likely it's compounds are directly useful. Bacteria have a huge variety of compounds, but are so alien they have been a poor source of medical compounds. Plants on the other hand while still very separated from us need to interact with animals on a regular basis which closes the gap.

CRISPER is arguably the exception that proves the rule here. Extremely useful, but no need to preserve exotic locations.

PS: Not that I necessarily agree with this, but I have seen this line of reasoning put forth.

<comment><USER10> What? Every single compound that ends in -mycin/-micin comes from bacteria.

Erythromycin Azithromycin Tobramycin Kanamycin Clindamycin Clarithromycin Gentamicin Streptomycin Vancomycin Lincomycin Telithromycin Fosfomycin Doxorubicin

Etc...

<comment><USER9> That's from something like 1 trillion bacteria species vs 300k plant species. Considering we have 120+ important medical compounds from plants we would need ~400,000 from bacteria for each species to have equal weight.

Further, fighting bacteria is a connection between us and bacteria so deriving an antibiotic is an obvious connection. Looking for say an anti cholesterol drug on the other hand and your stuck with random interactions.

<comment><USER10> normalizing by number of species (which is a vague concept anyways, most species nomenclature in bacteria is driven by the need to publish - <USER2> and e coli are basically the same) is completely irrelevant concept for this discussion.

When you're looking for 'random interactions' most chemists reach for combichem anyways. Look at all of the drugs that treat CML - (gleevec eg) none of them come from any biotic source.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> So what metrics are there for biodiversity? Which metric should the media adopt?

<comment><USER6> I would rather the media not be involved. The media presents biased perspectives on behalf of powerful interests to mislead the public. If the media got behind one measure or another then I would be immediately skeptical of it. For the integrity of science we should keep the media as far away from this as possible.

<comment><USER12> How are people supposed to learn about a problem if not by the media?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I assume the vast majority of these species are insignificant insect species almost no one has ever heard of?

</comment><comment><USER14> Because most people don't actually care about biodiversity, and efforts to make them care have failed.

<comment><USER15> Your evidence regarding 'most people'? Pew Research last year report that 63% of Americans say the the government is doing too little to protect animals and their habitat. They evidently do care about these matters.

<comment><USER16> If you look at their actions, they do not care. You aren't gonna vote or consume change into the world.

EDIT: to be clear, voting is useful, but politicians facing a complacent population will follow their own agenda—you need to act outside of the voting booth to push them in the direction you want.

<comment><USER17> Seems most likely to me that the public doesn't know what to do or how to help. The things that are most publicized are often the least impactful (e.g., plastic straws. All we hear is that the house is burning but there's no discernible authority telling laypeople what they can do about it. And we need an authority to weigh in because misinformation is rife and reasoning properly isn't possible for laypeople (e.g., what uses more carbon, the shrink wrapped vegetables that stay fresh longer or the ones that go bad sooner but don't use plastic? What about local organic produce that isn't shipped as far but has much lower yields than its GMO counterparts? Etc etc). Personally I want to make a difference but I don't know how and I am probably more in-the-know than the average layperson. I firmly believe that environmentalists and scientists need to build a credible information pipeline—it's not enough to proclaim fear, they need to communicate what we should do. "Use less carbon is not actionable".

<comment><USER16> We need strikes in america. I don't see any other way. This is a fairly useless action yourself. I also don't have great answers, obviously.

<comment><USER6> Strikes only work when the media portrays them sympathetically. The media will never even report a strike happened if powerful interests are against it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I wonder if Chinese Medicine would know? They seem to extract medicine from anything that lives on the planet, so perhaps they would notice if supply dries up?

</comment><comment><USER19> Probably because extinctions aren't actually occurring at the rate they're being claimed to, that's why. Population collapse from large numbers down to much smaller numbers is one thing (and is probably what's really happening here), but outright extinction is something else.

I've lost track now of the number of times some species has been declared "extinct", only to have it pop up again later. And IIRC, lately there have even been claims that a species can actually go extinct, only to have a closely related species then morph into that extinct species, almost like nature has a "reboot" button for when a species does go extinct.</comment>