Japan Begins Experiment of Opening to Immigration - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-05-22/japan-begins-experiment-of-opening-to-immigration <comment><USER2> I thought it might be useful to add a comment mentioning what the changes are in layman's terms.

Prior to the recent change, everyone working in Japan was a "skilled" worker. There was no language requirement and essentially anyone with a degree was eligible. This didn't cover manual labour jobs etc.

But at the same time, many young people were out working in convenience stores, fast food restaurants etc. Turns out they were all on student visas. With a student visa and a work permission application (essentially a rubber stamp that is never not given) you can work up to 28 hours a week.

So the changes are trying to bring the visa system more in line with what people are actually doing. People without degrees can actually get proper working visas in Japan now.

> "Permanent residents are allowed to apply for Japanese citizenship after > five years."

Technically you can apply for citizenship without permanent residence (green card equivalent) though I don't know what your chances would be.... Also you must give up all other citizenships.

> "Some foreigners will also marry Japanese nationals, and their children will > thus be citizens as well. Since the new law prevents visa holders from > bringing families with them to Japan, many of the new workers will likely be > single people looking for spouses, making them more likely to marry locals."

This is true. In fact, by far the fastest route to permanent residence in Japan is marriage. You can get PR in 3 years if you are married to a Japanese national vs 10 years if you aren't.

Previously there were issues with the working conditions for people on the so- called "trainee" visa. One of these conditions (imposed by the workplace) included "No relationships". I hope the new visas don't come with similar stipulations.

<comment><USER3> > This is true. In fact, by far the fastest route to permanent residence in > Japan is marriage. You can get PR in 3 years if you are married to a > Japanese national vs 10 years if you aren't.

More details on that. Getting a wedding visa the first time gives 1 year. At the second application one year later, one gets once again 1 year. At the third application one year later, you get 3 three. At this point, you could ask for permanent residency. So the first three years after the wedding are a hell of paperwork, but after that there is no need to go to the immigration office (入国管理局) which is close to Shinagawa in Tokyo.

<comment><USER4> > _Getting a wedding visa the first time gives 1 year. At the second > application one year later, one gets once again 1 year. At the third > application one year later, you get 3 three_

This is case-by-case. I went 1y-3y-5y. I've met people who got 3y on their first.

> _but after that there is no need to go to the immigration office_

You still need to renew your physical card every 7 years (new photo etc), but at least you no longer need to prepare all the paperwork.

<comment><USER5> Indeed preparing mine now for the 5 year and once that's done I'll be turning around and starting the permanent visa paperwork. Finally! Lol

<comment><USER4> Since some of the paperwork was the same, I applied for PR alongside my second renewal (the one that got me 5 years) to avoid multiple trips to city hall. The 5 year spouse visa renewal took a week to be approved, the PR took 3 months. So in the end I only had the 5 year visa for 3 months :p

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> As a naturalized US citizen, I had to give up my Japanese citizenship. It was a hard decision to make since half my immediate family is still Japanese and I still love Japan. In part I never forgave Japan that they forced me to make this decision.

Which is why I'm excited for a more ethnically diverse Japan. As a resident of the Bay Area I only see diversity as an advantage of introducing new thoughts and creativity. It comes with challenges of lower trust among neighbors. Though, I learned that through respectful interactions and an open mind the perspectives of someone completely different shaped me into a more mature human being, and it made me realize that my fears were only conjectures derived from no real evidence.

In this transition to a more diverse Japan, will the world lose some of its traditional beauty? Undoubtedly. But, I would like to argue that Japan is a developed country where it already lost a significant amount of its traditional culture during its modernization, and new distinctly Japanese culture emerged from the ashes of the old.

I can't wait for the new culture that will emerge from a ethnically diverse Japan. And hopefully they'll let me be Japanese again, as I was born there and still dearly love it.

<comment><USER7> Did you actually had to give up on your Japanese citizenship? I know that when taking the oath you reject all other citizenship you may have but AFAIK this is not enforced, meaning you don't have to go to your embassy and formally require to give up on your citizenship. Really curious to know more about this.

<comment><USER6> I actually got work in Japan. My passport was expired, and I went to renew it. They always ask how you're staying in the states and to show evidence. At that point my green card was expired and I only had naturalization to show. At that point I had to give up my Japanese citizenship, in order to get a visa. I don't remember if that was the exact reason but I was able to get away with dual for a while. Maybe if I tried renewing it in Japan it wouldn't have been a problem?

<comment><USER8> Ouch... Hopefully Japan will change this at some point, with the increase in international marriages. I've been living here long enough and paid enough taxes to consider becoming a citizen. But I wouldn't trade it for my US citizenship.

Interesting aside. One of my Taiwanese friends got his Japanese citizenship, and thus renounced his Taiwanese.

But plot twist: Taiwan allows (what's akin to) temporary renouncment. Now he's a dual citizen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The Bloomberg article exacerbates the bigotry many Japanese have against their own fellow citizens. In the caption of the first picture: "She's not all Japanese, but she was Miss Universe Japan 2015."

Yes, she is "all" Japanese. She grew up in Japan, with her Japanese mother, attending Japanese schools. This is the subtle bigotry toward people who are "half" (as they're called in Japan) rather than "dual". Many Japanese will always consider them "less Japanese" or outsiders.

She had dual citizenship because of her father. When asked which citizenship she would she would choose, she said, 「もちろん、日本を選ぶわ。自分では、私はとことん日本人だと思っている。そう、100%日本人よ。肌の色の違いは、その人となりとは全く関係ないはず」

"Of course I will choose Japan. I think of myself as thoroughly Japanese. 100% Japanese. It should have nothing to do with heredity, with a different skin color."

[https://www.sankei.com/premium/news/150429/prm1504290022-n3....](https://www.sankei.com/premium/news/150429/prm1504290022-n3.html)

<comment><USER10> > Yes, she is "all" Japanese. She grew up in Japan, with her Japanese mother, > attending Japanese schools. This is the subtle bigotry toward people who are > "half" (as they're called in Japan) rather than "dual". Many Japanese will > always consider them "less Japanese" or outsiders.

Just because she qualifies as Japanese from your point of view doesn't mean that the Japanese have to view it like you. White savior complex much? I've spoken with Japanese friends about hafus and their point of view was that people do not materialize out of thin air, but rather are the genetic conglomerate of their ancestors (which is hard to argue against) and thus links in a chain -- which would make her less Japanese. And that seems fine to me, as long as she is not discriminated against for being viewed less Japanese.

<comment><USER11> > but rather are the genetic conglomerate of their ancestors (which is hard to > argue against) and thus links in a chain

But that's exactly it. It's _not_ like that. Or shouldn't be. That's not what makes a person a part of a group (town, city, region, country, etc). It's a constraining, and wrong way of looking at things. It's something to grow out of. Heck, in my hometown we consider someone as 'from' this town (to translate the term we use, approximately) even if they're not born here, maybe they even moved here in their twenties, and maybe from another continent, maybe looking totally different; if they just 'fit in' and find their comfortable place here. If they bring on something new (combining culture/music from their background with something existing), even better. They are 100% part of what's us. Except for those of the never non-existent, but still tiny minority of the "you're not one of us" group. Those telling young girls (as did an old woman the other day, not in this town but out in the countryside) "you can't wear that traditional costume, you're not one of us" (the girl's grandfather was adopted from some place, or some such).

<comment><USER10> It is revolting how terribly arrogant your comment is, really.

They don't have a "wrong way of looking at things" simply because it is not _your_ way. And your way is by no means _the_ way.

<comment><USER11> I should maybe add 'in my opinion'. But in truth, I really believe it's wrong. It does not lead to anything positive, quite the contrary. And I've never seen a community become _worse_ by moving into a more modern, open view on diversity and acceptance. And to focus: I really, truly mean that the idea that what "makes" you (and that's what I was commenting on) is your ancestors, is just wrong. Genetic chain? Well, so what, we're all a part of a genetic chain, and the same one at that, which goes back nearly four billion years. Take one step back to get the overview and it matters nothing (nor should it) who your father was.

<comment><USER12> It leads to something positive to them, it seems.

"more modern, open view on diversity and acceptance" is not positive by itself. Unless you're looking from the point of view of those entering the country, which are people that nationals don't have to care about.

<comment><USER11> I'm actually taking the point of view from the nationals, as you call it. With people coming from other places on earth the area I'm currently living in became a good place to live. I got the nicest next-door neighbours it's possible to imagine, for example. My wife cried when they moved to another place (to get more space). The city center is also a vastly more dynamic and interesting place to be than it used to be back when everything was monotone. Back when the only non-native language you could hear was a little bit of English, and the occasional tourists from nearby countries. Now there are more than a hundred languages spoken here. It works fantastically well, but it demands that you avoid creating ghettos for immigrants, as has been the unfortunate expericence of some cities elsewhere in Europe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > Nor do Japanese cities have many official celebrations of immigrant culture > or contributions.

Tokyo certainly has. Almost every weekend right next to Yoyogi park[0] there is one, Cuban fest, Thai fest, Rainbow fest, Cambodia fest.

And they are pretty big, with at least 10's of thousands of people visiting.

0 - [https://www.yoyogikoen.info](https://www.yoyogikoen.info)

<comment><USER11> Yep - and in the town I used to live in Japan there were yearly festivals showcasing various immigrant (or even visitor's) culture. All amateurs, just getting together to create something from their various home countries and doing a performance. And then a nice party afterwards, with everybody (audience and participants). And there are food festivals too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Actually, Japan doesn't _begin_ anything. Japan has been doing this for years. The major shift in the last couple of years was introduction of new unskilled visas.

I don't follow that too closely but IIRC what Japan introduced first was a guest worker visa for entry level positions such as convenience store workers. These workers would receive Japanese language training in their home countries and then come to work in Japan for 2 years, or something like that.

I think this was the pilot program. Must've gone well since later on Japan relaxed the requirements for unskilled workers in general.

Meanwhile Japan made it easier for skilled workers to get a PR. I think on "engineer" (there's nuance to what it means and how it works) one would require 10 years to get PR. Then HSFP (see my other comments) was introduced which I believe lowered that to 5 years, initially. Then HSFP was amended to to 1 and 3 years depending on Type 1 (more points on the scale) and Type 2. This happened while back. Year or two ago.

The most recent change is new visas for unskilled workers with a path to PR.

Again, all of this has been going on for years. Nothing began just now :)

</comment><comment><USER15> Fun fact: Brazil has the largest Japanese diaspora in the world (larger than US): [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_diaspora](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_diaspora)

TIL after wondering why Brazil was one of the prominent contributors of foreign workers in Japan.

<comment><USER16> There's an interesting history of the Japanese diaspora in Brazil and Peru [0, 1]. Essentially Brazil was looking to "whiten" its country at the same time that Japan was facing economic crises, jumpstarting the immigration.

0: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Brazilians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Brazilians) 1: [http://isaacmeyer.net/2017/08/episode-207-across-the-sea- par...](http://isaacmeyer.net/2017/08/episode-207-across-the-sea-part-3/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> It will be interesting to see how Japan deals with it culturally. From folks I know who lived there they said that while everyone was nice, it was always clear that they were very much outsiders.

<comment><USER18> >From folks I know who lived there they said that while everyone was nice, it was always clear that they were very much outsiders.

I spend a fair amount of time in Tokyo for work, and I'd say this is accurate.

My 日本語 is far from fluent, but it's frequently better than the English being spoken by random people on the street... yet it will take a good 20-30 seconds of me replying in Japanese before they'll switch away from English.

A co-worker is from Poland, and he married a Japanese woman. Their children speak Japanese and Polish at home, and only a little bit of English. Despite being very obviously half Japanese, he says the kids frequently have trouble getting strangers to speak to them in Japanese, despite it being by far their most fluent language.

This sort of thing probably doesn't sound like a huge deal to someone who hasn't experienced it, but every day to day interaction is a frequent reminder that you're not Japanese and you won't ever be - without radical change, those kids are going to spend their whole lives with their fellow Japanese citizens defaulting to the assumption that they can't even speak their mother tongue.

I still love the city and the people - they are genuinely wonderful and incredibly nice. Many of my co-workers have invited me into their homes, had me meet their families, and gone out of their ways to make sure I have a wonderful time in the city. I've had to modify my own behavior there to not accidentally make people feel like they should be going out of their way to help me, etc. And it's a wonderfully safe place, with kids expected to be able to function independently for means of getting to school, etc. There's an emphasis on personal responsibility, even at a young age, that I think is sorely missing in much of the western world these days, with helicopter parenting, etc., being so widespread.

I don't know if the whole outsider thing will change in my lifetime - but it changing is going to require more immigration, and the native Japanese becoming more exposed to foreigners who have immigrated instead of just tourists, or the breed of expats that keep to themselves in their luxury condos in Roppongi.

I've kind of rambled here, so I guess the cliff notes version is: Japanese people in my experience have been unfailingly nice, outside of some very isolated incidents of obvious racism, but yes, even people born in Japan if they look foreign will be treated as outsiders. That changing is going to require immigration opening up.

<comment><USER19> To each their own I guess. I often find that Japanese prefer to speak to me in Japanese and in fact are relieved to know that I can communicate in Japanese. I have never once experienced this attitude that you are describing and I've lived here for many years.

I have only ever felt welcome. And I frequently meet foreigners with a chip on their shoulder describing how we will always be "outsiders". I find it rather odd to be honest.

<comment><USER18> It's awesome that that's been your experience! I genuinely hope that continues.

It unfortunately is not the only experience, and the evidence I've seen points towards it being far from the norm. It's possible those foreigners you're meeting frequently are just jerks, and that that is contributing to it, but the possibility also exists that they might have that chip on their shoulder because their concerns are genuine.

The documentary iandanforth mentions is a good example of the stuff I'm talking about. You don't need to take my word for it - you can see the genuine experiences of others living in Japan.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Some are saying this is a response to needing more people due to decreasing fertility rates. At least in the US, I was shocked to learn that people actually _want_ children at the same rates as before (about 2.5 kids, and 95% of people want children). However, according to these sources, the major reason is that its too expensive (~65%) and the economy seems uncertain (~12%).

Gallup Data: [https://news.gallup.com/poll/164618/desire-children- norm.asp...](https://news.gallup.com/poll/164618/desire-children-norm.aspx)

Article Overview: [https://ifstudies.org/blog/how-many-kids-do-women- want](https://ifstudies.org/blog/how-many-kids-do-women-want)

<comment><USER21> Why were you shocked? 2.5 children per couple is just slightly above the replacement rate.

<comment><USER20> I was shocked because people _want_ to have children and the same number of children that they did decades ago, its just economic reasons why they aren't (not cultural shifts or beliefs changing, or wanting to "have a bigger career").

<comment><USER21> Again, why shouldn't they? 2.5 children is a perfectly acceptable number.

Also, the birthrate in the USA (and most Western world) is already below the replacement rate for decades now. [1]

[1] [https://www.iheart.com/content/2019-05-15-birth-rate-in- unit...](https://www.iheart.com/content/2019-05-15-birth-rate-in-united- states-hits-32-year-low-new-report-says/)

EDIT: Sorry, I wasn't understanding your point that families can't afford to have as many kids as they could one generation ago. I agree with you.

<comment><USER22> The poster is shocked because people's (self-estimated) ability to afford kids has gone down, leading to a larger number of people who want kids to stay childless. They are not saying that people wanting kids is a bad thing.

Many people assume that people have less kids because preferences and lifestyles have changed, leading to headlines like, "Millennials don't want kids" (And maybe in the same vein, "Millennials are killing cars", "Millennials want smaller homes", etc.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> > but it's no longer quite right to call it homogeneous

Are you sure? Japan is maybe 99% homogeneous? I live in central Tokyo and I can go on for days and days without seeing a foreigner!

> it will inevitably introduce social strains

Sadly, yes. I've observed this on few occasions.

<comment><USER23> I work in Akihabara. I see foreigners everyday. Even in Minato-ku I see plenty of non-Japanese people running around.

<comment><USER14> Add Shibuya (mainly around the station) and Shinjuku and you basically covered all foreigner hotspots! Those are the most non-representative areas!

But go to Shimokitezawa or Gakuendaigaku or anywhere off the beaten path and foreigners will be few and far between.

<comment><USER24> Shimokitazawa still have a lot of foreigners. It is surrounded by universities including Todai.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> It's funny to see the comments lamenting the projected destruction of Japanese culture, while in fact

\- the Japanese language is littered with loan words written in katakana even though native words of the same meaning often exist already

\- office workers all wear suits

\- the music scene is not very different from the west. Rock is huge and there is a great jazz scene. While bands playing Japanese instruments are rare and will be seen as a speciality, the same way bagpipes make you feel ethnic and traditional but pianos and guitars don't.

\- 'western' food is everywhere. I am not talking about what you can actually order in a restaurant in Europe, but Saizeriya and it's peers. Western inspired cuisine. Japanese curry is also a thing.

\- and don't forget about whiskey.

And that

\- no one forced Japan to do so. They have being open to foreign cultural influences since Meiji era, and I don't see that changing. Seems to me that if it works for the Japanese people, it can and will become Japanese culture.

I am open to hear about some opinion from a native Japanese viewpoint. But from what I have read in this thread, much of the speculation about the loss of the 'unique' Japanese culture has more to do about what is happening in the west than what will happen in Japan.

<comment><USER26> >But from what I have read in this thread, much of the speculation about the loss of the 'unique' Japanese culture has more to do about what is happening in the west than what will happen in Japan.

Yes. Japan has become sort of an ideal example of a successful modern ethnostate for Western opponents of multiculturalism. A lot of fears Westerners express about Japan losing its cultural homogeneity are just a proxy for fears of the loss of white power and identity in the US and Europe, as an expression of the current right-wing xenophobic reactionary shift going on in the West.

It's just a weird new form of Orientalism. Instead of fetishising them for their art, or their business practices, or their "submissive" women, we're fetishizing their ethnic identity and racial purity.

<comment><USER27> With Trump, Brexit and the turmoil in Europe we're way past just "opposing" multiculturalism. Multiculturalism seems to be imploding.

I was and am not fascinated by Japan, and to be honest I didn't always enjoy my visit there. It was frustrating to feel so... foreign. I complained about them not speaking English and was annoyed that I couldn't even read a simple sign.

And yet, looking back I cherish that time and a feeling of respect has developed inside me. Because Japan was Japan, and didn't bend itself to my will, of that of other "guests" that want to change it to fit their imagination.

It was as solid as a rock and that counts for something.

<comment><USER26> And yet Japan has been exchanging cultural and genetic material with the rest of East Asia for thousands of years, and the West for centuries. Even during the Sakoku period, they were trading with the world through the port at Dejima.

Pretending it's an island untouched by and uninterested in foreign culture _is_ changing it to fit one's imagination. Someone may well have "bent to your will" a bit had you put in a bit more effort than your comment suggests you did while there, as hospitality is deeply ingrained into their culture.

<comment><USER28> Noone thinks it's an island untouched by the world.

But a small degree of foreign influence over thousands of years, carried out by mutual trade of objects and information, just isn't the same as the kind of mass immigration seen in the West, where the whole population becomes a minority in less than a lifetime. Such a thing has never happened in Japan in a thousand years; not even close. (It did happen before that, and the people who were there originally are _not doing too well_.)

There's a fundamental difference between exchanging products and ideas, and mass migration of people. Stop trying to pretend that they're the same.

<comment><USER29> Again, just because the current Japanese government has lifted some restrictions does not mean mass migration is inevitable. It is tiresome to find Japanophiles who think they know better than actual Japanese people about their future.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Im conflicted about this - I enjoy the multicultural aspects of my own town (Seattle) but I also sympathise with this idea of having a home culture.

<comment><USER31> I'm not only conflicted. I'm annoyed.

Immigration is being sold as a solution to aging and shrinking population. While opening to immigrants certainly helps solving the shrinking workfoce problem, it is nothing more than a duct tape over what is happening: people no longer want to have kids.

After it's been long enough that immigrants are not even called this anymore, if we discover that young workforce is still shrinking because people are still not having enough kids, what excuses we're going to use?

I can agree that immigration is nice and all—hell, immigrants helped to build my country, Japanese included. But, can we search for solutions to the real problem? What can we do, to help people doing things humans are supposed to do? To have children, to have a family, to be healthy, worldwide.

<comment><USER32> Why does that matter to you? I don't know if I'll have children and if I do, it'll certainly be <= replacement rate.

It's often said that people used to have a lot of kids in order to insure against child mortality. I understand financial stress et al may be one reason for the lower reproduction rate but less kids can also be a sign of success.

<comment><USER33> If successful people are having fewer kids than unsuccessful people then haven't we created a dysgenic system?

<comment><USER34> This view is popular, even if in jest like "haha Idiocracy was right guise!!" but in real life it smacks of eugenics and the Divine Right Of The Rich.

Success correlates well with things like wealth, education level of your parents, early-age nutrition, and other things that can be considered "inherited" in a way, but children of poor and "unsuccessful" people can become financially and socially important as well, it just happens at a lower rate.

Suggesting that more poor children than wealthy children will impoverish society in more than just a statistical sense implies there's something immeasurably special about the people who become wealthy and famous, as if the mere act of breeding with them will produce superior humans.

<comment><USER35> Impressive unpacking of a low detail, fairly innocuous comment, into a high detail, somewhat sinister assertion. What mechanism do you use to add specific details where none existed before?

<comment><USER29> The very use of the word "dysgenic" wrt human populations is a form of virtue signaling that is far from unknown to internet circles such as HN. The comment might have been overzealous about rebutting a perceived narrative, but that statement is a basis for that narrative.

<comment><USER35> Fair enough, but back to my question: what mechanism do you use to add specific details where none existed before?

<comment><USER29> I can't speak for the commenter, but it could be a simple yet rigorous heuristic of seeing a particular buzzword used in certain conversations, reading the context statement that the buzzword is employed under, and matching that statement to a particular ideological narrative that is often prevalent in discussion circles such as HN.

<comment><USER35> I just realized the original person that made the comment wasn't the one that replied, my bad.

But I agree, this is indeed what happened. Another similarly true explanation is, _he used his imagination_.

It's interesting to me how judging people based on heuristics is sometimes fine, even admirable, but other times it is Very Very Bad.

It's also funny how these types of ideas seem to offend people, judging by voting anyways. No looking behind the _real_ curtain or something like that I suppose.

<comment><USER29> Doesn't seem to be much judgment going on in that comment towards people. Maybe judgment towards a preexisting narrative or meme. People need to take things less personally in arguments, and feel less offended when the ideas they're repeating are challenged.

<comment><USER35> > Doesn't seem to be much judgment going on in that comment towards people.

Are we perhaps referring to different comments? I was referring to: "This view is popular, even if in jest like "haha Idiocracy was right guise!!" but in real life it _smacks of eugenics_ and the Divine Right Of The Rich."

<comment><USER29> Seems like that comment is judging a narrative or a meme, and not the person who made the comment itself.

<comment><USER35> Just for fun, let's pedantically parse the words and see if that's where we differ (key [words/phrases in brackets] for my parsing).

>>> If [[successful] people are having fewer kids] than [unsuccessful] people then haven't we created a [dysgenic] system?

>> [This view] is popular, even if in jest like "haha Idiocracy was right guise!!" but [in real life] [it] [[smacks of] [eugenics]] and the Divine Right Of The Rich.

...

> Seems like that comment is judging a narrative or a meme, and _not the > person who made the comment itself_.

To be extra safe, let's add some context, to make sure we're using the same definitions and "facts":

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

Dysgenics is the study of factors producing the accumulation and perpetuation of defective or disadvantageous genes and traits in offspring of a particular population or species. _The adjective "dysgenic" is the antonym of "eugenic"._

"smacks of": To be a sign or symbol of something: signify, stand for, symbolize

"eugenics": Eugenics is the science of improving the human species by selectively mating people with specific desirable hereditary traits. It aims to reduce human suffering by "breeding out" disease, disabilities and so- called undesirable characteristics from the human population.

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

"The heritability of IQ for adults is between 57% and 73%[6] with some more- recent estimates as high as 80%[7] and 86%.[8] IQ goes from being weakly correlated with genetics, for children, _to being strongly correlated with genetics for late teens and adults_. The heritability of IQ increases with age and reaches an asymptote at 18–20 years of age and continues at that level well into adulthood. This phenomenon is known as the Wilson Effect.[9] Recent studies suggest that family and parenting characteristics are not significant contributors to variation in IQ scores;[10] _however, poor prenatal environment, malnutrition and disease can have deleterious effects_.[11][12]"

To me (my _interpretation_ ):

\- OP seems to be asserting that "successful" people having fewer kids is detrimental to the overall well being of society.

\- The person replying implies disagreement with this _popular view_ (narrative/meme), but then goes on to assert (again, _my interpretation_ ) that _those who hold this view_ (when it is put forth "in real life", which is what I interpret "it" to refer to) are in support (at least implicitly) of eugenics.

Do you perhaps think OP _doesn 't_ personally hold the stated view, or the replier _doesn 't believe OP personally holds the stated view_? Personally, when I see no language to indicate either are talking in _purely_ theoretical/philosophical (devil's advocate, etc) terms, by default I tend to take people's statements at face value (while keeping in mind the ever-present possibility that something important was lost in translation).

I'm genuinely very curious if this is significantly different than how you view (parse the language to derive the _actually intended_ meaning) the exchange?

<comment><USER29> It might be a mistaken assumption born from misclustering, but given that, as you point out, dysgenic is the antonym of eugenics, and as we can see from a not unrelated conversation from the past day [0] repeating that popular narrative, it is not a leap to presume that all of this is related.

[0] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19985045](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19985045)

<comment><USER35> That comment is certainly related, but unless I'm misunderstanding the relevance to our conversation that you're seeing, it's an aspect other than the one I'm interested in, which is:

a) the mechanism used by CptFribble to produce specific details where none existed before (although I think we've settled this, and are not in disagreement?)

b) how you and I came to different conclusions on whether CptFribble's comment was (or was not) judgemental of slang800 (attributing a personal support of eugenics) - this I don't think is settled?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I was in Tokyo a few years ago, went back recently and I noticed the changes described in this article too. Every sign and menu are now in Japanese/Chinese/English. Waiters, salesclerks, metro station assistants now speaks English. And every 7-Eleven, Starbucks, etc… seems to employ foreigners instead of Japanese people (mostly from countries like Vietnam, Philippine, Thailand and India tho), who speak English perfectly.

<comment><USER37> A lot of this is most likely in preparation for the 2020 Olympics. Especially the street signs.

Its made Tokyo way more easily navigable though, especially combined with Google maps. :)

<comment><USER38> From my observations the Chinese signs are more a reaction to the hordes flocking into the country to buy hygiene products in bulk and also do a little sightseeing on the side.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Perhaps partially due to the fact that people just aren't procreating?

A survey published last week of Japanese attitudes towards sex caused a stir with the claim that about 40% of young single men and women have never had sex – a phenomenon that is being blamed for the low birthrate in Japan, where it is predicted the population will plummet from 127 million over the next century.

The National Institute of Population and Social Security Research's poll of 5,000 single men and women aged 18-34 found that the proportion of virgins had increased significantly over the past decade: among men, 42% said they had never had sex; among women the figure was 44%.

[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/28/japan-poll- lin...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/28/japan-poll-linking- sexless-singles-to-low-birth-rate-causes-stir)

</comment><comment><USER39> The question of the origins of the Japanese peoples is a hotly debated issue. Jared Diamond (of Guns, Germs, and Steel fame) wrote an article on the subject in 1998:

[http://discovermagazine.com/1998/jun/japaneseroots1455](http://discovermagazine.com/1998/jun/japaneseroots1455)

</comment><comment><USER40> I am in Tokyo. Many foreigners

</comment><comment><USER41> ive been impatiently waiting for this for a while, now i can finally start working towards moving over there

</comment><comment> village-idiot The longer Japan waits, the more sudden the demographic shifts will have to be.</comment>


Headphone Jacks Are the New Power Plugs - <AUTHOR> http://beta-blog.archagon.net/2016/06/21/headphones/ <comment><USER2> This does a great job at making a point (and concisely, too!) but I think this is the paragraph that stands out the most:

"In the past, every time a prominent piece of technology was removed from my Apple hardware — most recently the CD drive and the Ethernet port — my response was ambivalent because I had already been happily using the alternative for a while. Wi-Fi, despite its flaws, offered countless advantages over Ethernet, leading to rapid adoption. Steam, iTunes, and Netflix had made me almost forget that CDs were still a thing by the time I got my Retina Macbook Pro. It almost goes without saying that these technologies were standard and universal — nobody would have accepted them otherwise. But there's no Next Best Thing in headphones. This is an entirely artificial change."

I despise Apple products because so many the decisions seem to be about Apple and not about me. Amazon has the opposite philosophy, and I'm a voracious consumer of Amazon products (even though I find their ethics to be suspect). Amazon gives me no choice because they are better than all their competitors. Apple makes me beg for a competitor and even accept compromises in order to get away from their anti-consumer decisions (like this one).</comment>


My heart, home is not in S.F. anymore - <AUTHOR> http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/my-heart-home-is-not-in-sf-anymore/Content?oid=2855023

<comment><USER2> People are getting mad at airbnb, but they should also be getting angry with the city, demanding more enforcement of zoning laws and building codes.

I'm not really against airbnb, but I do think that communities should have a choice. In short, I think that there should be some places in a city where people can trade their own right to run a hotel out of their apartment in exchange for a legally enforced expectation that their neighbors won't do this either.

The legal structure for this is zoning. In the past, it was difficult to violate these laws (pre-internet, it took quite a bit of effort to find tenants for an illegal hotel). As a result, enforcement could be indifferent.

Some laws become obsolete with new technology, others acquire new relevance and need to be dusted off and enforced more rigorously. Airbnb will most definitely not solve this problem, they stand to profit massively by denying people the arrangement I described above - agreeing not to turn your house or apartment into a hotel in exchange for an assurance that you will not have to live next to one. We need city government to take this on and do something.

</comment><comment><USER3> I wonder why Daneen didn't first try the most direct route which is to talk to her neighbor about her concerns and ask that they be respectful of "quiet hours".

<comment><AUTHOR> from my understanding is the actual owner is never there, just rents it out all the time, and its a constant thing with different people using the space. they tried contacting airbnb, to get ahold of the owner - but to no results.

<comment><USER4> The author's best bet is probably to find the owner's contact information through the county assessor's office.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> >Airbnb was dismissive when I contacted them about our security concerns. It apologized for the inconvenience, but said it is just an Internet company and can't get involved.

This. Happening over and over again, everywhere. No matter what your business model is, involve the 'internet', and then you are just an Internet company, and can't get involved in the problems you caused. Because, The Internet. This sets a dangerous trend for new companies that will grow in an environment where the claim of being an 'Internet Company' clears them of all responsibility.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> pretty heartbreaking piece about an sf resident and her family who have made the decision to move away from the city - both by pricing, but also by a bad airbnb neighbor.</comment>


Securing WebSocket with Plain HTTP Without HTTPS - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/InstantWebP2P/sws <comment><AUTHOR> We design a cryptographic protocol to setup Secure Websocket(alias SWS) over plain HTTP site between http client and http server, which includes Nacl-based Certificates Exchanges and Crypto-Keys Distribution.

<comment><USER2> What's the reason to do that?

<comment><AUTHOR> provide nessary security in plain http site

<comment><USER2> I don't get the threat model. You're trying to protect the websocket against possible mitm, but you're doing it using client script downloaded without security over a similar route that you have to also assume is mitm'ed. So basically all the attacker need to do is replace your script with some alternative copy that either exposes the keys or mirrors the whole steam to the attacker endpoint.

Am I missing anything?

<comment><USER3> Various other security holes. But indeed, this by itself is insecure enough. [https://www.nccgroup.trust/us/about-us/newsroom-and- events/b...](https://www.nccgroup.trust/us/about-us/newsroom-and- events/blog/2011/august/javascript-cryptography-considered-harmful/)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Myth of Sentient Machines - <AUTHOR> https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201606/the-myth-sentient-machines <comment><USER2> While I personally believe modelling the human brain is the wrong path to follow for creating a general AI, I think the arguments raised in the article are effectively metaphysical. This seems like an extension of the arguments about whether animals are capable of having consciousness. If one were to take the writings of Descartes and replace every instance of the word 'animal' with the word 'computer,' the resulting argument would mesh very well with this article.

I don't think anyone would argue a simulation of photosynthesis creates energy in the same way actual photosynthesis does, however I have no doubt it is possible to create a process that produces the same outputs of photosynthesis using the same inputs. In the same sense, what makes a human is not the process by which it thinks, but the thoughts the human generates. You don't necessarily need to have a brain to think, and you don't need to have understanding to think.

For instance, I would heartily disagree with the assertion that computers cannot be human because they cannot understand the meaning behind a symbol. This implies that a) humans must always understand the meaning behind symbols in order to utilize them effectively, and b) that it is not possible to create a machine which can understand symbols. Understanding symbols is a function of the brain, but understanding how symbols are created can be abstracted, and we call that field of study Semiotics.

We are capable of using symbols long before we understand exactly what they mean. People who are born deaf and dumb still smile when they are happy, and they still cry when they are sad. These symbols change throughout our life in response to society around us, but the fundamental aspects of the symbols are inherent in every person. If our understanding of symbols is driven entirely by biology, is there a functional difference between being driven by an emotion, and being driven by a processes which fully replicates being driven by emotion?

I can't say that I think there is a difference. Pleasure and pain are effectively physical phenomena, in the sense that they exist outside the part of the brain that forms our sentient selves. If we model a machine that is capable of thought, and provide it external feedback based on the decisions it made internally, I think there is a very good chance we will reach a level of complexity that allows for sentience.

At a certain level, you have to wonder why we would even create an exact replica of the human brain. What advantages would a computer that thinks like a human have? I can only begin to imagine the ethical implications of putting a human brain inside a computer. Would turning it off be murder? How would you raise a human that is born inside a computer? What psychological pitfalls would that person face?

I think it is much more likely that we recognize that we have created a sentient AI long after it has actually happened. The structure of machines means that a sentient machine will exhibit its sentience in a way that we as humans would not immediately recognize as sentience.

Stanford has a great philosophy library which would be a good starting point for anyone who'd like to think about this some more:

[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness- animal/](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-animal/)</comment>


100 Counterintuitive Things About Testing by the Author of Falsehoods About Time - <AUTHOR> http://infiniteundo.com/post/158170334513/108-counterintiuitive-things-qa-people-know-about <comment><AUTHOR> I am the author of this post! If you notice inaccuracies or have thoughts, please comment here. I will be reading and responding to all comments as always.

</comment><comment><USER2> > #2: Tight coupling is good.

Only between a test and the specific code for the behavior under test. It's not good between test suites, abstraction layers, APIs, etc.

> #3: It's good when something is known to be broken.

When compared to it being broken unknowingly, but not really otherwise.

> #15: The same bug almost never "reoccurs" so most "regression testing" is > pure waste.

> #48: Writing tests for bugs that are fixed does NOT correlate with catching > new bugs when they arise.

What about a situation where you have untested behavior (perhaps incomplete test coverage to begin with), then you find a problem in that code and write a test to prevent regression. When you later refactor the code under test there's a definite possibility of "regression" of sorts, especially if the refactoring is comprehensive.

> #20: "Black box" is a political designation and has no technical meaning.

A black box is a system where you can observe inputs and outputs but not the system performing the transmutation.

> #31: On a Web site with 1 million visits per week,a one-in-a-million event > can occur once a week.

Quoted for thought-fodder, this one is awesome.

> #51: Granular and/or comprehensive documentation of a nontrivial Web site is > demonstrably impossible.

It certainly feels this way, but what's the solution? Have no docs, write docs knowing they won't be comprehensive, or expect to chase an impossible goal?

> #66: If no one ever finds out about the bug then the bug never existed in > the first place.

 _wink_ _wink_ ... this simply isn't true!

> #83: Bugs cluster at the interfaces, bugs are not distributed randomly.

Isn't this only true if there's more unit-level testing than integration/functional testing?

> #84: There's more time grains in 1 year of compute time than there are > seconds in the age of the universe.

1 year of compute time for what? All of the computers in the world? A datacenter? A computer with a 1μ grain size has roughly 3.15E+13 grains per year but there are over 4E+17 seconds in the age of the universe.

> #93: More testing doesn't correlate with better quality, less testing > doesn't correlate with worse quality.

I don't have any specific data but my experience has been that testing (manual or automated) does correlate with quality. Testing might be the developer pressing F5 a lot, writing automated tests, or a stakeholder manually end-user testing. Think about the state of software which was developed but never run. Software rarely executes flawlessly first-run, and every time a developer runs it, it's testing.

<comment><AUTHOR> Wow. Thanks for the detailed response. I will try to answer point by point.

#2 that tight coupling can ever be good comes as a shock to the learner

#3 any breakage is an opportunity learn from and about failure — also when it's broken and you know that is better than if it's broken and you don't know

Regarding regression testing: writing tests is a _design_ activity so if it is "driven" by whatever happened to break last, that sounds like treating the symptom not the underlying cause. That is why I have never been a fan of "bug- driven development" nor of large-scale regression testing.

#20 "who draws the lines" is an incredibly important political question. So who makes the declaration that the so-called black box can not or is not to be opened? This was my point. I understand what a black box means in software testing parlance.

#31 check out this great article then: [https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/larryosterman/2004/03/30/on...](https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/larryosterman/2004/03/30/one- in-a-million-is-next-tuesday/)

#51 testing is runnable documentation and sufficiently advanced monitoring, particularly ubiquitous StatsD usage, is indistinguishable in practice from testing, see [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSo8i1N18oc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSo8i1N18oc)

#66 I truly do not understand the objection you are making here. If an event goes unobserved and is without impact it is the same as if the event never occurred.

#83 no bugs always cluster at the interfaces between components

#84 Uh oh. I need to check my math and will respond further in another comment once I do so. Thanks!

#93 It's not that testing doesn't help. It's that if you have X amount of testing and you add Y amount of additional testing, THAT is not correlated with better quality. Likewise if for Reasons you do less testing in the future than you do right now, that is not guaranteed to degrade your quality.

<comment><USER2> >#66 I truly do not understand the objection you are making here. If an event goes unobserved and is without impact it is the same as if the event never occurred.

#66 says: "If no one ever finds out about the bug then the bug never existed in the first place."

While the outcome is the same, it doesn't _literally_ mean the bug never existed. The existence of a bug is orthogonal to its discovery. Its discovery does not bring about its existence.

Do you have any data for #93? I'd expect a power log distribution.

<comment><AUTHOR> > discovery does not bring about its existence.

I would argue that it does but this is a matter for phenomenologists. The _practical_ result is that it's _as if_ the bug never existed. Beyond that let's agree to disagree.

#93 No hard data. How would you even begin to measure such a thing? No two software shops are the same, hell no two projects within the same _team_ are anywhere similar. How to baseline? What about the impossibility of a control group for a software team?

I find it interesting that a power log distribution would result in the kind of behavior I am describing: relatively small impact for even fairly large variations in the number of tests applied to a project.

<comment><USER2> If a customer discovers a bug, who created it?

<comment><AUTHOR> "who created it" implies a causal chain of events whereby someone is responsible for the bug. This is Safety-I thinking. John Allspaw addresses this when he states that "there is no root cause" for an incident or bug. So in a very practical sense YES the bug is "born" at the moment the user "discovers" it. Note that "discovery" here is in the imperial sense where the the user has drawn a line on the software map (so to speak) an labeled it: beyond this here be bugs. Devops very directly implies skepticism for causality as a primary/default phenomenology for understanding bugs.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The strange postulated link between the human mind and quantum physics (2017) - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170215-the-strange-link-between-the-human-mind-and-quantum-physics <comment><USER2> My internal understanding of Penrose's "hypothesis" is that there are structures in the brain that relate individual quantum events to macroscopic neurological processes, in a way not explained by the usual aggregation of quantum events into chemical behavior.

I'm very skeptical of this because nothing I've read has proposed any mechanism whereby it could evolve, nor any reason why these events should related to "consciousness" as opposed to any other mental process.

Admittedly, I haven't spent a whole lot of time looking into it, because time is limited and the history of science is littered with enough great scientists who latch on to mysticism (Newton being a prominent example) that I don't assume that everything coming from a recognizable name is worth exploring.

<comment><USER3> My guess would be 'easily available random number generator.' Whether access to an rng is a prerequisite for consciousness is another question...

<comment><USER4> Since adding noise is a critical part in many neural network training models, it is entirely possible that an at-hand source of randomness is highly useful.

Drugs that reduce the accessibility of this randomness by biasing the signal pathways (or something) might be an interesting research vector.

<comment> maze-le >> Since adding noise is a critical part in many neural network training models

Our brains do _not_ work _exactly_ like neural network models. Neural Networks are a model, on how nervous systems _could_ work. It doesn't follow, that nature has implemented them the same way.

There is no need for the human brain to produce noise with some arbitrary process. There is more than enough noise in the human brain... Every single neuron is a powerful noise-filter[0], that seemingly can generate signals when the "correct" noise-signal is filtered.

>> Drugs that reduce the accessibility of this randomness by biasing the signal pathways

The randomness you are talking about _is_ way the brain operates under normal circumstances[1]... so no, it wouldn't be beneficial, since we cannot discern signal from noise in any meaningful way [2].

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

[1]: [https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/486289](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/486289)

[2]: not even on the level of the single neuron -- except for very few types of neurons [pyramid neurons] in a rat model -- [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1456039/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1456039/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This article covered more than I was expecting, but still manages to squeeze a small amount of substance into a relatively large article. Here's a tl;dr:

\- Penrose and Hameroff postulate microtubules might have quantum mechanical behavior in their Orch-OR hypothesis. This hypothesis was refuted by Max Tegmark in the 90s. Penrose doesn't care and keeps preaching his hypothesis, and has not put forth any new scientifically compelling arguments in the past 2 decades.

\- Photosynthesis is shown to be quantum mechanical. I'm not sure quantum mechanical behavior in plants is the best argument that quantum mechanics are responsible for consciousness.

\- Fischer hypothesizes that phosphate ions in biological cells might exhibit distinctly quantum mechanical behavior, but is wary about any link to "quantum consciousness".

This is pretty much all of the substance of the article.

Even if there were a conclusively demonstrated link between quantum mechanical behavior in human cells (there isn't), using that to argue that our brains are quantum computers and that consciousness is a fundamentally quantum phenomenon would be a huge non sequitur.

<comment><USER6> Furthermore: "Photosynthesis is shown to be quantum mechanical" \- well, yes, just like everything else in physics, with the possible exception of those issues, like black holes, where gravity is dominant. The quantum-mechanical basis of chemistry has been included in high-school chemistry curricula for at least half a century, so it would be quite remarkable if photosynthesis were a exception.

While it is possible that the human mind has no classical-approximation explanation, the equating-of-ignorance argument, stated in the article's subtitle, is no reason to think it is so (and quantum mechanics is much better understood than the human mind, anyway.)

<comment><USER7> All chemistry is ultimately quantum, same with rocks and everything up to celestial bodies (meaningfully, the moon Hyperion decoheres). For most of calculations though classical models are good enough, vast majority of chemical reactions behave as if molecules were newtonian springs. When people talk of quantum effects in chemistry they really mean it. In case of photosynthesis the basic molecule's efficiency was found hinging on stuff that is very quantum. This was described by Gregory Engel et al. Alan Aspuru-Guzik interprets some of what's happening as a realization of quantum computation running a tree-walking algorithm.

The wider conclusion is that living organisms do evolve around quantum effects (if the molecule existed a priori somehow) or maybe even evolve to the point of reaching and then harnessing them (making the molecule).

Now to what's Penrose about. Seldom anybody actually reads the guy or know the context. He was after the computational theory of mind. Not necessarily looking for a theory, but sneering at one big non-theory. This is in context of the 80's with unhinged stuff coming from the AI community (same as today). He was wondering if brain could really be this reducible and a known model of computation (he hasn't done a good review) from the physical point of view. For him a full logical reductionism necessiated excissing the measurement problem (the basic point goes back to Niels Bohr who thought biology cannot be entirely physics because of this). So he proposed a crude version that fleshes out measurement as a real physical process. His idea has the main upside of removing both quantum and AI mysticism.

This received angry and mostly off-topic response based on caricature summaries like elsewhere in this thread. Of course lending themselves to such caricatures says a lot about writing if not the ideas, but it's an honest try that ain't entirely silly and without upsides. The microtubules guy is someone else who Penrose was just happy to see come and collaborate with later. He'd be happy with any kind of other stuff, such as from the original article. BTW the author is Philip Ball, a long time editor of the Nature journals, and he's got a new book out about interpretations of quantum mechanics that is really superb to anything else on the market by far (that is could be better but isn't worthless).

<comment><USER8> My problem with his theory is not that consciousness in the brain might be dependent on quantum effects, but that he seems to conclude that this makes it impossible for computers to have consciousness. Quantum computers can be simulated by classical computers.

<comment><USER7> That's a significant goalpost move. From debating particular mechanisms and postulated inevitability of AI, to assuming full blown strong Church-Turing- Deutsch principle and moving from there. Along with moving whole discussion from practical concerns into philosophy and really arguing from the thesis, at which point most people lose interest.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Couldn't it be that the measurement device (or any other interacting object) "falls" into all of the possible states of the measured system, therefore we see the measurement device itself as a quantum object when we don't interact with it, but every possible "outcome" of the measurement device sees the system as classical. At a higher scale, a human being itself is an object interacting with the measurement device, and every possible "outcome" of the human being sees the device as a classical system, showing a classical system. At least this explanation does not involve "quantum brains" nor enthropocentrism.

<comment><USER10> What you describe is really close to the "multiverse interpretation" of quantum mechanics. It is an interesting thought exercise, but it is really important to acknowledge that it is only an interpretation, mathematically equivalent to the other ones, and experimentally unconfirmable.

As to Penrose's ideas on consciousness, they are many other problems with them (see Wikipedia for a quick list of sources; or Scott Aaronson's lecture notes).

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> All that one can deduce from this line of (mostly philosophical) investigations is that "consciousness is randomness in our behavior".

If that definition of consciousness fits you, then fine, but the whole discussion is not very productive for neuroscience. For all i know, consciousness is an undefined term.

The article doesn't mention Francis Crick, who was even more qualified to tackle the subject.

[http://blog.wellcomelibrary.org/2016/09/crick-on- consciousne...](http://blog.wellcomelibrary.org/2016/09/crick-on- consciousness/)

<comment><USER8> Yes, there is no proper definition of consciousness. All the "definitions" I've heard so far either don't allow you to distinguish what a rock does from what a human brain does, or they're not compatible with our understanding of physics, or both.

I found this highly entertaining [https://www.smbc- comics.com/comic/compatibilism](https://www.smbc- comics.com/comic/compatibilism)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Hmm, I remember thinking about this several years ago, the big issue is that it's almost unfalsifiable. I remember thinking that an experiment looking at whether anesthetics (that caused loss of consciousness in neurons) also stopped quantum phenomena in said neurons. But alas, that was a hard experiment to do back then :)

<comment><USER13> Any experiment concerning consciousness is likely unfalsifiable. It's a subjective phenomenon, by definition. Even if you could get approval to futz with someone's consciousness, you have to ask them what they are experiencing.

<comment><USER14> Subjective doesn't mean unfalsifiable.

If the experiment is double-blind and a statistically significant proportion of participants report subjective differences according to a survey, and the results can be replicated... then you're good to go.

Obviously there's the question of what it would mean which could be argued over... but if the effect is there, it means _something_.

<comment><USER8> The fundamental problem is that you can test whether the drug causes people to report that they're not conscious, but you can't test whether they're actually conscious or not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> "Solipsism may be logically consistent with present quantum mechanics" \- Eugene Wigner

<comment><USER16> That's a shorter version of a quote meant to dismantle materialism.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Like most people here, I have been thinking this quantum consciousness stuff is a lot of woo. However something new I saw in this article is the mysteriousness around the different effects of different Lithium isotopes on treating mania. That's pretty weird, as isotopes should be chemically identical.

<comment><USER18> > isotopes should be chemically identical.

Not really. I don't know about lithium isotopes, but there are drugs "improved" by replacing some hydrogen atoms with deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen): [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterated_drug](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterated_drug)

Apparently isotopic food is also a thing: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ifood_(isotopic_food)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ifood_\(isotopic_food\))

Edit: I found this 1986 reference about lithium [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3530801](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3530801)

Stable isotopes of lithium: dissimilar biochemical and behavioral effects.

Lithium, which is used routinely in the treatment of mania, is composed of two stable isotopes, lithium-7 (92.58%) and lithium-6 (7.42%). Usually there is minimal physiological or biochemical differentiation between isotopes of an element, but lithium is an exception. Data derived from a variety of biochemical and behavioral experiments are reviewed to support this idea. Additionally, the clinical implications of this work are presented.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> This is one of those ideas that (rightly) won't go away.

I've recently been quite inspired by Christopher Alexander's "The Luminous Ground" (2003). For those who don't know, he's an architect and mathematician [2] whose work greatly influenced object-oriented programming (he's best-known for "A Pattern Language"), and in this most recent work of his, he addresses the concept of "wholeness" head-on -- investigating what can be done to integrate the completely separate worlds of art/spirit and physics, under the belief that they can't stay separated forever... and following in the steps of thinkers like Bohm, Penrose and Mandelbrot. (I.e. he's serious, not some new- age QM crackpot.)

The print copy is sadly ridiculously expensive, but whether online or in libraries there are definitely ways to read it if you're determined...

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/Nature-Order-Building- Environmental-S...](https://www.amazon.com/Nature-Order-Building- Environmental-Structure/dp/0972652949)

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

</comment><comment><USER19> Stanislav Grof talks about this in a recent interview he did with Tim Ferriss. Very interesting. [https://tim.blog/2018/11/20/stan- grof/](https://tim.blog/2018/11/20/stan-grof/)

</comment><comment><USER20> For me, the question of consciousness is more than a question of pure mechanism. The mystery for me is the particularity/locality of experience. It's one thing to say that we have encountered these thousands of clocks, and here is exactly how they work (mechanism). It's far more mysterious to find one's entire experience suddenly located at the epicenter at one clock in particular - with seemingly no access to similar experience of other clocks. The issue of particularity is the real problem for me. And I can't see how claiming that it is imaginary helps - it's my most convincing experience.

<comment><USER21> It's funny when people say science proves consciousness is an illusion, when all that we know of science comes to us through our consciousness :D

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> So we have several facts:

\- your attention can change an particle's experiment outcome (you choose future)

\- we see quantum effects on tiny particles only

\- perhaps gravity makes quantum effects for "heavy" objects impossible

Which leads to an idea that actually all objects have quantum effects but someone watches for all objects in the universe and makes choices (chooses future) ahead of us. And apparently we can feel his attention as gravity. But his wathcing power is restriced and he/she/it can't watch every particle in the world.

So to see the quantum world and to say hello to the god we should overload his attention with DDOS attack (perhaps Babylon tower experiment was about this).

<comment><USER23> Afaik 'observe' is not in the human context, it's in the measurement context. Our eyes don't change the outcome, it's that we don't know the outcome of quantum happening without measuring in some manner, and because quantum physics is essentially nature's statistics, measuring those physics themselves provides different outcomes.

I probably have that wrong in definition.

<comment><USER22> As far as I understood the article, there is a possibility that our brain can choose one of experiment's outcome. So basically we do not change the outcome, but select one of possible options. And we continue living in that chosen reality after the choice.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> My expectation is that as we get closer to developing an artificial mind, we will continue to discover previously unknown processes in the human mind that continue to separate it from the most advanced artificial one we have built.

<comment><USER25> >>"[..] we will continue to discover [..]"

Do you mean indefinitely? Why that would be the case?

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> "and his thesis is considered erroneous by experts in the fields of philosophy, computer science, and robotics."

from wikipedia. what clown writes about penrose without including the standard criticism?

</comment><comment><USER27> There may indeed between the human mind and quantum physics, just not the one you're thinking.

Namely, that QM doesn't represent anything physical about reality at all, and ONLY encodes probabilities relating to observations; the wavefunction is only a probability calculating math tool and doesn't represent reality in the slightest.

<comment><USER28> That's not a very useful perspective, because you could say the same thing about any part of language or science. Human knowledge is an abstraction, and can only ever indirectly represent reality. (And surely, "not in the slightest" is an exaggeration.)

<comment><USER27> [https://youtu.be/jvZ5m3UMer4](https://youtu.be/jvZ5m3UMer4)

</comment></comment></comment><comment> bra-ket Quantum probability is just a generalization of classic probability. Busemeyer in his book [1] mentions several experiments in psychology that can only be explained by quantum probability [2] but not by classic one

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Models-Cognition-Decision- Bus...](https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Models-Cognition-Decision- Busemeyer/dp/1107419883)

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

<comment><USER29> Since the use of a quantum-theoretic framework is for modeling purposes, the identification of quantum structures in cognitive phenomena does not presuppose the existence of microscopic quantum processes in the human brain. [2]

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Ahhh the old fallacy of "two things we don't understand must be related because we don't understand them!"

See also: eclipses and human sacrifices; planetary orbits and the radii regular polyhedra; even Graham crackers and masturbation.

<comment><USER31> I've heard this dismissal made by the likes of Sam Harris and Michael Shermer against Deepak Chopra, which is fair enough.

But Roger Penrose is not Deepak Chopra, and he's earned the right to be treated with far more respect than this.

Perhaps the article doesn't do his work justice, but that doesn't make it reasonable to draw these kinds of derisive and vulgar comparisons.</comment></comment>


Launch or Die at a Startup Weekend Near You - <AUTHOR> http://500.co/2012/04/27/launch-or-die-at-a-startupweekend-near-you/

<comment><USER2> We never got paid our UIUC StartupWeekend winnings, even after emailing the organizers countless times. Yes it's more about the connections and experience over the prize money, but just a fair warning.

<comment><USER3> Each event is put on by a set of organizers, I would look at it slightly more from a franchise perspective. It's probably not Startup Weekend's fault. I've been an organizer before and I am sorry you didn't get what you won; but don't go for prizes. I've organized and been a participant, I've never seen any 'substantial' prizes other than some fun stuff. The last one in Washington DC I think had some Think Geek stuff like a lightsaber.

But that's not why you go to these events. It should only be about the experience and building something. If there happens to be a prize, that's gravy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've never done a Startup Weekend, but posts like this make me want to try it.

As someone who has iterated and launched a lot of stuff in the past year, I love this approach. I think 54 hours is crazy small to release a quality product, and dont know if I could do it, but Bubs is right with the framework. If you have to do it, this seems like a great method.

<comment><USER5> You'd be surprised -- I certainly was, about how quality a product someone can release in 54 hours.

Regardless, it really isn't about that. It's MVP at its truest sense. Does the world need this product? That can be answered in 54 hours, with enough talent, caffeine and motivation.

To cram everything in, you cheat. Use Django, Rails (or better), Flask, Sinatra, whatever. Use an off-the-shelf authentication schema (Facebook, Twitter, whatever). Get a themed template from Themeforest or wherever.

If you're lucky enough to have a designer, let them put polish on it. If you're lucky enough to have (or be) a developer, let them choose the language and framework.

At the last Baltimore SW, Dave Troy built and launched a couple of addons for (the not yet launched) Shortmail[1] service. Yasmine Mustafa (seen on HN front page[2] recently) was building 123Linkit, which was later acquired, and the winner, Parking Panda[3] was built and demoed (and looked spartan, to say the least), and they were recently featured by Mashable.

Things can happen, and 54 hours is enough. Getting everybody involved to see that isn't necessarily the easiest thing in the world, but it's a great way of whittling down even modest ideas into their smaller kernels.

[1] - <http://shortmail.com>

[2] - <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3881825>

[3] - <http://mashable.com/2012/04/20/parking-panda/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> These are all good tips to follow for any new team trying to get to MVP, regardless of if you are in a startup weekend, and test out the idea and the team.</comment>


Ask HN: What's the easiest way to code one app and export to iOS and Android? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Flutter.

<comment><USER3> This. Flutter is amazing after trying React Native, which has a far worse dev experience.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Best Material to Learn Search Engine Optimisation ?. - <AUTHOR>

Can any of you point out a good book/ website to start learning the search engine optimisation. I am trying out my first "Beer Money" idea and would like to get that site to the Google First page. <comment><USER2> <http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/> is a good place to start.

<comment><USER3> Especially google's own SEO Starter's guide:

[http://www.google.com/webmasters/docs/search-engine- optimiza...](http://www.google.com/webmasters/docs/search-engine-optimization- starter-guide.pdf)</comment></comment>


The game we've made in 40 hours is surprisingly playable - <AUTHOR> http://ss14-team-206.divshot.io/ Hey, hackernews! We've just released next version of the game during hackaton. Would you like to spread the word or just ignore the meme? ;) <comment><USER2> nice game</comment>


Losing files with Google drive, how it happened to me - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIwRvFXNc3U <comment><AUTHOR> I noticed this problem with Google drive a while ago, after losing files this way.

finally got around to actually making a video showing how it happens.

Hope you enjoy

I would love to hear your personal story, if you encountered this issue yourself.</comment>


Foxconn Wants 1 Million More Robots In 3 Years - <AUTHOR> http://singularityhub.com/2011/08/02/worlds-largest-electronics-manufacturer-foxconn-wants-1-million-more-robots-in-3-years-bye-bye-human-labor/ <comment><USER2> Previous submissions of this story:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2827861>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2827882> <\- This has over 100 comments

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2830614>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2831344>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2836538></comment>


A Guide to Python's Magic Methods - <AUTHOR> http://www.rafekettler.com/magicmethods.html

<comment><USER2> I'm bookmarking this, this is an awesome reference.

Since this article was written, __cmp__ is has now been deprecated. The article already mentions total_ordering and you can use that instead.

</comment><comment><USER3> This would be better if abstract base classes were demonstrated. It's better to build a sequence class with _collections.abc.Sequence_ , for instance, to avoid all that boilerplate.

</comment><comment><USER4> This is a great, thorough overview. To me, the main omission is next / __next__. It was misnamed in Python 2 (corrected to be a "magic method" in Python 3) but belongs on the list nonetheless. It is the method of an iterator that returns the next item, and is core to (almost) any iterable object in Python (except sequences that can be sequentially indexed from zero).

<comment><USER5> The author states that this article is on github and can be improved there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> > The use case for these magic methods might seem small, and that may very > well be true. I won't spend too much more time on reflection magic methods > because they aren't very important

If you want a reason to use the instancecheck magic method, the mocking of test objects is a good one. I recently came unstuck with testing Django models and mocking out DateFields, and the instancecheck method was the solution - [http://tech.yunojuno.com/mocking-dates-with- django](http://tech.yunojuno.com/mocking-dates-with-django)

</comment><comment><USER7> Some comments on the first example.

1\. Closing a file by relying on the, nondeterministic, GC seems like a cover- up solution for sloppy programming. I've seen quite a few C# code bases where people even, instead of closing, put the equivalent of assert(self.file.closed) inside the destructor to get an early warning when someone forgets to close an external handle.

2\. Why call del self.file inside __del__? If the object itself is being destroyed that means anything self refers to will be useless already and the refcount should already be decremented.

<comment><USER8> I thought the GC in most python implementations was deterministic. According to [http://www.digi.com/wiki/developer/index.php/Python_Garbage_...](http://www.digi.com/wiki/developer/index.php/Python_Garbage_Collection) it does use a reference counting system, which is some inconclusive evidence. Does anyone know for sure?

<comment><USER9> Sort of. CPython's main GC strategy is is refcounting, which is deterministic. It also does have a cycle-detecting GC that's not deterministic

But this is an implementation detail, so it could change in the future. And CPython isn't the only implementation, either. IronPython, pypy, and Jython all have different GC characteristics.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Great article, definitely bookmarking this. I think it's important to give a reminder somewhere that modifying the magic methods really should be done with care. People new to Python could use this in a brute force way, when logic could do the trick. Working for example with a framework like web2py, that re- implements a bunch of these, makes development slow and laborious sometimes.

</comment><comment><USER11> I love the way SQLAlchemy uses the magic methods SQL expressions.

<comment><USER12> I've never used SQLAlchemy. Do you have an example of how they use them?

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Why is this not just in the regular python docs.

<comment><USER9> From the very first section of the article ("Introduction"):

> They're also not as well documented as they need to be. All of the magic > methods for Python appear in the same section in the Python docs, but > they're scattered about and only loosely organized. There's hardly an > example to be found in that section (and that may very well be by design, > since they're all detailed in the language reference, along with boring > syntax descriptions, etc.).

> So, to fix what I perceived as a flaw in Python's documentation, I set out > to provide some more plain-English, example-driven documentation for > Python's magic methods</comment></comment>


Show HN: Track and analyze your daily activities (side project) - <AUTHOR> http://www.timepi.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> I do procrastinate and I have the feeling I'm "wasting" lots of my time. So I decided to make a tool which helps me track my daily activities and then analyze how much time I spend on them, in what time frames, how many times per day and all those geeky stuff that includes numbers and graphs. It's been already a while since I use the developer-release and I can state that it did help me. You might find it surprising but seeing how much time you spend on certain activities is a great motivator in helping you re-evaluate what you do and when you do it. I though some of you might find it useful so there it is - I present you Timepi.

I would love to hear what do you think about it. What works for you? What doesn't? What can I do to make it better?

Cheers.</comment>


Building 3D with Ikea - <AUTHOR> http://www.cgsociety.org/index.php/CGSFeatures/CGSFeatureSpecial/building_3d_with_ikea <comment><USER2> In case anyone has about 30-60 minutes and is interested to get a quick glimpse of how easy (I guess meaning free and accessible at the least) it has become to do such graphics:

\- Download and install Blender 2.71 ([http://blender.org/download](http://blender.org/download)). On linux (Ubuntu) I did not even have to install it; I just extracted the tarball and ran the blender binary.

\- Go through this two part ceramic mug tutorial (30-60 minutes): [http://youtu.be/y__uzGKmxt8](http://youtu.be/y__uzGKmxt8) ... [http://youtu.be/ChPle-aiJuA](http://youtu.be/ChPle-aiJuA)

As someone who does not have graphics training, I was blown away when I did this. Apparently there is this thing called 'path tracing' based rendering, that takes care of accurate lighting, as long as you give the correct specification of geometry and materials.

Some interesting videos:

\- Octane 2.0 renderer: [http://youtu.be/gLyhma-kuAw](http://youtu.be/gLyhma- kuAw)

\- Lightwave: [http://youtu.be/TAZIvyAJfeM](http://youtu.be/TAZIvyAJfeM)

\- Brigade 3.0: [http://youtu.be/BpT6MkCeP7Y](http://youtu.be/BpT6MkCeP7Y)

\- Alex Roman, the third and the seventh: [http://vimeo.com/7809605](http://vimeo.com/7809605)

Brigade is an effort towards real-time path tracing, and it's predicted that within 2-3 GPU generations, such graphics would be possible in games.

<comment><USER3> > Brigade is an effort towards real-time path tracing, and it's predicted that > within 2-3 GPU generations, such graphics would be possible in games.

Who predicts this? Path tracing is fundamentally different from rasterization, and I doubt that GPU manufacturers can transition that fast.

<comment><USER2> I've tried to make a very rough inference based on John Carmack's statement along the lines "at one order of magnitude improvement on today's GPU's we'll start seeing it in real things, and at two orders of magnitude it'll get competitive in games" ([http://youtu.be/P6UKhR0T6cs?t=1h4m30s](http://youtu.be/P6UKhR0T6cs?t=1h4m30s)).

(some ninja edits)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> There was more information given on this at Martin's talk at SIGGRAPH as part of V-Ray Day's - but I can not find out if it is online anywhere:

[http://siggraph2014.chaosgroup.com/vray- days](http://siggraph2014.chaosgroup.com/vray-days)

The renderer used by Ikea is V-Ray, the same renderer we have integrated into our online 3D modeling & rendering tool: [http://Clara.io](http://Clara.io) :)

Here are two simple Ikea-like furniture scenes which if you click "Edit Online" you can edit it in your browser, both the geometry, the materials and the lighting setup, as well as rendering it photoreal via V-Ray:

[https://clara.io/view/1d984b08-9711-4643-ae01-c3e53b174ace](https://clara.io/view/1d984b08-9711-4643-ae01-c3e53b174ace)

[https://clara.io/view/9fb1c2dd-0ff1-465e-bc64-fb8ac2cf7366](https://clara.io/view/9fb1c2dd-0ff1-465e-bc64-fb8ac2cf7366)

</comment><comment><USER5> Even IKEA doesn't like putting their furniture together ...

</comment><comment> bjelkeman-again I'll never be able to look at an IKEA catalogue the same way ever again.

<comment><USER6> Same here...it's incredibly well done but I can't help but seeing it as all fake now. Their showrooms are still real at least.

<comment><USER7> The showrooms are greenscreen/CG as well. Make sure to wear a green shirt next time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> IKEA catalog in few years ;) [http://www.shapespark.com/formikodesign/old- brewery-apartmen...](http://www.shapespark.com/formikodesign/old-brewery- apartment/)

<comment><USER9> There's no refrigerator in this apartment. Also, I really want those chandeliers. That's a beautiful rendering though.

<comment><USER8> The largest door in the kitchen is the refrigerator door. Kitchen equipment with front panels matching the furniture panels are quite popular (refrigerators can be bought without front panels, panels can be then bought together with furniture to match it exactly).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> So when do they take the obvious step of providing an easy to use 3d modeller where customers can model their homes using ikea furniture?

They do have a tool sort of like this for kitchen design (developed by Configura in Linköping, Sweden). But I want something for the entire home!

<comment><USER11> Not really having paid much attention to how they did do their catalogs in the past, I just kind of presumed they were moving towards 3D instead of 'real' photography.. and I guess my assumption has been proved right (makes sense - it's a lot more flexible).

I can only wait for a well integrated 'select the furniture for your own house app/site/whatever'.. which.. makes me wonder if they're considering some of the opportunities presented by VR or - better - AR (such as Meta and others).

AR overlays of how furniture would look in your own home, would be quite neat!

<comment><USER12> They actually have AR overlays already. What you do is lay the catalog down on the floor, and the iPad app uses it as a size reference to generate the overlay. It's a little finicky in practice but still pretty impressive.

<comment><USER11> Interesting! I did not know that. Thanks for the heads up, I shall investigate further :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Here are some realistic renders from Unreal Engine 4: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iO7Bp4wmd_s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iO7Bp4wmd_s)

Epic is encouraging all kinds of applications such as architecture simulations and not just video games. I'm interested to see how the engine can be used to do something similar to what Ikea is doing.

</comment><comment><USER14> I wonder how active the 3D-CG scene is these days. In the mid-2000s there was so much activity on CGsociety (then cgtalk.com). The kind of work people posted there was just out of this world. Absolutely impressive attention to detail. I was an enthusiast too so I would visit the site many times a day.

Of late, I haven't been in touch. Good to see stuff like this on Hacker News.

</comment><comment><USER15> I wish they had given a bit more information about the actual workflow.

Specifically, I wonder if they leverage the original CAD models? And if so, how are they converted to 3D Studio Max, and if the process is automated in any way?

<comment><USER16> I went to the Ikea Vray talk at Siggraph. They are reusing CAD models but the key to photorealistic rendering is not the model but the materials. They use a capture and calibration process to feed textures into their VRay based shaders in 3DS Max.

<comment><USER15> Awesome! Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> > We use every computer in the building to give power to rendering as soon as > they are not being used. As soon as someone goes to a meeting their > computer-power is used, and of course there is overnight when people go > home.

I'm very curious how they manage the distribution of computation?

<comment><USER18> Path tracing is highly parallelizable, a ray doesn't need to know anything about its neighbors (there are integrators that give better results if more information is available) to be traced. In practice, each process just gets assigned a part of the picture and can calculate in until it's done, moving on to the next part.

<comment><USER19> This is only partly true. Path tracing is an embarrassingly parallel problem but only under the assumption that the entire scene description can be accessed.

When a light ray strikes the ceiling it can bounce off towards a vase that is on a diffuse table which scatters the light in all directions. So the calculation for this light ray needs to know the shape and material (BRDF) of all the objects that interact with the ray.

Before sending out the ray from the camera into the scene it is unknown what objects are going to be hit along the way - as you can imagine is a difficult problem to optimize for. The usual solution is to just distribute the entire scene.

On a single computer there is no problem, the entire scene is usually present in memory. On multiple computer it is more difficult since you will end up distributing large amounts of data (scenes can be multiple gigabytes).

<comment><USER20> It's really just a bandwidth issue - VFX studios do this all the time with their renderfarms - textures are the main issue - prod/archviz like Ikea stuff are generally really clean and don't have THAT many textures - whereas in VFX everything's dirty and generally very detailed so you're generally pulling in >300GB of textures per medium level scene.

And at least in VFX everything's generally done lazily so you only read textures as and when you need them if they're not cached already - there's a bit of overhead to doing this (locking if a global cache, or duplicate memory if per-thread cache which is faster as no locking), but it solves the problem very nicely and on top of that the textures are mipmapped so for things like diffuse rays you only need to pull in the very low-res approximations of the image instead of say 8K images and point-sampling them, so this helps a lot too...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> It would be great if ikea sold some of these model libraries for use in videos etc.

<comment><USER22> You'd get a bunch of polygons and an Allen wrench :)

<comment><USER23> Ållen

<comment><USER24> 'Insex' actually. But you were pretty close.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> The entire concept is very interesting and is a logical extension of the product catalog business (think about the impact of 3D and CG on movies, architecture, etc.).

I've been experimenting with Blender and Skulptris lately and 3D modelling is quite amazing. A wonderful mix of technical and artistic skills. I wonder if IKEA will ever rethink their large super-store model and move towards smaller stores where you virtually walk into and interact with rooms and furniture.

<comment><USER26> > move towards smaller stores where you virtually walk into and interact with > rooms and furniture

I'm sure once Holodeck technology arrives, all stores will adopt it...

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> A lot of my furniture is from Ikea: It would be great to have this software for seeing how new room layouts look!

</comment><comment><USER28> I was hoping this was about an app to build 3d things by mixing and matching ikea parts. I know there's at list one community around that idea [1] (and I've done it myself :).

1: [http://www.ikeahackers.net/](http://www.ikeahackers.net/)

</comment><comment><USER29> I am amazed on how this could be cheaper and faster than actually doing real life photos. The scenery and lighting quality is amazing though. Can't do that in a warehouse full of ikea products and fake housings either.

<comment><USER30> I'm also amazed. But if you've ever been on a photoshoot set it becomes a bit more believable. Sometimes the simplest shots can take forever to get right. Not to mention the number of people required - photographers, grips, directors, gophers, etc. Factor in the point they made about shipping all the physical stuff to a central location, all the different room setups (ie. American vs German vs Japanese kitchens) required and it starts to make more sense.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> the photograph in the office with people - are these real people on the office or rendered models too?

[http://www.cgsociety.org/static/images/feature/ikea- onComp.j...](http://www.cgsociety.org/static/images/feature/ikea-onComp.jpg)

A model of model rendering itself....

By the way, instead of home furnishings of different colors for people with Google Glass or similar devices IKEA can just sell an app which will color a furnishing (only in the image projected onto retina) into "bought" color whenever owner looks at the piece, Emerald City style.

</comment><comment><USER32> This is becoming pervasive in the industry: [http://www.wired.com/2013/03/luxion- keyshot/](http://www.wired.com/2013/03/luxion-keyshot/)

</comment><comment><USER33> They should use Sketchfab for that. It is lighter and better thought for the basic user to see the 3d model.

</comment><comment><USER34> I am Jack's 3D hatred.</comment>