Platforms' current attempts to regulate misinformation amplify opinion power - <AUTHOR> https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21670811.2020.1773888 <comment><USER3> Flash back, four years.

"But @bjt2n3904, misinformation is bring spread, that is causing 'real harm' (TM)!" Some justification. Real harm is being done now, and it isn't doesn't need social media to survive.

You know, I spoke out against online platforms taking responsibility for what it's users wrote back then. But I wish I had the forethought to say this:

How do you think conspiracy theorists, who believe their messages are being suppressed to hide the truth, will react when Facebook steps in and fulfills their prophecy?

How do you think people who don't live in the tech bubble will react when they share an opinion on politics, and it gets marked as "Actually this is untrue" by Facebook, and buried?

How do you think people, who already believe everything they read on the internet, will react when they see Facebook flag something as "untrue"? Certainly, it won't reinforce their biases about how <political opponent's supporters> are all misinformed people with the wool pulled over their eyes, and can be dismissed off hand.

Surprising to no one, these attempts at correcting "misinformation" are having the opposite effect. Who would have thought that using technology to solve an obviously human problem wouldn't have worked?

Edit: "Ackshually, @bjt2n3904, Facebook isn't under any obligation to follow the 1st Amendment, there's this great XKCD comic that explains this, hold on..."

This is what we mean when we say "freedom of speech". It isn't just a good thing for the government, it's good for society, too.

<comment><USER4> Honestly I don't care what conspiracy theorists, science illiterates, and racists think. Let them believe the world is against their points of view. It should be! I want to make sure the ignoramuses don't infect others.

<comment><USER3> I hear what you're saying. It is incredibly difficult and frustrating to hold a discussion with these types of people. But look at the life of Daryl Davis. Instead of socially isolating "those people", he reached out to them. By some counts, he's helped over 200 people leave the KKK. I believe his methods have been far more effective than socially ostracizing people.

<comment><USER5> That type of direct action on an individual level is definitely valuable but it is also challenging and difficult to scale.

The issue you originally brought up though concerns mass communication on a different level than those individual actions.

For example: Is the top of my facebook news feed an article about Daryl Davis (how his methods are helping misguided people and how I might apply or examine those in my own life to gain a better understanding of and more useful role in society) or is the top of my facebook feed an article about how there are many fine people on both sides and that maybe the KKK has a point and I should hear what they have to say?

<comment><USER3> I can't speak for what's at the top of your Facebook feed. (I can hardly speak about what's at the top of my own!) This is something beyond my control. It's easy to sit back and call for Facebook to change the channel for me. It's much more difficult to be the channel of change. (Especially, I might add, when algorithms control what people see. Even so, when I directly respond to my friends, that's hard for them to ignore!)

The only thing I can be in control of, is what comes out of my own mouth. These are the things I believe in and stand for, that I earnestly think have a far better chance of rectifying things like racism, hatred, and our divided nation.

Having Facebook and Twitter do the work for us is alluring. But judging by its results so far, I don't think it's working. As Daryl said, he's a musician. Not a trained psychologist. If he can do it, so can you! Where should we invest our efforts? In what has been proven to reduce hatred, but is difficult -- or what we falsely hope will reduce hatred, and is easy?

<comment><USER5> That is an example. Not a literal description of _my_ facebook feed.

>It's easy to sit back and call for Facebook to change the channel for me. It's much more difficult to be the channel of change.

The point is that these are two separate things that should _both_ happen and _should_ enable each-other in a positive feedback loop. I wouldn't phrase it in as dismissive a way as calling for facebook to "change the channel for me". Rather, I would say that I don't want facebook picking the channel for me in the first place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" and "The American Crisis" would have been considered "misinformation", "propaganda" or "harmful content". These are considered "the two most influential pamphlets at the start of the American Revolution, and helped inspire the patriots in 1776 to declare independence from Great Britain" (Wikipedia)

So many of the great discoveries in science were controversial in their time. "On the Origin of Species", expanding universe, microbiology. Do you really want the government deciding what is acceptable? No, we don't. We fought a revolution to have the ability to think for ourselves.

I'm not that worried though. Even if platforms are subjectively regulated by companies or the government, life seems to find a way. There are plenty of other mechanisms to publish scientific breakthroughs.

<comment><USER3> Neil Tyson, 2018: I'm okay with a US Space Force. But what we need most is a Truth Force — one that defends against all enemies of accurate information, both foreign & domestic.

Has a government ever made the wrong choice when it decided which scientific theories are valid? I mean... I certainly can't think of any! Hooray, Truth Force!

1 - [https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/1031556958153666561](https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/1031556958153666561)

<comment> john-shaffer The problem with Truth Forces of the past, such as the venerated Inquisition, is that they just couldn't be everywhere at once. They could never completely stop people from saying things in private, or from running to safe havens. If only the governments of the time had had platforms as pervasive and automated as Facebook and Google! They could have fact-checked and shadow-banned content about the earth being round or moving around the sun, the earth being older than 6,000 years, species adapting over time, etc. The damage has already been done, but at least we have proper censorship in place now to bury any such misinformation that may occur in the future.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm not buying into this article. Twitter for example isn't reining this "opinion power", the bad actors (certain "politicians") are the ones reining the opinion power. Placing a warning label that a politician is saying something factually inaccurate isn't reining opinion power

Additionally the title is very click bait. There is no data or any kind of citations that can be used to conclude attempts to regulate misinformation amplify the bad actors efforts as the title would imply, in fact the paper attempts to point at other countries that have regulated things like child pornography and hate speech which is pretty unrelated to the matter of regulating misinformation

<comment><USER8> The thing is the warnings may not be applied equally. Or even if they are applied equally to all liars, some claims may in retrospect turn out right and then the warning turns out to have been wrong.

<comment><USER7> To me this just sounds like an argument against fact checking in general, all this is also true of any third party fact checking service, either way someone can be politically slighted, but also anyone is free to start their own third party fact checking service (at least in a free society)

<comment><USER9> It is true of any fact checking service. It's important, then, that there be more than one. Any single oracle of truth becomes a single point of attack for liars, propagandists, and suppressors of truth.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> How about the fix being proper education?

If we educated everyone on logic and reasoning, then each person could do their own fact checking. I'm pretty sure that if the citizenry isn't capable of doing their own fact checking, they will also be susceptible of falling victim to false/compromised fact-checking systems. This lack of education is, in my view, the root of many problems in the US today and undermines the basis of a legitimate/well founded democracy.

<comment><USER11> Two of the most gullible, conspiracy-minded people I know have PHDs in tough fields. I don't think education is as related as you think.

<comment><USER12> Once I heard some gossip about the Triple Nine Society (99.9th IQ percentile). Apparently the members are mostly doomsday preppers and conspiracy believers. Obviously selection bias applies but I found that somewhat thought-provoking.

<comment><USER13> I joined Mensa for a while and found it to be full of right-wing weirdos who are absolutely the audience for this stuff. The boardgaming was good, though.

<comment><USER10> Interesting. Both the people I know who are a part of Mensa seemed very middle-of-the-road. One seemed to lean more left even. Perhaps it's influenced by location?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> >Moreover, as the self-appointed facilitators of the new self-government of the online global population,32 currently there is little that would prevent the leading social media platforms from using and canalizing this civic power for the goals they see fit – much like a government with the difference that governments are subject to democratic oversight..

2 things on the above: First point, self-appointed does not matter. It is just a declaration. What matters is that people/users themselves turned this declaration into a fact. So, second point, platforms are subject to democratic oversight: Like you control your vote, you control your keyboard or mouse that clicks the sign-up button or accepts the TOS, you control the mouth and the fingers that propagate the information, and the brain that consumes it.

I really dislike it when people , by their own actions, become dependent on a service someone else offers in such a degree that they feel they are now entitled to the service and that it is now a public good. They strive to establish and cement this dependence on their own terms, assigning now the responsibility of maintaining it to the offerer (again on their own terms). That's the relationship between a spoiled child and its parents, not between a man and the society.

Sorry for my bad English. Not my mother tongue.

</comment><comment><USER15> > What if … Facebook was a government?1 It would govern a huge nation. With an > expected rise in 2020 to 2.6 billion users,2 it would connect more people > than are governed by any one nation on this planet.

If Facebook were a government, there would be a civil war almost immediately, . There are no services provided. The only income or taxation for the hypothetical Facebook government would come from selling-out the citizens. Facebook is only alive, because it is protected by actual governments.

</comment><comment><USER16> Once real ID and contact tracing lead to a social credit system we could mass produce polygraph machines and attach the feed back to your new centralized login. Shrink it down enough and add a polygraph module to every phone. That way any time you post, people could see your polygraph results and know that there's an 80% (?) chance you're telling the truth.

<comment><USER17> Polygraph machines don't actually work.

<comment><USER16> I have been reading about them lately. What's interesting is that some studies show about a coin flips chance of it being correct while others show upwards of 85%.

Obviously what I said would never work but I've been trying to think about a technical solution to lies and misinformation. I'm not sure there is going to be one.

<comment><USER17> > What's interesting is that some studies show about a coin flips chance of it > being correct while others show upwards of 85%.

This may reflect their effectiveness as an _interrogation_ technique - <USER2> who _believe_ they work may be more likely to confess, as they think it's all over.

<comment><USER16> That must be the difference. Reminds me of a scene from The Wire: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgrO_rAaiq0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgrO_rAaiq0)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I don't buy the argumentation of the article. It centres around 'opinion power' the ability to set a political or cultural agenda and steer democratic discourse, and argues that holding platforms accountable makes them more legitimate wielders of opinion power, which the author claims is a mistake.

I think there's some things wrong with this. First off I don't think Facebook or Google exercise a lot of opinion power, in particular given their dominance. Yes, the article is right to point out they support climate change action, or fight certain internet regulation, or gay rights but this is very, very mild, often non-partisan civic stuff and often just financial self- interest.

I don't see Facebook or Google going around wielding the power of legacy media over politics, having a clear political slant in how they operate, or whatever. They mostly stay out of it, again probably for business reasons.

More importantly though I think the article romanticises smallness, citing Barlow's cyberspace independence, advocating for less concentration, transparency and so on. It's the usual anglosphere-centric argument. Just give people transparency and get rid of all the big bad guys and the enlightened citizens of the cyberspace will find their way out of it, nothing new about that.

I don't think this is realistic. People will use large social networks and platform giants because they provide the best service, they're not going to dig through transparency reports or statistics about algorithm influence, and this means corporate responsibility is necessary. The author may not like it, but large firms are the principal actors in our society, and they need to be held accountable, even if that gives them a seat at the table.

</comment><comment><USER8> There is no easy answer that I can see to this dilemma.

Advertising driven platforms lead to people seeking meme type approval and are encouraged to share outlandish claims. On the other hand allowing government to set policy is obviously problematic (insert CCP, United Russia, or even the Dem or Repub parties in the US setting the rules). Other than perhaps dispersed federation (to cap growth) I don't see a good way to manage this.

<comment><USER19> Another option is for a government to involve itself _indirectly_. It could regulate by requiring a social media company meet a vague "community standard." I'm not convinced that would work, but it's less authoritarian than a government dictating a list of acceptable content to private companies.

Then you use some system (tally letters of complaint? votes? random sample of citizens, akin to "jury duty"?) to see if the community itself is satisfied.

<comment><USER20> Are you saying that governments should become admins in society-wide forums?

<comment><USER19> I'm saying mc32 listed two possibilities, but there is a third: for government to delegate to the public. The people can decide what standards of moderation they want.

That's an in-between approach, as it doesn't involve government officials drawing up a list of acceptable speech.

The philosophy is similar to that of a referendum, jury duty, or an election. It's the community who decide if a company is behaving acceptably.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> jude- I almost wonder if (1) capping the audience size a user can reach, and (2) limiting the rate of a user's audience churn would dissuade users from amplifying misinformation. Not only would it cap the dopamine hit they'd get from sharing outlandish bullshit, but also limit the damage they could do by doing so.

<comment><USER21> Capping access to reach is akin to current editorial media — politicians and celebrities get more reach than others. When those in a position of reach choose to share outlandish misinformation we still as a society don't seem to have good ways to hold them to accounnt. Once those large reach accounts share out then smaller ones can disseminate to all the untracked nooks and crannies and amplify further.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> If two people have the same priors, and their posteriors for an event A are common knowledge, then these posteriors are equal. - Robert Aumann

[http://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/deceive.pdf](http://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/deceive.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER23> "Attempts", when it is a success you won't hear about it.</comment>


How Making This Redesign Of Facebook Changed One Designer's Life - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-redesign-2013-2?op=1

<comment><USER2> I dig it the design and the story. But it reminds me of the new MySpace design.</comment>


Your Man in the Public Gallery – Assange Hearing Day Four - <AUTHOR> https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/02/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-four/ <comment><USER2> This is the article Day 4. For a bit of context, from the article Day 1:

"in the courtroom itself, _Julian Assange is confined at the back of the court behind a bulletproof glass screen_. He made the point several times during proceedings that this makes it very difficult for him to see and hear the proceedings. The magistrate, Vanessa Baraitser, chose to interpret this with studied dishonesty as a problem caused by the very faint noise of demonstrators outside, as opposed to a problem caused by Assange being locked away from the court in a massive bulletproof glass box.

Now _there is no reason at all for Assange to be in that box, designed to restrain extremely physically violent terrorists._ He could sit, as a defendant at a hearing normally would, in the body of the court with his lawyers. But the cowardly and vicious Baraitser has refused repeated and persistent requests from the defence for Assange to be allowed to sit with his lawyers."

<comment><USER3> They seem to be making an example of him. _See what happens if you dare go against us and you 're not filthy rich_

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This show trial is proving to be a disgrace for the UK judicative (and government in general). Also the US is no longer trying to be a role model for the free world in terms of civic rights, quite the contrary: They want to make an example of people like Julian who dare to drag their dirty laundry into the spotlight.

<comment><USER5> _Also the US is no longer trying to be a role model for the free world in terms of civic rights..._

Um, we haven't been that for a very long time.

We only pretend to ourselves that we are. And since none of us pay attention to what is going on that we don't want to hear, we can pretend indefinitely. No matter how threadbare our excuses become.

An additional note. The pretend courtesy between the lawyers and the judge is required by British tradition.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> The conclusion seems foregone, all that is left is to let them create a record of how the process itself was the punishment. British justice appears to have become fickle, cynical, partisan, and self dealing. These are of course the views of only one person who is also a supporter of the accused, but the behaviour of the magistrate as described is of someone without accountability.

</comment><comment><USER7> OK, I tried to read this, but (as is probably on purpose with these legal things) I did not understand what is going on here. Who is arguing which argument? (What I understood is that UK government is arguing some UK law is void such that they can ship Assange off to the US, I don't know if this is a correct interpretation). Can someone give an ELI5?

<comment><USER8> Have you read the previous articles about the Assange hearing? That will probably provide the context you're missing.

The short answer as far as I have understood is that the Assange's defense is arguing that he can't be extradited to the US because the extradition treaty between the US/UK forbids extradition for "political offences."

The prosecution is arguing that the treaty is not actually law, and that the UK's domestic laws on extradition do not forbid extradition for "political offences."

<comment><USER7> Right, this previous article clarified a lot. Thanks! [https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/category/uncategoriz...](https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/category/uncategorized/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> You couldn't make that up!. So the prosecution are arguing that the very extradition treaty that they are using is void as it excludes extradition on political grounds.

<comment><USER5> No. They are arguing that the extradition treaty is valid but that this specific term of it is void.

Parties agreeing on something then finding that a term of it is void is much more common than you think. This is why legal contracts usually include verbiage about being severable - aka if any part of it is void the rest still applies.

Moving on, it is very common for lawyers to present a multitude of incompatible arguments for their position. With the idea that they don't care which the judge accepts, any will win.

In this case, the terms of the treaty preventing extradition on political grounds are void. If they are not void, then this was not a political act. If it was a political act, then it didn't take place in the USA and so is not covered by the treaty provision.

The judge has to choose which argument(s) to accept or reject. But the lawyers are not going to help the judge reject an argument by failing to present it.

<comment><USER9> Also though, as Craig points out, that this particular treaty is fully legal as is only in existence (and the political part of the treaty) because of the enabling act of law, not void because of it. Any and all treaties have incredible legal scrutiny for years before being signed.

Also of note is a similar legal treaty case that the UK government lost in this same week, regarding the paris agreement and them trying to build a new Heathrow runway, trying to break a treaty they had signed.

If he was not in the US, then how could he have committed a criminal act, if US law applies only to the US territories. It is some mental gymnastics to pick and choose legality like a pick 'n mix sweet shop.</comment></comment></comment>


School & Career - Degree Viable? - <AUTHOR>

I am currently a 20 year old college student, attending a local community college (choosing between Purdue and University of Illinois for CS in the upcoming fall), working a part time job, and have been fascinated by computers ever since I saw one.
I have been told time and time again that there is little benefit to obtain a Masters in CS, or in some cases a degree at all (many tell me to just become certified and gain experience). I was even told this by the IT man in the office I work and by the programmer on staff. I do understand that many computer programmers begin their careers with a certification or something similar, however would I not gain more from a BS or MS in CS? If there is little purpose outside of academia for a masters or doctorate in CS why would they be higher paid? From what I can find out online it is fairly rare to see masters in CS obtaining jobs with which a bachelors would not suffice.
Is there any viable reason for obtaining a Masters degree in CS with a goal of not working in academia, or is it even beneficial to obtain a degree at all (rather than experience in the field via certification and employment)? <comment><USER2> You are being told wrong and you are going to want a MS assuming you become an actual competent, code-breathing programmer. Yes, at some point you will reach a career defining moment where you realize that 95% of everything you've been told career-wise has been bullshit. Don't listen to anyone who has to pay programmers or anyone without the degrees. An MSCS is going to be worth several hundred thousand dollars if you manage your career correctly and change jobs frequently. Most programmers change jobs every couple years until they max out salary, and this has been normal going back to the 60s.

Ideally you can complete an MS while working so you don't lose out on salary.

</comment><comment><USER3> 1\. You can learn programming without the degree. Many do this as a hobby long before they need to for school.

2\. In some parts of the world (or at least the US), companies still like to see a degree regardless of how amazing your coding capabilities are. A Masters certainly have weight in many cases in this type of scenario. While in other parts, its all about what you can do over what paper is in your name.

3\. I have not, in all my experience, ever seen anyone refer to certifications as valid experience that matters. Although I'm sure they play a role, they certainly never come up in any conversations I've been in.

Obviously all of the above are base on my personal experience so take that as is. It all depends on what you're trying to do but if you are seeking a career in programming, a MSCS isn't going to hurt.

</comment><comment><USER4> BS or MS is mostly about learning and the desire to understand it all.

If you truly are talking about employment alone, your time would be much better spent programming (not in school). I am twice as likely to hire someone with 4 years experience as someone who is a fresh grad.

No one in Silicon Valley cares if you have a degree. They care what you can do.

Work for big corporations...they care about a MS, but they will mostly have you managing other software engineers (not coding).

Also consider moving to Europe. They really value the old school of thinking and MS is almost required.

<comment><USER5> I agree, the companies that highly value degrees may not be the kind you want to work for, you can make it without a degree but long term it's best to pick one up along the way even if it's just from doing part time classes while working

<comment><USER4> I agree.....the conversation should not be "either/or" it should be "both/and". Certainly, I would prefer to hire someone with both, but I WOULD NOT hire a grad that cannot prove he can do the work and I WOULD quickly hire someone without a degree who can perform.

I would test ability and if I couldn't decided between two candidates, I may take a look to see if you have a degree from a respected school.

If you want to be in startups, I have friends that have applied and started jobs without being asked about educational background.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> A certification may teach you the how, a Masters or even a solid Bachelors (but you should get a Masters if you can) will teach you the why. It's the difference between having the ability (if not the resources) to build a car versus the limited ability to fix that car.

Note your journey doesn't end when you're done with the Masters, but you should be able to carry on on your own after this. Also, if you can do some research while you're there, you should.</comment>


GWT for Java to AJAX compilation - <AUTHOR> http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/

<comment><USER2> GWT is a major game changer which the world has yet to discover.

I predict that soonish we'll begin seeing web applications that weren't possible before, and this will force a big shift into GWT or a GWT like web application development paradigm.

<comment><USER3> I predict that those web applications that weren't possible before will all use straight JavaScript, and GWT will be relegated to the dustbin of ideas that were too early to change the game.

<comment><USER4> I predict as web applications get increasingly complicated, javascript will be viewed as more of a low-level language which will be compiled down to from higher level abstractions. Not because javascript is a bad language, but because browser fragmentation is so bad. It may not just be Java (in the form of GWT), but other languages as well.

Google has actually been doing this for a while now, even before GWT. Much of the javascript that is used in their apps is generated via compiler in one form or another.

<comment><USER3> Browser problems really aren't that bad if you use a cross-platform JavaScript library. The core language behaves basically the same in all browsers (except for the trailing-commas issue in IE), it's just the DOM and event-handling models that are a mess.

<comment><USER5> Those "cross-platform" libraries aren't:

\- Faster \- Slimmer \- Better

compare to GWT.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I still don't get it. Why would I want to eschew the fairly okish and dynamic language JavaScript in favor of the big lumbering Java? The other way round I could understand.

<comment><USER4> Because browsers suck and native javascript behavior is not predictable across platforms.

In GWT the browser is abstracted and you dont worry about it. You write AJAX code and it always works. Firefox, IE, iPhone, whatever.

Writing the code itself is not where the real time investment is with ambitious ajax projects. Its wasted in browser-related quirks and debugging. Being able save this valuable time and focus on building something cool is worth it in my opinion.

Also GWT is just plain faster.

<comment><USER3> "Writing the code itself is not where the real time investment is with ambitious ajax projects. Its wasted in browser-related quirks and debugging."

That has not been my experience. I've found that the vast majority of my JavaScript development time goes to areas that are hassles in _any_ rich UI programming (I was a Swing and then Netbeans developer before I turned to the web):

1.) Forgetting to call a listener or otherwise update UI state.

2.) Finding that the UI really works better if some faraway component auto- updates its state when you change this menu item, and having to plumb the update through the whole app.

3.) Working out corner cases when the user selects some combination of options that's so crazy you didn't think anyone could possibly choose it.

I usually do all my development in Firefox and then set aside a week or so to port to IE, which I know everybody says is a terrible development practice, but it's worked on multiple projects for me. I just memorize all the areas where I'm likely to have problems, and avoid them. I usually find that well ofter 60% of the bugs are trailing commas anyway - the event-handling and DOM differences are taken care of by JQuery, and there really are not that many other core language differences.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Allow me to plug my own project: <http://www.ecmascript4.com/> Translates ECMAScript 4 to classic JavaScript. This brings type checking, classes, namespaces etc. to JavaScript, however it is still backwards compatible with classic JavaScript, so you can port gradually and integrate with existing JavaScript libraries. Best of both worlds!

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I was afraid of that...

I'm trying to get into web developement; I've been deep in compilers and local apps for too long :(

<comment><USER8> I don't think it's bad to want to abstract away the low-levels of client-side JavaScript, but you might want to start with JavaScript first to know what and why you are abstracting away.

There's a good introduction in the form of lectures from Douglas Crockford. I watched them recently and they were informative and interesting.

[http://www.catonmat.net/blog/learning-javascript- programming...](http://www.catonmat.net/blog/learning-javascript-programming- language-through-video-lectures)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, you're probably right ;)

I'll take a look at the learning-javascript-stuffs, thanks

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> um, you're about 3 years late on this "news"

<comment><USER4> You were using GWT 3 years ago? Do you work at Google or something?

This wouldnt have been a valid claim until very recently, like GWT 1.5 so not really old news. GWT 1.5 compiled javascript is super fast relative to older versions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Why convert the Java app into a browser-based AJAX form when you can launch the application using Java Web Start?</comment>


Punch - The new dynamic static site generator [better than Jekyll] - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/laktek/punch

<comment><USER2> My blog has 512 posts since November of 2002. The only way using a static page generator is _at all_ feasible to me is by not having to regenerate the site on my end.

Two reasons for this: One is that the page generation takes up to 45 seconds (with Jekyll, so punch might be faster there). The other is that if I generate locally and then want to push to github pages (having *.github.com is very fitting for a programmer's blog IMHO), every post will also create huge amounts of additional changes (I have a "recent posts" section in the sidebar) which makes for a really, really messy commit history.

So with Jekyll (based on jekyll-bootstrap), I can create a small commit for a new post and then offload page generation to github, fixing both of my issues.

As such for $other_solution to really be better than Jekyll in my use case, it must at least have that one feature that is page-generation by github pages.

Punch doesn't have it and thus, I wouldn't say that it's "better than Jekyll".

<comment><USER3> I just recently found this project: <http://ruhoh.com/>

I haven't taken a close look at the differences between Ruhoh, Jekyll, and Punch, but Ruhoh seems to be solving some of the issues I have with Jekyll (at least on Github).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Why claim "better than Jekyll" when the README says "Remember: Punch is not a blogging engine (You can use Jekyll and other similar tools to power a blog)"?

<comment><AUTHOR> hmm. It kind of wrong typo here. I just wanna say It solves some other problem. unfortunately I cant change the title :(

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is a great start. Jekyll is perfect for blogs, but as the readme says this is for full websites. I just don't understand why I would want client- side rendering- isn't the entire point of Jekyll that you would serve static files?

<comment><USER6> Jekyll is OK for static websites, not just blogs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7>
        To view the generated site you can run the command python -m SimpleHTTPServer inside the public directory.

I'm confused: you're starting a python server (adding a python dependency to your instructions) to serve _static_ files? Just open the file. Am I missing something?

<comment><USER8> It's just a convenience (and most *nix Systems comes with Python). You can open the generated file in browser by giving only the file path (but then stuff such as AJAX won't work).

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Previous discussion - <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3862269>

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. I've searched for this. Didn't see this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> ".moustache", yeah…… no thanks

</comment><comment><USER11> is it better because node > ruby? ;)</comment>


Ask HN: What's your favorite Chrome extension? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I work with a lot of Go (and so I review PRs written in Go), so my favorite extension is one that I wrote myself [0] which corrects GitHub's tab indentation to 2 spaces from the default 8 spaces. But then again, I only have a few extensions and I wrote the majority of them.

[0]: [https://github.com/ezekg/chrome-github-auto-tab- indent](https://github.com/ezekg/chrome-github-auto-tab-indent)

</comment><comment><USER3>
        Knockout Context Debugger
        uBlock Origin
        User CSS
        Simple REST Client

I prefer extensions that work without you creating an account on something. I am unlikely to use ones that require an account unless I am desperate to use it. I am also unlikely to use an extension when either a web site or desktop app will do.

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm partial to do not disturb for gmail: [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/do-not-disturb- for...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/do-not-disturb-for- gmail/plpeflfgccdjdoalphmpcahkedbabkno)

(But, I built it).

</comment><comment><USER5> Because I just discovered that 5 days ago and it gives me a warm feeling of being tracked a little bit less:

\- Decentraleyes

</comment><comment><USER6> Ghostery - see trackers on sites.

Tab Cloud - Save tab clusters.

Link Clump - select groups of links on webpages

Murdoch Block - block Murdoch owned press.

Image Size Info - see image file sizes.

</comment><comment><USER7> I use Google Dictionary religiously

</comment><comment><USER8> Just read - strips off all noise, works quite well (better than mercury reader)

Adblock

</comment><comment><USER9> uBlock Origin (Open-source efficient ad-blocker) The Great Suspender (It allows me to open +200 tabs) (Open-source) Session Buddy (Organizing tabs/sessions)

</comment><comment><USER10> `uBlock Origin/Extra, uMatrix, FeedBro

</comment><comment><USER11> HashPass, Fontanello, Grammarly

</comment><comment><USER12> Google Cast

uBlock Origin

Restlet Client

Speed Dial 2

JSON Formatter

</comment><comment><USER13> Sourcegraph.

Firefox (kidding).

<comment><USER14> Sourcegraph CEO here! Thanks for mentioning our Chrome extension. It adds IDE- like code intelligence to GitHub.com and other code hosts (when viewing code files and diffs/pull requests): hovers, go-to-definition, and find-references.

Check it out at [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/sourcegraph-for- gi...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/sourcegraph-for- github/dgjhfomjieaadpoljlnidmbgkdffpack). Send feedback our way @srcgraph!

<comment><USER13> The extension is awesome, it could just have a bit more polish in the firefox version (font and icon don't seem to load properly in the browser bar, at least in most recent version of the firefox dev edition). Thanks for your hard work on sourcegraph though!

<comment><USER15> Thanks for the feedback! I'm glad it's helping you out in your day to day.

We're currently working on bringing the extension to Safari. This makes the extension more aware of browser differences which will allow us to keep everything polished in all of the browsers we support.

Keep your eye out for updates and as @sqs said, we'd love to hear any feedback you come across @srcgraph!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> 1 Password

µBlock Origin

Pushbullet</comment>


What Does the Average Cannabis Consumer Look Like? - <AUTHOR> http://headset.io/blog/what-does-the-average-cannabis-consumer-look-like <comment> xkcd-sucks That bar at the top of the webpage is really terrible. It fills up the screen when you zoom in mobile to look at the graphs.</comment>


India's Indira canteen: The best meal you can buy for 13 cents - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-41983359 <comment><USER2> For those pointing out that this is "Govt. distortion of markets", please see Agricultural subsidies offered in the US and Europe, which "distort" markets a lot more.

Personally, I think this is an excellent idea. I really liked the story of the lady who said that her morning had been freed because she did not have to cook breakfast anymore. And for many of those using this place, it would similarly free up their time.

Another important point: unlike the gross fast food that you see in the US, this is actually very nutritious. Lentils are a great source of protein and other essential amino acids. The canteens also provide free drinking water. I can see this more as a public health program than a "wasteful subsidy": save millions of man-hours wasted by poor health by providing a decent amount of healthy food to everyone.

As for the idea of indirect assistance via tokens or food stamps: I would wager this is better since the Government can use economies of scale to provide food at low prices. Not to mention: they have quality control over exactly what is offered to the public.

India grows more than enough food to feed all its citizens. I'm glad to see that schemes to provide nutritious meals at subsidized prices to people are finally coming through.

<comment><USER3> > this is actually very nutritious

Depends on how it's made. Oil/butter is often added because it's cheap and provides "fullness" without being nutritionally satisfying. With food this cheap, you'll need to take a close look at what's actually going in the food.

<comment><USER4> Neither oil nor butter is cheap in India.

This isn't exactly your 80 rupees/dosa Darshini.

Of course the food quality won't be all that great. Thats also with children's mid day meal program in Government schools.

The base rule for things like this is something is better than going hungry.

<comment><USER3> > something is better than going hungry

Of course, but marketing it as "healthy" may not be the most accurate way to portray it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I believe these are subsidized (the article does mention economists complaining that these are a drain on the exchequer).

A more subtle point is that these subsidized "canteens" are in urban India, which is already much better off than rural India, where people even now regularly die of hunger[1]. I'm not saying urban poverty isn't a real issue, but the scale of poverty in rural India is much greater.

It's worth noting that you can get free food in many places in India (and in some cities in Europe and the US), via the Sikh langar[2] which is funded by charity and volunteers.

[1] for instance: [http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2017/oct/22/man- starv...](http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2017/oct/22/man-starves-to- death-in-jharkhand-government-says-family-was-not-poor-1679986.html) [2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langar_(Sikhism)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langar_\(Sikhism\))

<comment><USER6> > It's worth noting that you can get free food in many places in India (and in > some cities in Europe and the US), via the Sikh langar[2] which is funded by > charity and volunteers.

Incidentedly, Indira Gandhi (After whom the Indira canteen is named) was assassinated by Sikhs. Does the naming of the canteen have anything to do with the assassination ?

<comment><USER7> Not a Sikh but I don't believe these are related. As per wikipedia "Langar (Punjabi: ਲੰਗਰ) (kitchen) is the term used in Sikhism for the community kitchen in a Gurdwara where a free meal is served to all the visitors, without distinction of religion, caste, gender, economic status or ethnicity." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langar_(Sikhism)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langar_\(Sikhism\))

The assasination of Indira Gandhi was related a separatist movement who wanted Punjab to secede from the rest of India (while Indira Gandhi was Prime Minister)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> To all of you arguing about how this is a market distortion; about economists who argue about "drain on the exchequer"; and to those logicians arguing about fallacious fallacies - did y'all have breakfast this morning? Yes? Good. Well, those people eating in those canteens might not have been able to have breakfast, but for those subsidized canteens. We should not put economics and "the market" on a pedestal. If something is the right thing to do, it is the right thing to do. As someone pointed out, Britain provided subsidized restaurants. US provides farm subsidies. "Market" is good if it does good for the people. Otherwise there is no point in being wedded to an ideology.

<comment><USER9> What makes you think that US farm subsidies are a good idea?

<comment><USER10> The parent never asserted that US farm subsidies are a good idea.

<comment><USER11> As an non-American I would like to ask...

For people who are in the "patriotic" group. Your country needs to maintain the infrastructure to self-sustain it's people in a world war.

What would be a more effective strategy over food subsidies?

Edit: Sorry I meant Farm subsidies, not food stamps.

<comment><USER12> > Your country needs to maintain the infrastructure to self-sustain it's > people in a world war.

Food wise, logistics wise or technology wise? Because while the US could manage the first two assuming no major internal disruptions, we've pretty much abandoned the third in favor of cheap imports and profits.

<comment><USER10> > ...[the US] pretty much abandoned [technology] in favor of cheap imports and > profits.

From a consumer perspective, sure. From a critical defense perspective, not entirely[1].

[1] [https://www.dmea.osd.mil/otherdocs/AccreditedSuppliers.pdf](https://www.dmea.osd.mil/otherdocs/AccreditedSuppliers.pdf)

<comment><USER12> Sure, you can get chips within some limitations - in fact I believe some chip fabs have been moving back onshore. Can you get screens? I remember coverage maybe 20 years ago about Zenith closing the last TV manufacturing in the USA, and while that was in the days of CRTs I can't imagine that a lot of new panel manufacturers are here.

<comment><USER10> Interesting point. I'm not really seeing the bottleneck with respect to defense sustainment though.

In terms of critical defense: L-3, Honeywell, Rockwell Collins, and Elbit (Israel) are a few major players off the top of my head that cater to domestic weapon system displays.

In terms of consumer displays: Japan, Korea, and Taiwan are allies. Humoring a doomsday isolation scenario with consideration towards America's disposable first-world couch potato culture, there's probably enough TVs/monitors in existing circulation throughout the country to sustain even the most improbably protracted conflict, let alone used surplus being auctioned off by the pallet for pennies on the dollar. Might even resuscitate a dead repair trade and create a few meaningful jobs too. Of course, this all assumes the government doesn't acknowledge a supply deficiency and fails to seed the capability need.

Don't get me wrong. I agree that the status quo of domestic technology production isn't exactly a self-lubricating wheel and leaves much to be desired...but it's not exactly dead in the water either.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> People snidely - and probably correctly - point out this is done for votes. That just seems overly cynical. Incentive alignment is a good thing - it's the whole basis of capitalism. I don't get why people feel the need to point it out in this manner.

<comment><USER14> >Incentive alignment is a good thing - it's the whole basis of capitalism.

The government taking your money and giving it to other people for votes isn't capitalism, it's corruption.

<comment><USER15> I don't think you have any idea about the problems in 3rd world countries. There are many people below the poverty line and these canteens are a god send.

You must be against state sponsored healthcare too ?. Isn't that just taking taxes from healthy people and using it to treat ill people. In your words - corruption.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is already functional in the state of TamilNadu for more than 3 years. It is called as "Amma's canteen". Any meal is 1 or 2 rupees. It is clean, healthy & definitely not fast food. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QwO9RyihO8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QwO9RyihO8)

<comment><USER17> I noticed in that video that everyone ate with their hands. Is the lack of eating utensils a culture thing, a poverty thing, or both?

<comment><USER18> [http://hopscotchtheglobe.com/why-indians-eat-with-their- hand...](http://hopscotchtheglobe.com/why-indians-eat-with-their-hands/)

<comment><USER17> Thanks!

<comment><USER16> I prefer eating with hands more than utensils. I prefer that as a respect for the food as it is the major reason for my health.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Similar to the (sadly, fading) Bar Mleczny in Poland: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_mleczny](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_mleczny)

Simple food (Polish food obviously, not Indian), government-subsidized, targeted at students, the elderly, the poor, but not means-tested or anything so technically anyone can get a plate, including foreigners, for very cheap. Typically very good food, but horrible customer service (old women yelling at you to make up your mind while you order, etc).

<comment><USER20> > horrible customer service

Things like that can easily become the identity of the place.

<comment><USER19> It's definitely part of the charm. Also motivates you to work on your Polish so you aren't tongue-tied.

<comment><USER20> I'll check with my Polish neighbors. Seems horrendously hard.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I have seen these in bangalore, in fact there is one very close to my office. One of the things that concerns me with such projects is that how they effect other eateries in the area. The one near my office that opened recently is on a street with about 5 other eateries. Having a eatery which is subsidized by government distorts this local market and adversely affects the other businesses in the area since they also cater to similar demographic with largely similar products. So while on its own this might be a good initiative, the economic impact of such initiatives might be more harmful to the local area economy. It s like creating more homeless so you can built shelter homes. A better way to do the same thing might be just to issue food vouchers which the people can use to by the food of their choice from any of the other eateries. It provides affordable food to those who cannot afford and also supports the smaller businesses.

<comment><USER22> That would really depend on what the target demographic was of those neighboring eateries, wouldn't it?

I'll use an American analogy to illustrate, and so I'm sorry in advance if it doesn't translate well.

In the Washington D.C. area (where I have several friends working), the restaurants are overwhelmingly high-end. A meal at a standard Panera bread is one of the more affordable options, and costs you somewhere between $12-15. Assuming said person works minimum wage, they're making $12.50/hr. In the longterm, that's really not sustainable, as they're spending an hour of their work-time just to be able to eat during the workday.

Suppose a Subway opens next door, and, additionally, suppose their $5 footlong still existed (it doesn't, but stay with me). The people who previously went to Panera start going to Subway because it's more affordable. Yeah, the Panera suffers, but many of the people that ate there couldn't really afford to eat there in the first place, and would have eventually stopped when their dwindling finances made it impossible.

Now on the other hand, if Subway was our base price and a government- subsidized eatery opens up with complete meals for $2, then yes, I can see how that might be a problem.

<comment><USER23> Without judging people's situations, I have to wonder at why people earning minimum wage would be eating out at Panera vs bringing lunch from home for much less money.

<comment><USER24> There's a growing mobile homeless or partially homeless (living in storage facilities or an RV without services) population in many of the more expensive cities; they live in the city for work, because that's where the jobs are, but can't actually afford to live there. Obviously, this isn't everyone who eats out who can't really afford it, but it's definitely some. If you don't have a fridge, you don't have a stove, and you have no way to keep or prepare fresh foods, you have to eat out more often. I've known lots of folks in this situation (I live in an RV and travel a lot and run into all sorts of people). They often do keep bread and peanut butter in their car or RV or whatever, but they have pretty limited options. It's not healthy or sustainable to eat that way. So, they end up eating out a lot.

Our cities are becoming wholly inhospitable to poor people, and food is no exception. And, someone making $12.50/hour probably can't really afford rent in a city like DC, either.

<comment><USER23> Thank you for educating me on that aspect of the situation.

Is there typically electricity in these situations? I ask because per my post below, I wonder how common it is to bootstrap up to a mini-fridge + pressure cooker or rice cooker or something like that. Seems like a few weeks of PB&J + cup ramen could provide for a significant upgrade in nutrition from purchasing those tools.

I'm probably leaving out some important aspect of this, and unfortunately some of this might simply be around education of where to purchase these tools and what to do with them to eat smarter, but I can't help but think there are ways to improve the situation with the cards they currently have in their hand.

If I found myself suddenly living out of a car or storage unit (provided it had electricity), I'd probably do whatever I could to save for a mini-fridge and rice cooker (eventually upgrading to a pressure cooker), and go from there. Rice and beans purchased in bulk are affordable and solid staples, and easy to turn into more nutritious meals by adding other ingredients.

<comment><USER24> It's wildly variable what resources someone in that kind of situation might have.

There was a guy living in the storage unit next to the one I have in Austin (for my stuff from when I moved out of a house and back into an RV). The folks who ran the storage facility let him run an extension cord to the nearest power; several people actually were living in that facility, despite it being illegal. So, in his case he did have electricity, and I believe he had a mini- fridge. We talked several times and he seemed to have a pretty reasonable setup. He even had a space heater for when it got cold. I never saw the inside of his house (he'd built a wall and second regular door behind the rolling garage style door), but he seemed to be reasonably comfortable and had regular work really close by (since he only had a bike, proximity was important). The last time I was there, he'd moved out, and the person working didn't know where he'd gone; I'm hoping he was doing well and got an apartment rather than ran into harder times.

Similarly, I've seen people use one of these to get electricity inside a storage unit when they didn't have particularly understanding landlords: [http://i.walmartimages.com/i/p/00/04/31/80/63/0004318063152_...](http://i.walmartimages.com/i/p/00/04/31/80/63/0004318063152_500X500.jpg)

But, people in cars or vans probably don't have power. Some RVers have solar panels, and also RV fridges often also run on propane (though they aren't terribly efficient in the old RVs...I go through about $15/week running mine on propane). Propane fridges are very expensive and very fidgety and prone to breakage over time, however, so it's not uncommon to see the propane/electric dual-mode fridge replaced with an electric-only model in the cheapest old RVs. So, that limits the use of the fridge to times when it's plugged in.

I know someone who lives in a bus that she converted to an RV herself, but she didn't put in a fridge (yet), so while she has a stove, if she's not parked near a grocery, she is very limited in what she can cook. Some things keep well without refrigeration: onions, potatoes, winter squash, etc. She has potted plants for tomatoes and herbs, but she's much more intentional about her situation. She moved out of an apartment and into the bus by choice, not by necessity, and mostly enjoys the off-the-grid lifestyle. She made one of these for when she's in the desert: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot-in- pot_refrigerator](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot-in-pot_refrigerator) but those only work in very dry climates and aren't cold enough for many foods. Obviously wouldn't work in most places...and if you're in a city, you have to be self-contained and very discreet about where you're living. Can't really spread out and put out pots and stuff when parked on a street.

<comment><USER25> What is close to work by in the US anyway? Looking at the commute distance of people in the US it seems that at least 50% live close enough to use a bicycle. I've seen countless articles about poor people in the US who can't afford a car and had to walk 2 hours every morning, that is most probably 30 minutes on a shitty bicycle even less on a decent one.

            American Commute
            Distance (One Way)    Percent
            1-5 Miles             29 %
            6-10 Miles            22 %
            11-15 Miles           17 %
            16-20 Miles           10 %
            21+ Miles             23 %
            (source:  US Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Omnibus Household Survey. )

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> > _Economists say the canteens are a burden on the exchequer but they are a > hit with politicians in a country where hundreds of millions of people live > on less than a dollar a day_

The difference between these projects and soup kitchens is these are chiefly political projects. The state borrows to pay for patronage and largesse. No doubt, the vendors were not selected through an open auction.

<comment><USER27> The deprivation is rather severe in India. You would notice most of the people are doing full day of work and eat there. In US typical person who eat at a soup kitchen would quite likely be non-working/homeless.

I have had my well-off friends in India where 4 person family dinner will cost more than monthly salary of their car driver. And it is simultaneously true that driver's salary is quite less and a decent restaurant meal is very expensive.

<comment><USER28> Monthly salary of a driver is atleast 10k INR ~ 154$,

Your friends are eating at a place that costs 2500 INR per head? That's not a decent restaurant meal, that's a lavish restaurant.

I would say 200 INR gets you a decent restaurant meal.

<comment><USER29> I'll counter your anecdata with mine.

I usually take Uber in India, and often ask the driver about his work, how much he makes, etc. This is for a North-Indian Tier-2 city.

The answer usually is that he makes INR 6000/month.

Now, I have eaten in middling restaurants where a meal for 2 came to INR 2500. In fact, I've been to cafes where a "meal" of tea, snacks, etc. alone came to over INR 700/pp. You would be hard pressed to get a decent meal in a clean, hygenic and modern restaurant for INR 200 anywhere in North India.

<comment><USER30> Uber guy earning INR6000/month! Man you have been conned hard. An Ola/Uber guy earn something like INR35-50K per month after all fuel and car expenses. No one would work for 6K/month even in tier 3 cities for Ola/Uber. In fact there were days when drivers were earning (due to incentives) about 6K (revenue) per day in cities like Delhi and Bangalore

<comment><USER29> Several of the Uber guys I spoke with were actually drivers of some rich businessmen; they were told to Uber during the times they were not needed. A couple of them were "for hire" drivers, being paid a flat INR 200/day to operate the car for 10 hours/day.

I don't know why they'd be conning me, and so many of them too, unless there's a "driver mafia" out to fool the public about .... what their driver makes?? Doesn't pass Occam's test.

<comment><USER4> >>A couple of them were "for hire" drivers

Most of them are that way. Most cops are into this business, its getting impossible to invest black cash in a meaningful way. There are now capital controls in every investment. Want to buy gold, land, mutual funds, whatever? Get ready to submit you PAN and Aadhar. So they can't spend money that way. At very same time, they can't sit on cash, because inflation.

They generally buy the vehicle in a relative's name, with black cash(Huge second hand market for this). And do this cab business. Most drivers are poor ex-farm workers. So they take whatever they get.

The last time I heard from a auto rickshaw driver, more or less every cop in Bangalore has something like this going.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> For the Americans reading this: "drain on the exchequer" == "drain on the treasury"

</comment><comment><USER32> India has 1000s of temples who serve food for free to anyone without asking questions. Why only talk about a govt project clearly aimed at getting votes of poor?

<comment><USER33> Since I don't know the area – can you think of a reason this type of canteen is so popular if there's widely available, similar alternative? Sounds like there's something more to this – are the canteens simply cheaper because of subsidy? More efficient so less time waiting? Better location for the working population?

<comment><USER32> First, marketing by the congress party, they will talk about it relentlessly on TV/Newspaper/media etc.

Since it is run by congress party (govt) they can use the best real estate in town, which provides the highest visibility to the commuters.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Annapurna Bhojanalya - UP | Aam Admi Canteen - Delhi | Amma Canteen - Tamilnadu | Annapurna Canteen - Andhra Pradesh | Annapurna Rasoi - Rajasthan |

These are scraps to hide the big loot at the top.

</comment><comment><USER35> Food is clean and fresh but no flavor. It is not like food you get in standard restaurants. In short it is not best meal. Maybe they got info about BBC visit. Not seen idly in Indira canteen.

</comment><comment><USER36> Food is cheap when labor costs are low all along the supply chain.

So this is kind of giving us a preview of what meals will cost when food production and meal prep are automated.

<comment><USER37> Biggest chunk of the food prize increases a lot in the last mile (supermarkets, restaurants, etc). In my region, where you used to see 50-60 of people doing fruit picking in one big field, now you see 2 people + 1 tractor + robotic arm. Market prices are barely the same, I dont think labor cost is what really increases the final food price.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Even though the concept is great It is primarily done to appeal to masses below or just above the poverty line. This is a political agenda by present ruling government (Congress) in the state(Karnataka). It is named after late Ms Indira Gandhi who was president of Congress. Sorry to say India runs behind these votebank politics. Idea is that People will remember this as Congress providing food, even though it is being paid by tax payers money, So those corrupt power hungry monsters can continue to stay in power. The chief Minister who initiated Indira Canteen Karnataka spent 100K $ on his and his family for Tea and Snacks alone in the last 4 years. ([https://www.newskarnataka.com/index.php/bangalore/snack- bill...](https://www.newskarnataka.com/index.php/bangalore/snack-bill-at-cms- residences-sums-up-to-half-crore)) Now you cant help but question the motive. And It is not the first time, These initiatives have been done in the past in India Eg: in another state called Tamil Nadu. It was called Amma canteen.

<comment><USER39> As someone that detests Congress, I don't really see why naming it after Indira Gandhi is that bad. Esp considering she is unlikely to stand in an election again... I also don't see why not being the first state to do it is bad; someone else here linked 5 other states that run similar programs.

I was happy that the tradition of naming everything after Rajiv Gandhi is stopping.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Why is this being questioned on vote bank politics?. Isn't any good scheme has to be welcomed.

I am from the state Tamilnadu where this model first got introduced - [http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia- india-36659670](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-36659670)

<comment><USER39> > Why is this being questioned on vote bank politics

IMO, because the other side cannot just stand up and say "well done, that is a good move". It's the new normal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> should extend this to a lot of places:

 _" In fact, Guatemala has the highest rate of malnutrition in the Western Hemisphere: 50 percent of the population is stunted and, in rural Mayan villages, that figure gets as high as 80 percent."_ * We compared a group of native 9-year-old Mayans and a group of 9-year-old Mayans raised in the United States. The difference was dramatic. The American Mayan children who have access to better food are, on average, six inches taller than those raised in Guatemala.* [http://abcnews.go.com/Health/malnutrition-severe-stunting- gu...](http://abcnews.go.com/Health/malnutrition-severe-stunting-guatemalan- children/story?id=12381731)

<comment><USER32> oh god... americans are obese.. please don't compare.

<comment><USER41> Height and obesity...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> For people dismissing it as vote bank politics... I want to say policy is more complicated.

If the govt reduces taxes for people in low income range is that vote bank politics?

If government provides free education to the poor is that vote bank politics?

Both the above items are aimed at a certain segment.

If you think the answer to above questions is Yes, then in that case every body has vote bank politics, and discussing whether it's vote bank politics is of little use (I am not even sure if it is a bad thing).

I think a better question to ask is whether it is good policy. I don't see any argument indicating it is bad policy. Seems like it is helping a certain section of the society at little cost to the rest.

</comment><comment><USER43> If any tourists are thinking of trying them out, please don't. The canteens serve a fixed number of meals a day. You might end up depriving someone of a subsidized meal.

</comment><comment><USER44> As good as this initiative sounds, I don't have high hopes of it succeeding in the long run. I have seen how many Amma canteens in Chennai have run into neglect or effectively closed down a mere 3 years after opening. As long as initiatives like these are politicized (which is unfortunately true in most countries), they won't last for a long time. The next political party to come into power will most definitely run it into the ground.

</comment><comment><USER45> I was curious about two points that the article didn't touch on:

1\. What are the per meal costs, aka how much of the meal does the 13c cover?

2\. Is there some benefit/downside to just "free" food instead of the minimal cost?

<comment><USER46> It's an oft-cited paradox of consumer choice that people don't value things they didn't pay for. By making them pay a token amount, it gives them skin in the game. Similar to "suggested donation" at museums that are already full funded.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> It says, "Each dish costs a mere five rupees, or about 13 cents". Except that, at present, 1 USD = ~65 INR, so more like 8 cents.

<comment><USER48> I think the article is from bbc; so maybe for pound sterling it is 5 cents?

<comment><USER49> England uses Pounds, Shillings and Pence.

<comment><USER50> Not since 1971. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_Day](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_Day)

<comment><USER51> You are of course correct, but the currency that is 1/100 of a pound is still the penny, plural "pence". In this case, 5 cents still doesn't work.

<comment><USER50> Yes good point. And in any case, for "five rupees, or about 13 cents" to be correct, we'd need a cent to be about 5/13 ≈ 0.38 rupees, and that fits neither USD (1 USD ≈ 65 INR) nor GBP (1 GBP ≈ 86 INR). So original point in this thread, that the article's conversion is mystifying/wrong, still holds.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Obama campaign pioneered tactics used by Cambridge Analytica. - <AUTHOR> http://adage.com/article/campaign-trail/election-facebook-tool/295706/ <comment><USER2> The difference I think is consent - the Obama campaign had an "app" that said what it would do, and by all accounts did the right things when you disabled or deleted it.

In this case the app was purported to do one(create your own psychological profile or some such nonsense) but instead stored and used the data for unrelated purposes (campaign targeting, pretty clearly unrelated to the stated purpose).

We can go on and on about "people should know that they're the product", but that only goes so far - you can explicitly say "this is what we're doing with your data" and then do something else.

<comment><USER3> This is not to mention that Facebook's TOS have changed since the Obama 2012 tool. As anyone working with Facebook's Graph API will know, the amount of data and filtering available to developers has been dramatically restricted in the last few years. This Cambridge Analytica approach seems to be a clear attempt to circumvent the spirit of the TOS and the ability of users to control their own privacy.

If anyone remembers the flood of spammy apps that used to be commonplace Facebook, those were built off of access to your friends lists. All you needed was one of your friends to play poker or take a quiz, and your personal information would be siphoned up by the app maker.

It's unclear whether the users who took part in the sham academic study paid for by Cambridge Analytica will be able to obtain any legal remedy, but it seems pretty clear that what they were being paid for was not taking a quiz, but rather for access to hundreds of their friends' information.

Edit:

It seems that these restrictions were implemented in 2015: [https://techcrunch.com/2015/04/28/facebook-api-shut- down/](https://techcrunch.com/2015/04/28/facebook-api-shut-down/). However, Facebook's "platform policy" at the time did prohibit using data of a user's friends for advertising ([https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/cambridge- analy...](https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/cambridge-analytica- facebook-influence-us-election)).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> From 2014.

Actual title: "Facebook Tool the Obama Camp Called Groundbreaking is Going Away"

</comment><comment><USER5> reading the article, this seems way different. Nowhere does it say Obama's tool secretely harvested information from facebook. Instead, it seems it provided tools for the user to encourage their friends to vote.</comment>


Google launches ad-free net experiment - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30144073

<comment><USER2> Or, I can just use Adblock and get the ads blocked.

<comment><USER3> Except if everyone did that, there'd be no way for most sites to make any money.</comment></comment>


Inspiring Others, At All Costs. - <AUTHOR> http://hellobubs.com/post/17700814070/inspiring-others-at-all-costs

<comment><USER2> i know children of parents who work like crazy on their companies. they don't feel inspired; they feel angry.

i don't presume to know what the poor girl who lost her dad will feel, but i would be wary of using romantic bullshit to justify what you want to do. we tend to be very good at finding excuses for what we already believe in.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey Andrew, not sure if you read all the way through my post. But I addressed this. I've made decisions to run my company well AND take great care of my family.

<comment><USER3> So, 2 hours of sleep at most?

<comment><AUTHOR> I sleep pretty well. 6-8hrs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Thanks for this post Bubs. People always ask how can I/they do startups and be a good Dad/Mom/Parent. The flexible nature of our work is key. I can still put in more time than these young Founders and not miss (too often) my most important meetings with my two little angel investors - my kids.

</comment><comment><USER5> Thanks for the post Bubs. Really touching and great to see you being so open about all this.

"Every ride is what it means to be alive." Amen dude.

</comment><comment><USER6> Thanks so much for sharing this. What an amazing story, and a refreshing post with a balanced outlook on this insane startup work. Thank you.</comment>


Show HN: KAR PAGE website and app for car enthusiasts to show their cars - <AUTHOR> http://www.karpage.com/ <comment><USER2> Some notes on the design only

\- Design looks good

\- Logo looks really bad (like a file icon with a car inside..)

\- Status bar is different on each screenshot, missing/white/black

\- Screenshot is squished on the one that is just before the last one.

Combined they make it look amateurish, but if fixed it will look really solid.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi, I actually made some changes on the login screens and I have updated the screenshots at the google play store, but haven't submitted them to the app store yet, just because I'm fixing some bugs on the iOS and will submit all together.

[https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sjs.karpag...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sjs.karpage)

Tnx for your feedback.</comment></comment>


Foucault's work on power - <AUTHOR> https://aeon.co/essays/why-foucaults-work-on-power-is-more-important-than-ever <comment><USER2> I agree with John Searle on this one - it's unfair to Foucault (who despite his eccentricities is actually an engaging and lucid thinker IMO) to lump him together with obscurantists like Derrida:

"With Derrida, you can hardly misread him, because he's so obscure. Every time you say, "He says so and so," he always says, "You misunderstood me." But if you try to figure out the correct interpretation, then that's not so easy. I once said this to Michel Foucault, who was more hostile to Derrida even than I am, and Foucault said that Derrida practiced the method of _obscurantisme terroriste_ (terrorism of obscurantism). We were speaking French. And I said, "What the hell do you mean by that?" And he said, "He writes so obscurely you can't tell what he's saying, that's the obscurantism part, and then when you criticize him, he can always say, 'You didn't understand me; you're an idiot.' That's the terrorism part." And I like that. So I wrote an article about Derrida. I asked Michel if it was OK if I quoted that passage, and he said yes.

Foucault was often lumped with Derrida. That's very unfair to Foucault. He was a different caliber of thinker altogether."

<comment><USER3> There's a bit of slight of hand in criticizing Derrida for not being clear. For example, computer science utilizes obscure notation and concepts and not understanding something is generally attributed to the mental acuity of the reader.

[http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Close_Encounters_...](http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Close_Encounters_of_the_Steve_Kind.txt)

<comment><USER4> The common response is that with computer science you can easily find an expert who can explain the uncontroversial consensus interpretation of some CS notation, whereas with Derrida et al. you'll just get more confusion.

<comment><USER5> I think a major difference is that when a professional has to coin new jargon, they are _usually_ intending to achieve as much clarity as possible.

<comment><USER6> I've always thought of Derrida as some kind of shaman poet sorcerer who uses philosophy as the material for secretive experiments, which makes me not so upset when I can't understand him.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> My favorite introduction to Foucault is Hubert Dreyfus' essay on Being and Power: [http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~hdreyfus/html/paper_being.html](http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~hdreyfus/html/paper_being.html)

The key insight for me is the discussion of "the clearing". The clearing opens the way for new opportunities while suppressing other possibilities in exchange. This concept can be used readily to analyze the durability of certain new technologies and their effect on society. For example, Facebook clearly creates a new way to communicate, but that channel then eliminates other forms of communication in exchange.

The language of pervasive and hidden power is essential for a clear view of what the Silicon Valley is becoming.

</comment><comment><USER8> Foucault has a lot of important insights. My problem with him is he seems to have no real idea of how things could ever be better, and hence no way to choose between the various available overall options. Society is just oppressive power, and the only course of action seems to just be endless vigilance and resistance.

<comment><USER9> Consider him to be one of the "butterfly collectors" of this kind of social power analysis. Not everyone has to be able to develop a field; for that to happen someone has to recognize and try to catalogue it.

If you're not familiar with the metaphor, it refers to one of the development phases of a scientific discipline: before there was a theory of physics, many people described and classified various phenomena. The term comes from biology; even before Linneus, people described and collected all sorts of species; then Linneus provided a taxonomy to fit them into; and now we have a theory of genetics.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Last night I had a dream that I was telling someone to check out Michel Foucault. I specifically remember spelling their name and telling them they should look him up.

</comment><comment><USER11> It... it really doesn't, and this article makes that fact quite plain. Foucault's philosophies are nuggets of well-worn common sense extrapolated out into billowing collections of unnecessary text.

I wonder if anyone has done the kind deed of whittling his most oft-cited gaseous emanations down to their core common sense origins. That'd save a lot of time for those of us not interested in a career in academia.

<comment><USER12> The first page of "Discipline and Punish" is a very clear description of the drawing and quartering of a regicide. I am not sure what nuggets you are referring to. Citations, please. I think he is arguing against "whittling... down to their core common sense origins," because such origins are illusory.

<comment><USER13> _Citations, please_

This is a hilarious comment, given that Foucault's _History of Sexuality_ contains almost no citations!

If you are interested in why Foucault ought to be a laughingstock, see Windshuttle's _The Killing of History_ : [https://www.amazon.com/Killing- History-Literary-Theorists-Mu...](https://www.amazon.com/Killing-History- Literary-Theorists-Murdering/dp/1893554120) or the many essays Camille Paglia wrote on him. Her latest book has a reprint of "Review: Junk Bonds and Corporate Raiders: Academe in the Hour of the Wolf."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The thing that Foucault's thought misses is that there are many ways of seeing the world. You can see it in terms of power, but then confirmation bias may lead you to a place of deep social distrust not unlike our current zeitgeist.

<comment><USER12> I think you misread the article. Foucault's point is that there are many ways of seeing power. "Foucault sought to unburden philosophy of its icy gaze of capturing essences."

<comment><USER14> Enumerating ways of seeing power can lead to an obsession with it. The fact that he has been cited by so many underscores this. When people are preoccupied with whether they are one-down or one-up you end up with perpetual status seeking among individuals and groups, where one's worth is perceived as tied to that status. Does that seem familiar?

<comment><USER3> It's been a while since I read Foucault, but I don't recall him being much concerned with marginal and fleeting differences of power in the add- out/deuce/add-in spectrum. The differences I recall are more at the scale of rights to commit violence and obligations to receive it. Such differences of power are in part sustained by the idea that it is common sense that things are that way because that is the way things are naturally ordered.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Foucault? The physicist Foucault [1] responsible for the Foucault Pendulum and many other advances? Or the philosopher Foucault [2] responsible for some unfalsifiable fluff of great interest to philosophy department tea parties -- conversations that typically return to Jacques Derrida [3], the "show-stopper" who thought there was no basis for shared, objective truths, and whose views are regularly discussed as though their decoded meaning doesn't contradict the possibility of their productive discussion.

It's a sign of the times that, in Web searches, Foucault the philosopher completely buries Foucault the physicist.

(I got snookered into reading this because "power" has a meaning in physics apart from its meaning in philosophy -- the former of which actually means something.)

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A9on_Foucault](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A9on_Foucault)

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

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

<comment><USER16> Ironically, your conveyance of your opinion in this dismissive register with no substance, just the affect of smug certainty, is a perfect example of why the relationship between language and power deserves attention today. Your post is a pervasive and automatic mental pattern, common in a population that has been raised to uncritically worship abstract philosophical notions like "objective truths", notions which no decent self-critical scientist would accept. Your post's voice assumes the appearance of a disciplinary authority without actually engaging substantively with the ideas under discussion. So, in effect you've provided the best possible support for the article's argument.

<comment><USER17> The proposition that there is no such thing as objective truth is itself a proposition of a supposed objective truth.

Postmodernism is therefore paradoxical and logically invalid, in a broad and categorical sense. Adhering to it is therefore irrational and no different than any other non-falsifiable religion that must simply be accepted on faith, without any logical proof or reasoning.

<comment><USER18> You did great up to

Postmodernism is therefore paradoxical ... Adhering to it is therefore irrational

All ideas are paradoxes, and yet we must adhere to some. The act of mapping reality to words necessarily creates lies. Imagining you have some ideas which aren't paradoxes is self delusion. And attempting to not have ideas is death. Therefore adhering to paradoxical ideas is rational.

I would say a hallmark of sanity is the ability to work within paradoxes.

<comment><USER15> > All ideas are paradoxes ...

To a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

The idea that there are an infinity of primes is not at all paradoxical, it's an uncontroversial factual assertion. Most of mathematics shows the same property.

> The act of mapping reality to words necessarily creates lies.

Not the words out of which scientific theories are constructed. Evolution. Biology. Physics. These are falsifiable (they must be to qualify as scientific theories), but they are not _lies_ \-- a word that means false claims made by a speaker who knows his claims are false. You're misusing the word "lies" to refer to something else.

> Imagining you have some ideas which aren't paradoxes is self delusion.

See above. Your claim that all ideas are lies is the essence of the postmodern position. A postmodernist first denies the existence of shared, objective truths, then tries to start a dialogue requiring what's just been denied.

> I would say a hallmark of sanity is the ability to work within paradoxes.

That's certainly true, but it doesn't follow that all is paradox, or that all statements are lies.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Django Debug Toolbar Screencast - <AUTHOR> http://robhudson.github.com/django-debug-toolbar/ <comment><USER2> Great screencast, but did anyone else zone out after 30 seconds because the music was so good? I had to play the screencast a second time to actually watch it.</digression>

<comment><USER3> My guess is it's a Django Reinhardt song. :)

<comment><USER4> It's by Anouman (<http://anouman.net>) -- but it's gypsy jazz, same style as Django.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If you prefer Rails, there is a very similar tool for Rack, called Rack::Debug: <http://github.com/ddollar/rack-debug>. I believe it was inspired by DDT.

</comment><comment><USER6> Alrighty then. Using out Django Debug Toolbar has been on my list of things to start doing for a while now, but after seeing this, how could I not start immediately?

<comment><USER6> Okay, it is installed. And it is awesome. I'm a bit sad I didn't start using this before. Had similar feeling about command extensions and south when I started using them.

<comment><USER7> Wow! Thanks!

<http://south.aeracode.org/wiki/About>

[http://ericholscher.com/blog/2008/sep/12/screencast- django-c...](http://ericholscher.com/blog/2008/sep/12/screencast-django- command-extensions/)

Edit : Holy Shit!

<comment><USER6> certainly :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Django Debug Toolbar is a must use for Django development. I hope it becomes a contrib app at some point.

<comment><USER9> What value does it gain from becoming a contrib app, other than slower releases and less experimentation? I really don't understand the feeling of wanting things to go into Contrib. Hopefully soon, Russ's "No Bad Pony" talk from Djangocon this year will be online to point people to.

<comment><USER10> So instead of people in threads like this going "WTF, how did I not know about this?" ... they will be like ... "Yeah, that's in the documentations I use it everyday it's great."

<comment><USER11> The answer to people not knowing about useful third-party apps is not to stuff all the apps into contrib.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Dept. of Energy signs agreements to develop small nuclear generators - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/03/dept-of-energy-signs-agreements-to-develop-small-nuclear-generators.ars?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+arstechnica%2Findex+%28Ars+Technica+-+Featured+Content%29 <comment><USER2> Excellent news, if it pans out. Here are the reactors they're working on:

Hyperion: A 25 Megawatt-electric (MWe) lead-bismuth-cooled fast reactor. Operates at a high temperature, which makes it potentially useful as a source of industrial process heat, e.g. the Haber-Bosch process for synthesizing ammonia. Has a nice negative temperature coefficient of reactivity: if it gets too hot, the reaction slows down.

Westinghouse SMR: Essentially a much-scaled-down version of Westinghouse's AP1000. Pretty conventional. At 200 MWe, it's the largest of the three.

NuScale: Another conservative pressurized light water reactor. Uses shortened versions of standard fuel rods, so the fuel supply chain should be pretty simple. Smaller than the Westinghouse SMR, at 45 MWe.

All three are small enough that they can be manufactured at factories and shipped out by boat, rail, or a particularly big truck. Their pressure vessels are light enough that they don't need to wait in line for heavy forgings from the handful of companies capable of making pressure vessels for the gigawatt behemoths. I hope that the NRC doesn't kill them.

<comment><USER3> I was really hoping to see a thorium[1] reactor in this list. Apparently, several government labs are working on a small, portable thorium reactor that would be great for this type of thing. The SSTAR[2] (small, sealed, transportable, autonomous reactor) system will produce 10 to 100 megawatts electric and can be safely transported on ship or by a heavy-haul transport truck. Perfect!

1:<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium>

2:[http://www.thorium.tv/en/thorium_reactor/thorium_reactor_1.p...](http://www.thorium.tv/en/thorium_reactor/thorium_reactor_1.php)

<comment><USER4> I read a paper about it recently, and it states while everything is good, it will still takes years of research and development, trial and testing before it moves into deployment stage.

So unless someone with many BILLIONS decide to tackle the problem, the time it takes Thorium to get traction making it not really an alternative ATM.

<comment><USER5> About a year ago China committed a billion dollars to developing liquid thorium reactors. Australia and Czechoslovakia have a partnership with about $300 million committed so far.

Sorenson and others have estimated that a billion or two is about what we'd need, and about ten years with a strong effort.

There are a lot of variants, some more difficult than others. Instead of going for the LFTR right off, we could start with the DMSR. It's a non-breeding molten salt reactor using uranium, but about five times more efficiently than LWRs, excellent proliferation resistance, and all the safety advantages of LFTR.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It wouldn't surprise me to see these or similar small nuclear generators powering datacenters in the near future. I've always thought turning old nuclear submarines into small datacenters would be an interesting way to recycle them.

<comment><USER7> Afaik, U.S. nuclear submarines in particular are designed to run on very highly enriched Uranium (>90% U-235), which makes them both security-sensitive and expensive to fuel.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I hope we do it, AND, I hope we closely regulate them. Nuclear power is dirty. So is coal, oil, clear-cutting forests, and turning corn into fuel.

Not a big fan of the collapse thing, so little nuke plants seem to be the lesser evil.

Whatever happened to the talk about "pebble beds" -- little fuel pellets in ceramic marbles that can't pack close enough to go critical?

<comment><USER2> > Nuclear power is dirty. So is coal, oil, clear-cutting forests, and turning > corn into fuel.

They are not the same amount of dirty, not by a long shot. The regulatory burden on nuclear power is psychotically out of proportion to its actual safety risk and environmental impact, and gives an unfair advantage to energy sources like coal and methane which are much dirtier and more dangerous. Beyond a certain point, safety regulations on nuclear power make us less safe. We're well past that point.

(Regarding pebble beds: China has an experimental pebble bed plant under construction. Each module consists of two 105 MWe reactors sharing the same turbomachinery for generating electricity. It looks like the plan is to get the manufacturing infrastructure working, get some operational experience actually running the things, and then start building more and possibly exporting them commercially to other countries.)</comment></comment>


Chinese Bitcoin Mining Company May Have Made as Much Money as Nvidia Last Year - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/02/23/secretive-chinese-bitcoin-mining-company-may-have-made-as-much-money-as-nvidia-last-year.html <comment><USER2> I'd love to see who is buying the miners and what percentage of customers manage to run profitable mining operations. Mining without having access to nearly free energy seems to me to be very dependent on bitcoin increasing in value.</comment>