A proposal to improve Twitter and perhaps the world - shaki-dora https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/04/the-case-against-retweets/554078/?single_page=true <comment><AUTHOR> I read Twitter almost exclusively via my custom personal news reader that I developed like 5 years ago. It allows me to do a variety of things to increase the signal/noise ratio of tweets. For example, it aggregates tweets by person in chronological order [1] - making the daily aggregate of a person's tweets into a single post akin to David Winer's original blog. What I also did is stop following non-humans except for rare instances. Both helped me cut through the noise by quite a lot.

Then recently, I excluded all retweets. It's quite amazing how little actual new thoughts and opinions are shared on Twitter - getting rid of retweets cut out easily 80% of the tweets I'd see. And I'm OK with that - I think too many people retweet reflexively, without real thought and it ends up being a waste of time.

1\. [https://photos.app.goo.gl/kdQyqzWXDIvV0VfR2](https://photos.app.goo.gl/kdQyqzWXDIvV0VfR2)

<comment><USER2> How bad of a job the UX people at Twitter are doing, that we have to come up with apps like this to read the feed!

This looks really cool. I wish they were flexible about organizing our feed.

<comment><USER3> Twitter's goal with their UX is probably to maximize "engagement" rather than "usefulness".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> "But I follow thousands of people"

I was wondering why someone would feel this way until I got to that line! Why would you follow thousands of people if "noise" bothers you? I think most people like their social media a bit more curated than that to start with, could be wrong though.

<comment><USER5> I follow a couple thousand people on Twitter. It's a mix of infosec folks, developers, startup friends, comic book artists, news people, comedians, a variety.

It's less I'm trying to follow individual people and more that I'm trying to find interesting thoughts or articles or art that they're creating or sharing.

Even so, there is still "noise" in that you'll see the same article surface multiple times or the same news story be bandied about (for the last 24 hours it's been pretty Sam Nunberg).

<comment><USER6> How is it humanly possible to ingest the daily feeds from a couple of thousand of people?

I follow about a hundred or so and I get 300-400 items per day. I use lists for different topics but following one of the lists takes too much time.

In addition to this, nobody stays on topic. The political climate is so intense that the reactions to it permeate everything.

The signal to noise ratio is becoming unacceptable and I'm not aware of any tools to improve it.

<comment><USER7> _How is it humanly possible to ingest the daily feeds from a couple of thousand of people?_

I know a few hundred people in real life but I don't feel a need to call them all up every single day. Ditto for Twitter. I can follow a wide range of people and dip in and out of it, enjoy the variety, and move on. I'd want to read everyone's _every_ tweet as little as I'd want to know every one of my acquaintance's thoughts every day..

<comment><USER8> but... but you get choose who you call, so you only make one call. But you can't unread tweets to find the one you want to read. So are these just snapshots of a moment in time you look at? Which is nothing like calling someone on the phone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I don't have problems with retweets, I usually just stop following people who retweet non-interesting noise.

Twitter however now also displays tweets people I follow have liked and that has been the worst change for me. People seem to use retweets more sparingly (and may even think if followers are interested before retweeting) than likes. So now my feed is full of cat pictures and memes users have liked instead of just the content I really subscribed for.

<comment><USER10> Agreed. You can configure twitter to not add retweets from particular accounts you follow, and that's great, but unfortunately, you cannot prevent it from adding tweets that have been liked.

At this point what is the difference between "like" and "retweet"?

<comment><USER11> likes don't always show. re-tweets do.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I would not be surprised if Twitter is one day regarded as a poster child for the dangers of blindly optimizing for engagement. I'm sure all their features do increase engagement, at least in the short term. They wouldn't release them otherwise. But it is a sort of engagement that burns out users and ultimately sends them away.

<comment><USER13> Seems like most social media is going that way now. Facebook in particular. I thought Snapchat would be a break from this since the content is temporary, but I've read news articles from my home country about kids having to get "Snapchat-sitters" to maintain their streaks while they are offline for more than a day. So they post random images to each other to keep their streak number increasing, which is total nonsense with regards to both engagement and content.

<comment><USER14> Yes, I have seen this Snapchat streak phenomenon with my little brother and his friends. They constantly send completely random pictures to each other, i.e. they open the camera app, take a picture of the ground, of the seat in front of them in the car, etc. and then immediately send it to a number of their Snapchat friends. When I had Snapchat installed for a short while he started sending me those pictures too, which in the end led to me blocking him. From what my brother said there is a lot of competition around who can keep their numbers the highest. Quite a strange thing to watch as an outsider.

<comment><USER15> > Quite a strange thing to watch as an outsider.

And working just as the cognitive scientists designed.

<comment><USER14> Indeed. At times it is scary what level of trickery and manipulation is used to drive addiction (or engagement as some like to call it) in social media. Especially when you consider that these methods are also indiscriminately used on young kids, as soon as they get their first smartphone and start installing apps like Snapchat (which can be pretty early nowadays).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I don't know if the author uses Twitter as much as I do, but I love RTs and Quotes, and serve a central point on what Twitter is, a sharing network of short messages.

Making people copy & paste is an 90's mindset. If you think too much noise is being published, ask the author or stop following him. Or make add him/her to a list so you can watch his/she's messages without RTs.

I want to know news, and I want them FAST. Twitter does an amazing job on this field, because when something is really important a lot of people are gonna share it. RTs are also is very important for Trending Topics!

imho not wanting RTs on Twitter is not fully understanding Twitter.

<comment><USER17> I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting copy+pasting as an alternative to retweeting.

<comment><USER18> Funny enough, the word "retweet" used to refer doing exactly that. Twitter only added retweet functionality in 2009, before then the convention was to write "RT" followed by the handle and then paste the tweet.

<comment><USER19> As a trivia point, one of the tweets that got Quinn Norton fired from her NYT editorial gig was a manual retweet she did of a John Perry Barlow tweet that contained the n-word:

Her explanation: [https://twitter.com/quinnnorton/status/963594118747361281](https://twitter.com/quinnnorton/status/963594118747361281)

The original tweet: [https://twitter.com/JPBarlow/status/3760544030](https://twitter.com/JPBarlow/status/3760544030)

There was plenty else that Norton tweeted that was problematic (including another time that she used the n-word in a debate to rhetorically quip that "terrorist" was an equally stupid word), but I was struck at how easy it was to misread those pre-official-RT tweets as actual original tweets from the retweeter. And many of the people dragging Norton over that tweet may not have been around back in 2009.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This article irritatingly mixes up the ß (eszett, or ss ligature), the italic version of the same ligature and the greek letter beta (or it's math-unicode alternative).

[edit: Originally I falsely accused the author of doing this, but the equation was actually originally written in terms of eszett. This is silly.]

Also I imagine if everyone started blocking real retweets like this people would just go back to the oldskool copy-paste method.

<comment><USER21> > Also I imagine if everyone started blocking real retweets like this people > would just go back to the oldskool copy-paste method.

Yet, other networks where retweeting (reposting) requires copy-paste has a much lower percentage of this. Anecdotally, almost nobody in my instagram feed are reposting other people's photos or text. There are applications to do so, or one could just copy-paste a screenshot. Yet, most people post only their own photos. On twitter, almost half of the posts I see on the first page are reposted retweets. How does it look for you?

Also, Raising the bar very little would make a huge impact due to the amplification of the network effect.

<comment><USER22> I agree with this, on Twitter and Facebook I will very often repost stuff, but on Instagram I never do. However, I do think it's hard to get noticed on Instagram (if that's what you want), due to the lack of native sharing, likes are on someone else's feed and often don't even get a follow from a popular share.

<comment><USER23> It may be related to the target platform for Instagram and Snapchat being mobile devices. Copy-pasting on mobile tends to be more cumbersome, and the slightest impediment to the UX can have a significant effect on how many times it occurs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I use a userscript [1] to toggle display of retweets and likes which Twitter's algorithm decides should act like retweets, to make their extra "engagement" opt-in.

It also highlights these tweets when displayed, so it's a bit more obvious when your timeline consists of someone else's retweet spree or Twitter's algorithm.

[1] [https://github.com/insin/greasemonkey#twitter-engagement- min...](https://github.com/insin/greasemonkey#twitter-engagement-minus)

</comment><comment><USER25> The author praises Snapchat and Instagram and makes a compelling point for their anti-shareable features.

I myself have begun to think that a higher standard of friendship is needed in social media. Something like Twitter, where you can follow anyone unless they actively block you, makes more sense where engagement is limited, like how selecting a TV channel to watch is largely a one-way experience.

I would love to see a social network demand a higher standard of friendship from a user before other users are allowed in their network - based on something more than reciprocal button pushing, so kind folks don't feel compelled to accept a friend request out of politeness. Snapchat may be on to something here, as you actually have to know the person exists before you can add them.

I don't know exactly what the answer is - ask compatibility questions, quiz the user about their history, analyze their current social networks for positive engagement - but I'm extremely curious about the possibility of a social network that purposely limits its own network effects.

<comment><USER26> >I would love to see a social network demand a higher standard of friendship from a user before other users are allowed in their network - based on something more than reciprocal button pushing, so kind folks don't feel compelled to accept a friend request out of politeness.

Like Facebook?

There is no one type of "social network" out there.

The solution is for people to learn how to use various social networks effectively. Facebook is for keeping some sort of connection with people you know or once knew. Twitter is for content, be it about activism or entertainment. Instagram is for people to boost each other's self esteem so they collectively feel better, at least for some time.

For personal connections, what we really need are small, immutable communities like a small town or a school class. People who talk to each other on a daily basis. This is the only way humans are accustomed to live and judge their own worth and the progress they make.

This effect can best be observed on Instagram. By wiring very carefully curated moments of a top percentage of millions of people to our brains, we're only making ourselves feel worthless and put ourselves under enormous mental stress.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> > my office mate, who happens to be a skilled programmer, wrote a script for > me that turned off retweets from everybody

if you also want to do this, here's a small hacky tool I made that uses the Twitter API to turn of retweets for people you follow. [http://turn-off- retweets.glitch.me](http://turn-off-retweets.glitch.me)

</comment><comment><USER28> As a Twitter reader, you need to (given the very limited tools) control what comes into your feed. Yes, there's a lot of retweet-based outrage, but a bit of selective removal of people or their retweet ability helps with that. Or muting certain outrage keywords.

Whereas on the other end, the various sorts of Funny Twitter and Weird Twitter and Artist Twitter live off retweets, they're an essential and beneficial part of the experience.

What Twitter have done badly though is collapsed the disctinction between "like" and "retweet" by causing things that you like to appear in the timelines of others. Where they can then also like and retweet it, keeping it alive.

It's often amazing how bad twitter understand how their site is used by its communities. I suppose they focus on the paid "brand engagement" area, which is a social desert.

</comment><comment><USER14> I don't think retweets are trash _in general_. They are one of the main ways for me to find new, interesting accounts on Twitter. I follow people because I like the things they tweet, i.e. find them interesting. Chances are they are going to retweet content that I appreciate too. If someone starts retweeting random, uninteresting content I just unfollow (or disable retweets for them, like the author mentioned). Problem solved. Maybe I don't have the same problems with noise because I follow fewer than a hundred accounts, since I treat Twitter as a source of information first, and a social network second.

</comment><comment><USER21> What is HN if not a stream of "retweeted" links. The author of the article seems to think the act of Retweeting is bad, yet xir touches on the real problem - the one of amplifying simple emotions rather than promoting thoughtful content. On HN, most links, like the one in this post, are intended to amplify our _thinking_ . However on Twitter, Instagram and many other social media, almost every post is intended to evoke an emotional response.

<comment><USER29> What is the intent of using "xir" against the author's wishes if not to provoke an emotional response, then? The author is very clearly identified as "he". I can only conclude that you are trying to start a flame war.

I'd report your comment to the moderators but I don't know how.

<comment><USER30> To answer your question about reporting, click on the time stamp of the post and then there should be a "flag" link. There might be a small karma threshold for it to be available.

<comment><USER31> There's also the Contact link in the footer which has no karma requirement.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Wouldn't an easy solution be to allow making "retweets off" as default for following other users? I do that manually for many accounts that I follow.

</comment><comment><USER33> Retweets are essential for discovery of new people to follow. As such they are too valuable to dismiss, even with today's popularity of twitter.

The empty-state is a big problem for the onboarding of new users on social platforms, especially less personal ones.

<comment><USER34> Personally, I do not want to find new people to follow, because the majority of the time they will not follow me. This system leads to an awful feeling of asymmetry, where anything I post gets almost no interaction while I am constantly seeing a few hyper popular accounts. I think I just don't like the consumption model of social media, I want interaction with peers, not the latest hot take from a celebrity account.

I don't think my Twitter account will make it to the end of 2018.

<comment><USER33> I personally find the self determined curation the one good thing about twitter and don't write posts myself at all... (just replies every now and than)

For your purposes twitter might be truly unfit...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I would like the opposite - hide all uninformative and boring nonsense some people tweet (but not often enough to unfollow), and just get the retweets. These usually have high information and are of relevance (i'm only using twitter for itsec news).

</comment><comment><USER36> I wrote a little web app a while back to do this if anyone is interested: [http://www.nathanbeach.com/deretweetme/](http://www.nathanbeach.com/deretweetme/)

</comment><comment><USER37> > But social-media platforms don't have to be organized around shareability. > Instagram, for instance, doesn't allow links, except a single one in each > user's profile. This dampens self-promotion and slows down the spread of > information from the rest of the internet on the platform. It doesn't have > native reposting tools, either. And it is, by pretty much all accounts, a > nicer place to spend time online.

While it may have that going for it, wasn't Instagram recently considered the worst social media app for mental health? [https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/19/health/instagram-worst- social...](https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/19/health/instagram-worst-social- network-app-young-people-mental-health/index.html)

I'm not convinced that dampening self-promotion and discouraging reposting are sufficient conditions for considering one platform to be better than the other.

</comment><comment><USER38> What I like about retweets is that they simulate the behavior of neurons to some extent. Neurons trigger each other to fire and transmit information from one node to another. The closer we can get to a giant hive-mind with millions of linked up human brains working together, the sooner we can solve the problems that plague society.

</comment><comment><USER39> I don't have a Twitter account but occasionally arrive on that site through a link.

I concur with the author that retweets are lazy noise. And quite often they reveal aspects of a person's character that I'd rather not know.

Maybe Twitter would be better if it had a technical means of enforcing only original thought. Perhaps some day in the AI future...

</comment><comment><USER40> Readme App has made a huge difference the quality of stuff I see on twitter. No retweets, no random reply chains, literally just the tweets from the people you follow. It doesn't even allow you to tweet or reply. - [https://readmeapp.stream/](https://readmeapp.stream/)

<comment><USER41> I use Nuzzel so I can see what's being shared by the people I follow without having to deal with all the other nonsense on Twitter.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> > This article appears in the April 2018 print edition with the headline "The > Case Against Retweets."

So the title was changed from "The Case Against Retweets" to "Retweets are Trash". Seems that the editor took the author's advice on creating sharable content - this is a pretty clear-cut appeal to emotion.

</comment><comment><USER43> I fully expected that this title was a reference to the more-famed A Modest Proposal: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal)

Rather surprised that The Atlantic wouldn't have been self-aware re: the title.

<comment><USER44> I'm sure they are aware. It's highly unlikely any writer for the Atlantic would be ignorant of that _proposal_. They probably just wanted to go forth with the plain meaning.

<comment><USER45> That we continually over-use this old gag is one of my favorite things about the English speaking world. :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Here's my modest proposal to improve Twitter and perhaps the world. Don't use Twitter.

</comment><comment><USER47> The article didn't even touch the phenomenon of robots.

Take Trump's Twitter account for example. A second after he tweets, there are other of retweets. How come? it's robot that do it automatically.

Now, if I (for some obscure reason) follow that robot, I'd see all of Trump's tweets. But hang on, if that's what I want to do, I'd just follow @realDonaldTrump, right? why should I get all his tweets from a robot?

Another option is that the goal of these robots is to create artificial virality to Trump's tweets: "Oh, there are 5,023,482 retweets - this tweet (or this person) must be clever!" \- which is the premise of this article. Retweets are trash.

</comment><comment><USER48> I experienced the same. Not showing retweets in my Twitter app of choice made Twitter enjoyable again. I can highly recommend it.

</comment><comment><USER49> Dumb HN-tier nitpick, but when people use the words "modest proposal" do they know where it comes from? The original modest proposal was satire and it's a little bit of cognitive dissonance for me to see it used seriously in a title.

Regardless, I find the amplification part of twitter to be the best part, although I don't really feel like I see more outrage than joy or just humor. I think it has a lot to do with who you choose to follow.

<comment><USER50> Agree. Before I read the article I assumed that this would be a tongue-in- cheek series of suggestions that would destroy twitter.</comment></comment>


The rich have begun to work longer hours than the poor? - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21600989-why-rich-now-have-less-leisure-poor-nice-work-if-you-can-get-out?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/nicework

<comment><USER2> Just reading through the article, it seems like they mean to say that the middle class have less leisure than the poor. Someone finishing college and working 60-80 hour weeks isn't generally "rich" at all.

</comment><comment><USER3> The title is misleading. Differences in the _mean_ time available for leisure can be the result of (i) shorter hours worked by those who are fully employed, or (ii) more people who are underemployed (working less than they/society would like).

If all middle class people were to work 50 hours per week, and 50% of poor people were to work 2 jobs (80 hours per week), whilst the remainder were unable to find work, the mean leisure hours would show the middle class working longer hours.

The median leisure hours of the two groups would be more useful.

</comment><comment><USER4> While the article mentions a bunch of different explanations for this phenomena, most of them are from the point of view of the well-off. The most telling explanation (in my opinion) is stuck at the bottom of the article.

The author mentions that, with the decreasing costs of leisure, "low-earners do not need to work as long to enjoy a reasonably satisfying leisure." This is the biggest difference when comparing current state of work to the Downton Abbey era mentioned at the beginning of the article.

<comment><USER5> The way you word your comment implies that this statement is patently false. Can you explain further?

Are you saying that low earners do not choose to work less, and if so, can you explain why this is the case?

<comment><USER6> In the United States, at least, the poor often have marginal tax rates nearing or beyond 100%, once you include loss of means-tested benefits.

If high tax rates affect work ethic, it is most pronounced among the working poor in the United States.

See, for example, [http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2012/07/effective-marginal- ta...](http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2012/07/effective-marginal-tax- rate.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> _> >Why the rich now have less leisure than the poor_

Leisure = Free time.

I can annually go with my family to Paris for 2 weeks with the peace of mind that I have a very-well-paying tech job waiting for me upon my return. And my weekends are almost always completely relaxing.

A poor person can be not working months out of the year but filled with stress and anxiety, watching daytime TV, wondering how to get the bills paid and where/when the next job will come along.

If you're mentally full of stress & anxiety during your free time, was it really free time? I'll take my weekends and 2 weeks in Paris over their "leisure" anyday.

</comment><comment><USER8> > Figures from the American Time Use Survey, released last year, show that > Americans with a bachelor's degree or above work two hours more each day > than those without a high-school diploma.

The title is a bit off.

</comment><comment><USER9> Maybe the article re-frames a cutback of full time jobs and their related benefits. Isn't there an increase in the number of lower wage jobs in North America?

</comment><comment><USER10> I wonder how many of those putting in long hours are expecting early retirement, only for their savings to fall short.

<comment><USER11> What savings?

<comment><USER10> I would assume it to be house price less mortgage balance, but not really familiar with the situation in the US. How do people prepare for retirement?

<comment><USER12> Generally, they don't prepare nearly as much as they should, but you're supposed to save money in retirement accounts such as a 401k or IRA.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


No, the 2019-nCoV genome doesn't seem engineered from HIV - <AUTHOR> https://theprepared.com/blog/no-the-2019-ncov-genome-doesnt-actually-seem-engineered-from-hiv/ <comment><USER2> "Doesn't seem"? More like actually isn't.

And, no, HIV, isn't an experiment on a Polio vaccine gone bad, and Ebola isn't a "bio-weapon".

Every time these new virii trigger conspiracy theories by fruitcakes. These days social media are fertile ground for spreading these 'diseases'.</comment>


Boot2Gecko demo & quick hack - <AUTHOR> http://paulrouget.com/e/b2ghack/ <comment><USER2> I like the idea of Boot2Gecko, but it's 100% pointless as a project. We had a shot to have a pure web based OS with webOS, and absent awesome hardware and marketing nobody bought it. Mozilla building their own Firefox version of webOS is not going to make this kind of thing successful.

Great devices are a marriage of hardware and software. Focus too much on one at the peril of the other.

Shipping an OS to basically closed hardware devices - phones is a much different ballgame than shipping a web browser app on a preinstalled operating system and with Android already being both free and popular and open source, I don't know why any hardware maker would use Boot2Gecko.

<comment><USER3> I actually started to write a response to this post about how WebOS and this project seem totally different in terms of the companies involved and being open source from the start, but then I thought more about it...

This project doesn't really feel like mozilla is trying to compete with Android or iOS in terms of developing a traditional mobile operating system.

It almost feels like mozilla is trying to lay down the ground work for what a web based mobile device SHOULD be. The entire UI using web technologies, JavaScript API's for everything. Think about that for a second... What users think about as the "OS" (basically the home skin, application launcher, widgets, themes and UI controls) is just an infinitely hackable web project for any company to come along and build on top of. Gecko or Webkit + Linux under the hood and thats it.

<comment><USER4> IMHO the underlying technology has no significance. People still write native iOS apps even though HTML5 is available. Nobody will say oh they used javascript and web for every thing I must use/develop for this phone.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I predict that HTML5 + JavaScript is the future of desktop and mobile apps.

This is probably the most widely known technology to people. Apart from Boot2Gecko you can develop HTML/JS apps for Windows Phone and Windows 8 (metro style)

</comment><comment><USER6> One thing I hope this promotes is a good interface for accessing device hardware via HTML. In particular i had a hard time trying to access a webcam feed to embed in a webpage when i tried it a while ago. The ability to simply capture images/audio/video for use in a web app, from your phone or your webcam, would be tremendously fun.

As far as i'm aware the current solution for this is still to use Flash, or a native application. I'd be happy to be wrong. In any case making a phone entirely controllable via web standards will ensure that such capabilities are avilable and proven.

If anyone has more info on webcam integration with HTML5 video, this stackoverflow post could use some love: [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1318834/whats-the- status-...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1318834/whats-the-status-of- the-html-5-video-tag-and-webcam-integration)

</comment><comment><USER3> This is going to be great. Should be far easier than Objective-C, Java and whatever Windows Phone 7 uses for simple apps.

I'm still not totally convinced about large code bases being developed in JS but I would say that MOST iOS and Android apps don't need "programming in the large" features. But, I could also see some kind of compile-to-javascript language like CoffeeScript making this easier.

I hope this stays up to date with the now fast moving Gecko for Desktop so it has the latest and greatest HTML/CSS/JS features as they get implemented.

Another concern would be: Where does mozilla stand with hardware manufacturers and cell carriers? I feel that this isn't going to gain much traction if someone has to buy an Android device and then hack it. Windows Phone 7 has proven that even if you have the hardware, you still need Verizon and AT&T (in the U.S) on your side as well.

<comment><USER7> Several carries are already interested, and Telefonica has already partnered up with Mozilla to create a real phone in the next year.

<comment><USER6> Telefonica press release for those who missed it:

[http://saladeprensa.telefonica.com/jsp/base.jsp?contenido=/j...](http://saladeprensa.telefonica.com/jsp/base.jsp?contenido=/jsp/notasdeprensa/notadetalle.jsp&selectNumReg=5&pagina=1&id=66&origen=notapres&idm=eng&pais=1&elem=17874)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm in love with this project. Any news on a timeline for a usable(ish) release?

<comment><USER9> I believe Mozilla is releasing a beta to Brazil soon, and will do a large release around September 2012.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Most definitely can research this on my own, but I'm curious if its possible to run this on iPhone hardware? i.e. replace the native OS?

<comment><USER11> I don't know that anyone's tried that yet. Boot2Gecko is focusing on making a real phone that people will really be able to buy, so working on a platform that requires "fighting the manufacturer" isn't a priority. But it's open source, so it's always possible that someone could take on what's likely a huge task! Currently B2G works on a couple of models, and requires Android ICS: [https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Mozilla/Boot_to_Gecko/B2G_b...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Mozilla/Boot_to_Gecko/B2G_build_prerequisites)

<comment><USER10> Thanks for the info. Bit beyond me, attempting that. But definitely interested in trying it if someone pulls it together.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> ...and now I'm wondering if it'll run on an RPi.</comment>


Ask HN: How are you prepping for remote schooling? - <AUTHOR> We're fortunate our school distract has made a decision (fully remote to start) on what the beginning of the school year is going to look like so we can start prepping.
We're now trying to figure out how between my wife and I how can add/supplement the zoom teaching.
Any good resources around tech/art/PE. The thought is when can we jump in with some sort of "in person" 30 min block. Our kids are younger, but curious what everyone else is thinking for the new school year to be apart of(even if working) <comment><USER2> Hey, there's an interesting tool to help you interact with your kids outside zoom. It's called vlokit ([https://vlokit.com](https://vlokit.com)). It's video chat for your classroom. You can share lessons, homework, questions on it. It can be video audio or screenshare. Your kids reply back within the same thread.

You don't need to get your class to come online at the same time. You can interact asynchronously. Your kids can take their own time to learn.

It's easy for them to ask questions as well, without the pressure of doing it in a limited time frame.

Just so you know, I am one of the people working on it.</comment>


When Apple soured on Irish tax laws, it turned to a tiny English Channel island - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/when-apple-soured-on-irish-tax-laws-it-turned-to-a-tiny-english-channel-island/ <comment><USER2> Dupe. Original discussion: How Apple sidestepped a 2013 crackdown on its Irish tax practices - [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15637330](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15637330)</comment>


It Doesn't F*#king Matter - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@thedannorris/it-doesnt-fucking-matter-391a399c7caa <comment><USER2> Interesting post. Anyone have any counterarguments to this claim?

> No business ever failed to take off because they used Quickbooks instead of > Xero, or because they chose the wrong free CRM or because they chose chose > logo A instead of logo B. The reason your business is not taking off is > because your product is not good enough. Period.

<comment><USER3> Facebook. It didn't do anything besides what myspace did except the "cleaner college-aged" marketing.

<comment><USER2> Do you think perhaps the character limit was the "good enough product"? I didn't use Twitter at the start. Did people text tweets in a lot?</comment></comment></comment>


Aging as a disease? - <AUTHOR> https://futurism.com/is-aging-a-disease-one-medical-expert-thinks-so/ <comment><AUTHOR> Is it going to happen? [http://www.metaculus.com/questions/143/will-the-who- classify...](http://www.metaculus.com/questions/143/will-the-who-classify- aging-as-a-disease-by-2018/)</comment>


Oracle's JVM/JRE plans: hotspot, Jrockit, openJDK (PM of Oracle Jrockit team - <AUTHOR> http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=59317#332147

<comment><USER2> This article didn't cover what will happen to the JSR process. IBM has a huge investment in java but is now a direct competitor to oracle/weblogic. I'm worried oracle will not be as open with the JSR process and IBM will be less inclined to help make an Oracle product better. I'd really like to see a commitment to the community process that made J2EE great. As far as startups using java... Tomcat and JBOSS application server are free and scalable. Framework combo's i've used are spring/struts/jsp spring/java server faces/icefaces spring/spring web/jsp.

<comment><USER3> Since Oracle came into the picture, I have worried that we may be looking at 3 wholly incompatible Java distros, IBM , Oracle, and Apache / Open source. I just don't see how Oracle and IBM are going to get along without SUN in the middle.

<comment><USER2> Agreed. If I was "in charge" I would spin off java into something like the Mozilla foundation. It could be supported equally by Oracle, IBM and others who build product on the technology.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Stuff not mentioned here, you'll see JRockit Virtual Edition that runs on OVM without a full OS underneath -- this will compete with the VMW/tC Server/no OS stack on ESX.

The OSS JVMs will have the drawback of having to carry a full OS underneath so even if they are as efficient as the closed JVMs you'll still gain advantage for going commercial. The OSS community needs to start looking at how to do the same on Xen. It doesn't make sense as much sense on KVM since you have a full OS there anyways.</comment>


Has Overuse of Bayesian Analysis Screwed Google Search? - <AUTHOR> http://www.25hoursaday.com/weblog/PermaLink.aspx?guid=abb7a3b5-8848-4669-8340-82160a6ba2a7 <comment><USER2> A commonly misspelled word can't automatically become "correct", because there is always some etymology behind a word and it doesn't allow you to mess with it. "Ridiculous" is of Latin origins, for example.

</comment><comment><USER3> Just use a dictionary or spell checker for spell checking. The google "did you mean?" is a fallback, not a true spell checker.

I wouldn't be so forgiving about bugs in GMail's dictionary though.

</comment><comment><USER4> Just curious, any of you go look up how to spell 'misspell' just to make sure you didn't misspell it? ;-)

</comment><comment><USER5> Very true. Gmail misses misspellings all the time. Often I have to fire up emacs to double check.</comment>


Ask HN: How would you approach a potential co-founder via email? - <AUTHOR>

First I'd like to thanks everyone here at HN, for the support and advice I've been getting since I starting posting questions. But I need your help again...
I found a potential candidate, that may be interested in joining me as co-founder for my new music start-up. I believe this gentleman is about twice my age, and so far seems approachable. I am thinking of sending this candidate an email, but I don't want to screw anything up.
So, I wanted to ask you all here at HN...
How should I introduce myself?
Should I just jump straight to the point (What my start-up is about)??
If you have any other suggestions, please leave your thoughts; they are all welcomed.
Thanks. <comment><USER2> I like all the enthusiasm you've got for your idea.

It's an easy mistake to look at things from a purely rational standpoint and mentally check off all of the traits that you're looking for; but you really need to spend some time working with someone to know if it's going to be a good fit for sure.

Trying to reach out to someone to ask them to cofound a company with you isn't that far away from emailing a woman and asking her to marry you just because you think the two of you like the same things.

All that being said, you should definitely get in touch with this person and say that you've got some things going on that you think he might be interested in, and maybe try to meet up or work on a small project together or something like that first.

<comment><USER3> I think this is sensible, and a good analogy. Once you've done a few startups, you'll realize that choosing a partner, or partners, could easily make or break you. Partnerships are easy to get into, the good ones are easy to get out of, the bad ones are impossible to shake off.

From your post, it sounds like you're worried about getting this guy "in" with you. If you've got the idea, and are driving it, you offer something very few people do, don't give it up on the first date! You might hate this guy, or he might hate you. OR, he might want something you can't offer.

I'm still learning about this myself, but have in the last year or two begun to strongly prefer trial-period type situations, ones that could last a while. We recently invited to people to join our board, and they are on one-year probationary terms. They were happy to join on those terms because they want to help.

I'm happy to try them out, without worrying about giving them equity now that might be the wrong amount later.

I could say a lot more about this, but I think overall to find a partner in the very early stage, you should generally: pitch the IDEA and business hard, be cagey about promising equity participation, and make CERTAIN that the person will be able to contribute by asking them to contribute for free, or cheap first.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I don't think email is the right medium to ask whether he is interested in being a cofounder. I think email is a fine medium to say, "Hey - I've got something I want to talk with you about. Got time for lunch on Thursday?"</comment>


C++11: Implementation of list comprehension in SQL-like form - <AUTHOR> http://vitiy.info/cpp11-writing-list-comprehension-in-form-of-sql/

<comment><USER2> Oh, come on! Using the preprocessor is _cheating_!

<comment><USER3> It is the type of cheating that allows optimizations to be applied to list comprehensions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm not sure if the author was trying to replicate list comprehension or model an ORM. If it's the later - I can imagine much simpler designs[1]

[1] - [http://i.imgur.com/PseeKH2.png](http://i.imgur.com/PseeKH2.png)

<comment><USER5> As the title says he is aiming for List Comprehension, but in SQL form which is where you might be getting ORM from.</comment></comment>


HP's Ink Subscription Has DRM That Disables Your (HP) Printer Cartridges - <AUTHOR> https://www.howtogeek.com/403346/hps-ink-subscription-has-drm-that-disables-your-printer-cartridges/ <comment><AUTHOR> The bizarre thing about this is that your printer might even refuse to print with legal, full ink cartridges simply because an online subscription ended. Seems rather wasteful to me. You certainly can never empty that last cartridge.

</comment><comment><USER2> That's ok I guess; its what we signed up for.

What I did NOT sign up for is return envelopes lost, replacements disappearing into the void, ink running out. As a service, it has seriously let me down.

They can't have it both ways. Either I'm subscribing to the ink _and I get the ink_ , or not.</comment>


GitHub will stop supporting Internet Explorer as of June 2018 - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/michlbrmly/status/981855020948877312?s=21 <comment><USER2> Last IE to be branded as such was released in 2013; the not-IE-nooosir- notatall aka Edge will continue to be supported.

</comment><comment><USER3> I discovered that too. Yes, I browse with IE.</comment>


Ask HN: Googlers: Invite a fellow hacker to the Googleplex? - <AUTHOR>

Dear Googlers @ HN,<p>My startup has bin going trough a rough time lately. I live on the dutch countryside, so there aren't many tech oriented people here. I really need to get re-inspired by a company passionate about tech! As I'm visiting the bay area next week, I would love to visit the Googleplex if it's possible. It would give me back the spark that I urgently need. Though I am very curious, I promise to behave :-) Contactdetails; marijn at enlited.nl . <comment><USER2> It won't be inspiring. You'll find that it's just a group of boring office building with slippy slides and ball pits. Buildings are just meaningless boxes that keep the rain out and the temperature constant. If you want inspiration check out something natural. A place near where I lived had trees that were over a thousand years old. Imagine standing next to a thousand year old being. For me, I really need a sense that the puzzle is bigger and grander than your startup, any tech company, etc.</comment>


Chip advances require fresh ideas, speakers say - <AUTHOR> https://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1332959 <comment><USER2> I think computing technology stagnating will probably one of the unexpected stories of the next decade. Look at Intel. Canon Lake (10nm) was supposed to be released in 2016 and now it's pushed back to mid-2018. Will even be able to get the yields to ship in volume at that time? A weird consequence of this will be the rest of the world will catch up in semi-conductor fab technology.

Also, we are starting to see weird stuff happen with GPU/processor and memory prices going up as inflationary pressures are able to outrun chip technology advances. We might start to see commodity computer products hoarded as a store of value.

<comment><USER3> CPU performance stagnation has already been the (somewhat unexpected) story of the last decade: Computer have simply become fast enough for almost all users, so progress has mostly been invested into power saving.

Advances have mostly been made in storage speed (SSDs), battery performance, and display quality (resolution, colours, and lately refresh rate), plus vector processing for machine learning.

<comment><USER4> _> Computer have simply become fast enough for almost all users_

I think this is a misconception. Computers were "fast enough for users" since mid-eighties. Anything is fast enough if you cannot imagine it working better. What happened is that companies came up with more advanced software products for consumers and that drove the demand for faster consumer hardware.

The reality is that all the cutting-edge computing today requires a modern $600 GPU. The difference is that in the past we would have expected this kind of hardware to "trickle down" to normal users in couple of years. Today we don't. Instead of marketing better computers companies market cloud services. It's a really shitty phenomenon. We're seeing the reversal of the PC revolution.

<comment><USER5> > Anything is fast enough if you cannot imagine it working better

Exactly. Is memory cheap enough that I can load the entire contents of my hard disk into it at a reasonable price? Is optane (or something similar) cheap enough that syncs from memory back onto something persistent happen at close to realtime? Are processors fast/parallel enough that I can actually start _running_ all the programs I will ever want to run and just switch to them when necessary? Do I have enough cores that even if most of my running processes start glitching out and using 100% cpu, the rest of them will still run buttery smooth? Add to that that resolution of monitors will increase, and details displayed even on lower resolutions will only get more intricate. And things currently on the high-end can only get cheaper.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> My prognosis as bit of an insider popping in and out of Shenzhen.

All guns are pointed at _memory_

Memory is an uncompetitive industry, a cash cow unseen in history, comparable only to oil. The SEL empire is built not on top of galaxy notes, but on a pile of memory chips.

The easiest way to get an order of magnitude improvement right away is to put more memory on die and closer to execution units and eliminate the I/O bottleneck, but no mem co. will sell you the memory secret sauce.

Not only that memory is made on proprietary equipment, but decades of research were made entirely behind closed doors of Hynix/SEL/Micron triopoly hydra, unlike in the wider semi community where even Intel's process gets leaks out a bit in their research papers.

SEL makes a lot of money not only selling you the well known rectangular pieces, but also effectively forces all top tier players buying their fancy interface IP if they want to jump on the bandwagon of the next DDR generation earlier than others: [https://www.design-reuse.com/samsung/ddr- phy-c-342/](https://www.design-reuse.com/samsung/ddr-phy-c-342/) . This makes them want to keep the memory chip a separate piece even more.

Many companies tried to break the cabal, or workaround them, but with no results. Even Apple's only way around this was just to put a whopping 13 megs of SRAM on die.

Changing the classical Von Neuman style CPU for GPU or the trendy neural net streaming processor changes little when it comes to _hardware getting progressively worse_ at running synchronous algorithms because of memory starvation.

You see, the first gen Google TPU is rumored to have the severest memory starvation problem, as do embedded GPUs without steroid pumped memory busses of gaming grade hardware.

When PS3 came out, outstanding benchmark results on typical PC benchmark tasks were wrongly attributed to it having 8 dsp cores, while they were not used in any way. It was all due to it reverting back to more skinny, and synchronous operation friendlier memory. The amazing SPU performance was all thanks to that too. DSP style loads benefitted enormously from nearly synchronous memory behaviour.

<comment><USER7> Can you provide a source on the memory starvation for the TPUs? Plus are we talking generation 1 or 2 or both?

Did not seem to be an issue in the paper with the first generation.

[https://cloud.google.com/blog/big-data/2017/05/an-in- depth-l...](https://cloud.google.com/blog/big-data/2017/05/an-in-depth-look- at-googles-first-tensor-processing-unit-tpu) An in-depth look at Google's first Tensor Processing Unit (TPU ...

<comment><USER8> In the paper on the first-generation TPU, in section 7. They estimate that there would have been impressive gains in speed, both absolute and per-watt, if they'd had enough design time to give it more memory bandwidth:

[https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bx4hafXDDq2EMzRNcy1vSUxtcEk...](https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bx4hafXDDq2EMzRNcy1vSUxtcEk/view)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Thought one of the more interesting ideas is the Jeff Dean paper on using the TPU for more traditional CS operations like an index lookup.

Like to see this progress and get more data on the difference is power required using a CPU and traditional algorithms versus using a TPU and new algorithms like Jeff outlined.

[https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.01208](https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.01208) The Case for Learned Index Structures

</comment><comment><USER4> No shit. We're using a computer architecture envisioned in the late 50s. Our main processing units are made by a near-monopoly. The situation is so bad that to do any real computing we need to put another computer (GPU) inside of our computer. If you think about it, it's patently absurd.

As far as grand new ideas: fleet architecture by Ivan Sutherland.

As far as master-of-the-obvious ideas: make a hybrid unit that contains flash, RAM and an FPGa-based processor. Persistent by default. Connect a lot of them and get rid of disks, caches and memory bottlenecks. Do something similar to what XMOS does for peripherals (simulate them) to simplify hardware even further.

You could even combine the two ideas above. Make a computer where programming isn't just about instructions, but about re-configuring hardware and information routing within the system.

</comment><comment><USER9> Maybe it's time to fuse the CPU and memory together?

Fuse an i7 processor with 32 GB of RAM. This should be far sufficient for all normal consumer needs, at this time.

You can still allow for additional memory, but this would function as a level 2 memory which is slower to access.

<comment><USER10> AMD has been shipping GPUs with HBM (on package RAM) for years. Recently, AMD and Intel have struck a deal to put that GPU+HBM in a CPU package.

[https://wccftech.com/intel-kaby-lake-g-amd-4gb-hbm-gpu- pictu...](https://wccftech.com/intel-kaby-lake-g-amd-4gb-hbm-gpu-pictured- vega-11/)

When HBM first came out, I mused at how much faster/more efficient a CPU+HBM chip could be. I wonder what's stopping it from happening.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> The chips of the future may be designed nothing like the chips of the past. This will call for more than just basement circuit rehashing. The future of chips will rest on novel solid-state and condensed-matter research.

</comment><comment><USER12> Friendly reminder that "The Free Lunch Is Over: A Fundamental Turn Toward Concurrency in Software" [0] was published in 2005 (~13 years ago).

Thinking aloud here-- Is the lull in chip design due to the shift in focus to software over hardware due to the boom of internet companies circa 2000. Just compare entry level EE vs. CS available jobs or pay for example. Or, maybe it's just that, like markets, R&D also operates in cycles? Regardless, it would be interesting to see a comparison of $$$ invested in R&D on each side over the last _n_ years.

[0]: [http://www.gotw.ca/publications/concurrency- ddj.htm](http://www.gotw.ca/publications/concurrency-ddj.htm)

</comment><comment><USER13> I suggest to look at Mill Computing. They are designing a new CPU which has the power of Intel, the security of a mainframe and the power usage of Raspberry Pi.

<comment><USER14> Interesting but I Don't see anything about physical hardware or timelines in the articles, can someone do a TLDR summary?</comment></comment>


Uber's Phantom Cabs - <AUTHOR> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/ubers-phantom-cabs

<comment><USER2> Uber clarified: [http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/29/technology/uber-phantom- driv...](http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/29/technology/uber-phantom- drivers/index.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> So did they try to ask anyone at Uber other than customer support if the map is a "screen saver" or not?</comment>


It's Time to Split Up Microsoft - <AUTHOR> http://stratechery.com/2014/making-sense-microsoft/

<comment><USER2> Couldn't the same thing be said about Google, Apple, and Amazon?

</comment><comment><USER3> They can name the companies MICROS~1 and MICROS~2

</comment><comment><USER4> Sounds sensible to me. Is he missing anything?

</comment><comment><USER5> I'd rather see google broken up.</comment>


Undocumented Backdoor Account in DblTek GoIP (read comment for exploit code) - <AUTHOR> https://www.trustwave.com/Resources/SpiderLabs-Blog/Undocumented-Backdoor-Account-in-DBLTek-GoIP/ <comment><AUTHOR> I was able to write what I believe to be the first publicly available exploit code for this vulnerability, which includes popping the user straight into a root shell. The repo is here: [http://github.com/JacobMisirian/DblTekGoIPPwn](http://github.com/JacobMisirian/DblTekGoIPPwn).</comment>


Farm grows vegetables in a desert using sun and seawater - <AUTHOR> https://www.newscientist.com/article/2108296-first-farm-to-grow-veg-in-a-desert-using-only-sun-and-seawater/ <comment><USER3> From OP:

> Sunshine and seawater. That's all a new, futuristic-looking greenhouse needs > to produce 17,000 tonnes of tomatoes per year in the South Australian desert

> The $200 million infrastructure makes the seawater greenhouse more expensive > to set up than traditional greenhouses, but the cost will pay off long-term, > says Saumweber. Conventional greenhouses are more expensive to run on an > annual basis because of the cost of fossil fuels, he says

From the #1 google result for "cost of a ton of tomatoes" [http://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=15889](http://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=15889):

> Processors agreed to pay growers $83 per ton in 2014, up from $70 per ton > last year.

So assuming _100%_ profit margins (ie the tomatoes grow themselves, no human labor needs to be paid, nothing needs repairing or replacing, tomatoes deliver themselves to processing plants, etc, etc), the 17,000 tonnes produced would yield ~$1.4M annually. That's an awful (0.7%) annual return on $200M. Much less than you could get by investing the $200M in an index fund.

Which is to say there's a 0% chance it will "pay off in the long-term".

<comment><USER4> But the infrastructure cost of $200M can go down drastically on subsequent iterations, think how the cost of solar evolved past 5 years.

I'm thinking at this as proof of concept. If it works, there are many rich areas of the globe where fertile soil is at a premium and cannot grow much. Basically, transform oil dollars into local grown food.

<comment><USER5> > But the infrastructure cost of $200M can go down drastically on subsequent > iterations, think how the cost of solar evolved past 5 years

So my $200M inestment will struggle to compete with a $40M investment in 5 years? That is a reason _not_ to invest.

<comment><USER6> It's a $200M investment to own the company which will be taking $40M off someone else in a few years time to design and build their farm for them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Seems like this idea is couple of decades in making..

A seawater greenhouse is a greenhouse structure that enables the growth of crops in arid regions, using seawater and solar energy.

The technology was introduced by British inventor Charlie Paton in the early 1990s and is being developed by his UK company Seawater Greenhouse Ltd.

The technique involves pumping seawater (or allowing it to gravitate if below sea level) to an arid location and then subjecting it to two processes: first, it is used to humidify and cool the air, and second, it is evaporated by solar heating and distilled to produce fresh water. Finally, the remaining humidified air is expelled from the greenhouse and used to improve growing conditions for outdoor plants. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawater_greenhouse](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawater_greenhouse)

Making Namibia's desert green using seawater [https://www.newera.com.na/2016/07/08/making-namibias- desert-...](https://www.newera.com.na/2016/07/08/making-namibias-desert-green- seawater/)

<comment><USER8> > On a sunny day, up to 39 megawatts of energy can be produced – enough to > power the desalination plant...

They don't appear to be using evaporation and distillation, but instead generate electricity and run the desalination plant with that... I'm guessing, by pressured osmosis, as used elsewhere in Australia.

My question is: why don't they do it as you assumed? Whatever a solar still might lose in efficiency, it must surely make up in the reliability and simplicity of no moving parts.

<comment> bjelkeman-again During the pilot project Sundrop decided to simplify the design. The equipment for the distillation of the hot humid air proved to be complicated to produce with the resources available at the time and they decided to go with a more conventional method.

Personally I think the original design could be made to work, but it needed more R&D than Sundrop was prepared to spend at the time.

<comment><USER9> Indeed, trying too many new processes all at once would be setting yourself up for failure. Now this works, the other parts can be addressed and further efficiencies made.

<comment><USER9> There's a great video on youtube about the Advanced Passenger Train in Britain in the 80s where they tried a few too many new things with predictable results.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Where are the nutrients for plants coming from?

They say plants are grown in coconut husks instead of soil. Does the coconut husk act merely as a plant holder, or is it the one that provides the nutrients that the plant would otherwise obtain from soil (with/without fertilizer)? That part is not clear to me.

Edit: "There is no need for pesticides as seawater cleans and sterilises the air..." What does this even mean? Do we normally use pesticides to clean and sterilize the air? Are the pests that we fight with pesticides eliminated when the enclosed air in a greenhouse is cleaned and sterilized in this manner?

<comment><USER11> > They say plants are grown in coconut husks instead of soil. Does the coconut > husk act merely as a plant holder, or is it the one that provides the > nutrients that the plant would otherwise obtain from soil (with/without > fertilizer)?

The coconut husk is just an inert medium which has good water retention rate. The nutrients are supplied via water by irrigating the plants frequently or submerging the roots. The whole method of growing plants like this is known as hydroponics[0].

[0] If you are interested in hydroponics, this guy has a lot of amazing videos that explain various aspects of it - [https://www.youtube.com/user/Just4Growers](https://www.youtube.com/user/Just4Growers) .

<comment><USER12> Also, if you're interested in hydroponics (especially indoor) and live within the US, be careful how you buy the materials needed to start. The police are known to profile these customers and raid the houses several months later [0].

[0] [http://www.kansascitycriminaldefenselawyer.com/when- gardenin...](http://www.kansascitycriminaldefenselawyer.com/when-gardening- warrants-a-swat-raid/)

<comment><USER13> Looks like a reliable source to me!

<comment><USER12> That was just one of the more succinct sources I could find at the time. Here is an article from the Washington Post which details the subsequent lawsuit against the police department (which they lost).

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the- watch/wp/2015/12/28/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the- watch/wp/2015/12/28/federal-judge-drinking-tea-shopping-at-a-gardening-store- is-probable-cause-for-a-swat-raid-on-your-home/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> sun, seawater .... and fertiliser.

As made clearer in other articles [1], they are adding nutrients to the water.

In response to delbel: As mentioned in [1], the farm has a 10-year contract with Coles, one of Australia's big supermarkets, and that was what enabled the farm to be funded. Consequently, you can go to Coles and buy these tomatoes for about A$7 per kg. [2]

[1] [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-01/sundrop-farms-opens- so...](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-01/sundrop-farms-opens-solar- greenhouse-using-no-fresh-water/7892866)

[2] [https://shop.coles.com.au/online/SearchDisplay?storeId=10601...](https://shop.coles.com.au/online/SearchDisplay?storeId=10601&catalogId=10576&langId=-1&beginIndex=0&browseView=false&searchSource=Q&sType=SimpleSearch&resultCatEntryType=2&showResultsPage=true&pageView=image&supermarketRefer=yes&searchTerm=tomatoes)

<comment><USER15> > sun, seawater .... and fertiliser. As made clearer in other articles, they > are adding nutrients to the water.

Yes, that is how plants work.

<comment><USER16> Why so smarmy? The article specifically says "using only sun and seawater", so it's worth mentioning that they're also adding nutrients to the water. There are three necessary ingredients.

If the title was "using only sunlight and nutrients" or "using only seawater and nutrients" it would make sense to mention the third ingredient, so I'm confused at why you jumped straight to condescension.

<comment><USER17> IDK, I am with jonkee here. Femto seems like the smarmy one to anyone who has some knowledge of biology.

It's really weird to be on a HN thread where most of the people don't know much about the topic, you get really weird pedantic posts seemingly out of nowhere. Biology and space seem like the most common ones, where people who are very smart point out missing details, the kind of missing details that are handwaved by the actual professionals and the kind of details that would turn an article like this into a textbook chapter.

<comment><USER14> A realistic possibility was that they are using the cheap energy to manufacture nutrients, such as ammonia, on-site, which is an energy intensive process [1].

[1][https://www.scidev.net/global/agriculture/news/solar- ammonia...](https://www.scidev.net/global/agriculture/news/solar-ammonia- process-may-spur-fertiliser-revolution.html)

<comment><USER18> Another alternative is the seawater they're getting comes loaded with nitrates already from fertilizer runoff or naturally-occuring sources of nitrate leaching.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> For those interested in these matters, the books by Masanobu Fukuoka (1) are a must. They may challenge some of the HN crowd views on progress, technology and religion, as they did definitely challenge mine, but they carry significative scientific truths. His focus on fighting desertification was both genius and ahead of his time.

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

<comment><USER20> The One Straw Revolution has been very inspiring for me. Highly recommended to anyone who wants to learn about natural farming.

<comment><USER21> Inspired me so much that I flew to Tokyo, caught an overnight ferry to Shikoku and then hitch-hiked across the island to visit his farm. Met the man and spent the day looking around the farm/orchard. It was very beautiful. Unfortunately he was then too old for me to stay longer (I'd had dreams of living and working on the farm). This was back in 1990.

<comment><USER19> Beautiful! If you have pictures and one day blog a few lines about this encounter, I'd be delighted to read it!

<comment><USER21> Thanks for your interest. I should write it up. I also visited an organic mikan farming co-operative not far from Fukuoka's farm on Shikoku and stayed there a few days. Actually he suggested it to me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> bjelkeman-again There are several things which aren't covered well in the article. I have spent quite a lot of time looking at the feasibility of the Seawater Greenhouse in multiple locations, including a visit to this Australian location a few years ago. [1] I haven't been involved since the pilot installation in Port Augusta, so they may have changed a few things described below.

The Seawater Greenhouse design is not a conventional greenhouse. It cools rather than heats a crop, it is an open design, rather than a conventional "closed" design.

The system, as designed by Charlie Paton, uses evaporative cooling in the greenhouse. Essentially they have a cardboard wall, sort of like a thick honey comb with holes through it, over which they pour seawater. The air is pulled through the wall by large relatively slow fans. When the air moves through the "honey comb" wall, the air changes direction (30 degree angle channels). Particles and insects in the air essentially get stuck in the seawater. Seawater is particularly bad for insects and other small pests as the salt clogs up the exoskeleton and the breathing channels when the water evaporates.

Even though the greenhouse was standing in an area of vegetation with a significant insect population outside, we hardly saw any insects on the inside. But you could often find quite a few insects in the seawater tanks used to hold the water for the evaporators. The stable climate created in the greenhouse and the seawater "barrier" created by the evaporators means the pest insect pressure is lie and you can easily control it with natural enemies (bio control). (There where poisonous spiders in the canopy of the crop but they don't affect the crop, but act as biocontrol. Just don't let them bite you.)

Plants grow much better in a cooler and high humidity environment. The plants don't have to put so much effort into transpiration to keep an acceptable temperature for photosynthesis. The evaporators with seawater handles both of those things.

The temperature during my visit peaked on Christmas Day at 43 C, but inside the greenhouse it was a much more acceptable 35 C. (We had our Xmas dinner just behind the evaporators, the most pleasant place in Port Augusta at that point.) The energy used for this cooling primarily comes out of the water and the surrounding air. Some energy is used for pumping water. Without the evaporative cooling the temperature in the greenhouse would have been at a level which would have killed the plants. During my visit the plants and crop grew so fast that we had to help harvesting to keep up.

The evaporators are also covered by sea salt, which is hydroscopic (absorbs water) which means that when the temperature drops at the end of the day you don't get water (dew) collecting on the plants. This is important as dew on the plants and produce allows botrytis (mold) to grow and potentially destroy the produce. This also avoids having to burn sulphur in the greenhouse to kill the mold.

[1] pictures from my wife during the visit [https://www.flickr.com/photos/ankertje/7044271777/in/album-7...](https://www.flickr.com/photos/ankertje/7044271777/in/album-72157625710401409/)

<comment><USER22> What happens to the concentrated sea water at the end of the cycle? Does it get pumped back to the ocean? Deposited into the ground?

<comment><USER23> 100% natural, environment friendly, organic non-GMO locally produced Australian salt!

<comment><USER24> How would one even make genetically modified salt? The most you could do is to add additional genetically modified compounds to the salt, but salt in and of itself cannot be genetically modified.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> When I saw the headline I knew instantly how they did it. But the one thing unexplained in the story was their claim that the seawater piped in eliminated the need for pesticides.

I would bet it was the desert climate that reduced the need for pesticides. I am willing to predict that they will eventually need to use pesticides.

<comment><USER25> if the plants are inside a greenhouse, i think this is a major barrier to most pests.

<comment><USER26> Greenhouses can amplify pest problems as they are a closed system where things can get crazy very quickly with no natural checks and balances. They are some of the biggest consumers of pesticides.

<comment><USER27> Growing tomatoes one time under cover had a huge problem with white fly, not an unusual infestation, but a very stubborn one. While using the natural kinds may be better, pesticides are often a necessity in that situation. Your comment was completely on target for many commercial producers.

<comment><USER28> This may turn out to be a silly question, but how does a pest infest a closed system in the first place? Do they arrive in the soil? Do they fly in the door?

Could there be ways to mitigate or prevent the mechanism of infestation in the first place?

<comment><USER29> I imagine it boils down to a question of expense.

Pests can probably arrive through:

      - People's boots/clothes.
      - The water.
      - The soil/fertiliser.
      - The air.

Each of those inputs would need to be filtered. And the cost of filtration (or the entry/exit protocols for the workers) would need to be balanced against the cost of losing a crop.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> In case you missed the article from yesterday, which was also posted here, named "The Dizzying Grandeur of 21st-Century Agriculture":

[http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/10/09/magazine/big-f...](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/10/09/magazine/big- food-photo-essay.html?_r=0)

</comment><comment><USER31> So, this is a hydroponic greenhouse. It would be neat if they went one step further and made it an aquaponic greenhouse. The use of salt water means they could consider growing saltwater fish (or shrimp, or fish for caviar). The only caveat is whether it would be easy to separate the salt from the water while keeping the other nutrients (nitrogen, etc) in the water for the plants.

<comment><USER32> I don't think it's been settled whether aquaponic setups are any more efficient overall than hydroponics when you consider all the inputs. A lot of it would depend on the local environment, the scale of your operation, and the availability of whatever you're feeding the water critters. It's more variety, though, which in itself is a nice thing.

<comment><USER31> Since this is a commercial enterprise, the question is not one of efficiency, but of potential profit. You're right that there are a lot of factors that would play into profitability.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> If this catches your interests, please research greening the deserts using permaculture.

Here is one example but there are many examples and projects:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4Nb- rqGfWI&spfreload=10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4Nb-rqGfWI&spfreload=10) | Reversing Desertification With Sticks, Rocks, and Ancient Wisdom

Permaculture is more practical in the long run, doesn't require much tech.

<comment><USER34> This. Looking at the headline I half expected this to be a permaculture installation.

> _I think if we could get Earth in a living and stable state, not a > constantly degrading and dying state caused by our actions, then we have won > some right to go to the stars. But at present I don 't think we'd be welcome > anywhere else in the universe. You wouldn't welcome anybody who'd laid waste > to their house and wanted to live in yours, I'm sure._ \-- Bill Mollison, > Co-founder of Permaculture (4 May 1928 – 24 September 2016)

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Perhaps we could colonize the deserts on earth before Mars.

<comment><USER36> When the next comet strikes, solar powered desert farms will be wrecked just as much as everywhere else on Earth.

<comment><USER37> Sure, but comet can strike Mars just as easily as it can strike Earth. Maybe even more easily - gravity, lack of atmosphere, etc.

<comment><USER38> That's an interesting idea... I think the thin atmosphere and lack of ocean might actually make comet strikes on Mars less devastating than on Earth. Less frictional heating during the impact, no global tsunamis caused by an ocean strike, much less wind and shockwave around the impact site, faster settling of post-impact dust and debris. You wouldn't want to be near the impact site on either planet, but if you're far away on Mars you might barely notice it, while on Earth you could be on the opposite side of the planet and still be killed by a tsunami or shrouded in darkness until all the plants around you are dead.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> > no soil, pesticides, fossil fuels or groundwater

What about fertilisers? I would assume they still use conventional ones made from fossile fuels. Anybody got more information, did I miss sth in the article?

</comment><comment><USER40> So it's basically a desalination process in a greenhouse powered by solar? I'm not sure why this is better than leveraging existing infrastructure to get freshwater and electricity. Also, farming somewhere other than a desert, then transporting the food to the population (if they live in a desert).

<comment><USER41> I guess it makes sense in places like SA, NT or WA, where, in 90% of their territory, all the alternative resources you mentioned are hard to get by.

<comment> bjelkeman-again There are plenty of economically unproductive coastal deserts in the world where this could be used.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Combine with this and we're golden

[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/japanese-plant- exp...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/japanese-plant-experts- produce-10000-lettuces-a-day-in-led-lit-indoor-farm-9601844.html)

</comment><comment><USER43> For a headline that explicitly excludes the 3rd essential component of growing (light, water, nutrients), the article mentions nothing about how these plants are getting nutrients.

I assume they're supplementing liquid nutrients, as they're growing hydroponically in coco husks? If so, that makes the headline seem ridiculous...

The coolest thing in the story for me is using salty air to repel pests. Though I wonder about the longevity of that solution. I've never seen a bullet-proof solution to pest control, and especially in self-contained environments, it's usually just a matter of time. Nevertheless, makes me wonder about a saltwater humidifier....

<comment><USER23> Salty air is highly corrosive. Unless you want rust in every bit of iron in your furniture, that may not be the best idea.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> The headline claim is demonstrably poorly researched and as others point out the project seems to be incredibly poor value.

There's a lower tech approach that's been extensively proven and in production since 1998, it produces not just veg, but firewood/biomass, shrimps, fish, fresh water and more:

[http://articles.latimes.com/2001/jan/06/news/mn-9169](http://articles.latimes.com/2001/jan/06/news/mn-9169) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_P1rPnVUME4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_P1rPnVUME4)

</comment><comment><USER45> This would be awesome for Israel!

And if they could only fix their political problems (to put it mildly) Gaza as well. It could make a real difference in their future.

<comment><USER46> Israel has already made huge investments into desalination and has now more water than it needs.

<comment><USER45> More drinking water than it needs, but not more agricultural water - <USER2> could grow a lot more with extra water.

This method could help them do that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Wow, simply wow.

Humanity is turning the world into farms, destroying natural forests but then engineering new types of habitats.

I wonder what the Earth would look like in 200 years.

What I am worried about is the rapid growth of the human population and its energy use. You can't have exponential growth forever. Most of the issues come from that. Farms and monocultures sound nice, but are they sustainable? Are the resources being recycled somewhere, or are we going to be plugging holes with bacteria digesting plastic and producing plant food?

<comment><USER48> > You can't have exponential growth forever.

We don't. Look at the more developed nations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> > "It's a bit like crushing a garlic clove with a sledgehammer," he says. "We > don't have problems growing tomatoes in Australia."

that's an epic way to miss the point completely.

</comment><comment><USER50> This is fascinating. I grew up about 30 miles from the Salton Sea, which is in the middle of the desert of Southern California. We get tons of sun. I'd be very interested if these researchers are communicating with those investigating how to best clean up the Salton Sea. While those efforts are still in their infancy, there could be some overlap in application of the research.

</comment><comment><USER51> Or instead of wasting energy trying to remove the salt, you could just use diluted seawater.

[https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/science/201...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/science/2014/oct/18/humble- potato-poised-to-launch-food-revolution%3f0p19G=e)

<comment><USER52> Well... you still need to have ready access to fresh-water to dilute seawater. This experiment is being done in a desert area where fresh-water is likely a high premium.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> I wonder what they're doing with their desalination outflow? The prine produced during desalination can be nasty, toxic stuff: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desalination#Environmental](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desalination#Environmental)

</comment><comment><USER54> Why do they use concentrated solar power? Isn't that much more expensive and risky at current prices?

<comment><USER55> That's a good question. Also kind of an interesting side note: the company behind the solar technology here is not Sundrop, but they're not mentioned at all. Which I find really curious. I may have worked for that company 4 or 5 years ago. 100 points for whoever can name them!

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> ...and most importantly, fertilizer

(this is covered in the article, but the headline forgets that part)

</comment><comment><USER57> They built themselves a prime bird frying machine. Insects like heat, the birds follow them and voila, instant cooked meat! Extra bonus for this type solar.

</comment><comment><USER58> Solar mirrors need to be extremely clean to be efficient. And that requires a lot of soap and clean water. Could it be a deal breaker in that kind of systems?

</comment><comment><USER59> _" The $200 million infrastructure makes the seawater greenhouse more expensive to set up than traditional greenhouses, but the cost will pay off long-term"_

It's really nice experiment, but I don't see how that's gonna pay off. You need to sell a hell lots of tomatoes to earn _$200 million_ back.

<comment><USER58> Rebrand it as a "Neural-network-AI-assisted seawater greenhouse". And VCs will fund your 200M$ in a minute.

<comment><USER59> You could've said the same about anything related to "web" in nineties and we know how it ends, sooner or later. That doesn't make something economically viable on the long run. I'm all up to self sustained, "green" farming in impossible places, but 200M$ for a moderate size greenhouse seems way too much to be something more than an experiment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> >First farm to grow vegetables in a desert using only sun and seawater

And Coconut Husks.

</comment><comment><USER61> Just becomes something looks like a tomato, it doesn't make it one! In order to have nutritious produce, you need a lot more than just macro ingredients!

</comment><comment><USER62> This should definitely be tried in the UAE!

</comment><comment><USER63> To pay for the infrastructure, they will probably need to sell the tomatoes for $100 a pound for twenty years.

<comment><USER64> Well, the articles states the greenhouse is expected to yield 17,000 tonnes per year or 37.47 million pounds of tomatoes. The infrastructure costs 200 million dollars. So if they sell the tomatoes for $5.34 per pound they will pay off the infrastructure in a year. 53.4 cents per pound and they will pay off the infrastructure in 10 years. I expect it will be somewhere in between.

Pretty close though.

<comment><USER65> Edit: Is my price right??? After posting I began to doubt it and I am having terrible problems trying to find out what the current market prices for tomatoes is...

Commodity prices are usually expressed in tonnes. It seems at the moment the price is between $70-$80 per tonne. At $70 per tonne, the price would be about $1.2 million. You also need to pay operating costs. If the infrastructure is $200 million, I don't see how they will possibly pay it back. Even at current low interest rates, I don't think you would be able to pay off your loan.

And yes, commodity prices for food are _ridiculously_ low. _All_ of the money goes to distributors. Fix that and we can have nice things like this.

<comment><USER15> But they aren't selling processing tomatoes for commercial use (pizza sauce, ketchup, etc), they have a contract with a grocery chain for fresh consumer sales. Amazingly enough it sounds like they ran the numbers before spending $200,000,000.

<comment><USER65> I just figured they had government subsidies. But immediately after posting I decided that the price seemed wrong. There are some references to California producers accepting a contract for that amount, but I have to think it is an error. I can't find a single link for commodity prices of tomatoes.

Maybe as you imply they aren't sold as commodities because the shelf life is too low.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>