Largest-ever study of controversial pesticides finds harm to bees - <AUTHOR> https://www.nature.com/news/largest-ever-study-of-controversial-pesticides-finds-harm-to-bees-1.22229 <comment><USER4> Losing bees would suck so bad. Lots of plants co evolved, requiring pollinators. Orchids are the weirdest, with special moths unique to them [1]. But so much stuff depends on bees. A whole bunch of kinds of fruit trees, different kinds of beans, even celery.

Hand pollination is possible, of course, but that seems like such a pita. Perhaps it's possible to automate.

We have a perfectly good, self optimizing system that constantly moves to optimality. If we could just lighten up a little, not push quite so hard, or even just do localized trials of intensive use pesticides and fertilizers, we could find a balance of what the system can support.

Either go slow and look for local optimizations that are then distributed widely, or engineer immunity, or both.

Ugh. I guess if it was easy, it wouldn't be a problem.

<comment><USER5> Honey bees aren't native to North America at least. If they went extinct, native plants would be fine.

<comment><USER6> It's likely that bumblebees are equally affected.

<comment><USER7> Well, sort of. Bumblebees are probably as susceptible as honeybees, but native bees will preferentially eat from native plants. If most farmers aren't spraying many native plants, the exposure will be less.

<comment><USER8> > ...but native bees will preferentially eat from native plants.

Do you have a source for how significant this factor is? I would like to believe it, but it sounds a lot like wishful thinking.

<comment><USER7> Not really; my source is a lecture at a beekeeping meetup (where the lecturers range from top academics to 'a little bit crazy'). I believe the study in question was trying to assess how honeybees, an invasive species, impacted native bee populations; the study found little impact, and attributed it to the preferential feeding. (The replanting of large swaths of America with invasive plant species, such as wheat, presumably does have an impact on native bee populations.)

I'd also note that many native bees also have a much shorter lifecycle - <USER2> will be active for a very brief time at a very specific time of the year, when their target plants are flowering, and then they lay their eggs, which will remain dormant / develop slowly for nearly the full year, to hatch again at the appropriate time. This means that you can successfully avoid killing them by timing your pesticide application to avoid flowering plants. Honeybees, on the other hand, are active year round (though confined to their hives in the winter).

A larger threat mentioned in the talk to native bees was actually global warming. Many native bees operate in narrow bands of latitude, only going so far north and south. With the increases in average temperature, we're seeing the southern border of many native bee species move north ... but for whatever reason, not the northern border. I'm not sure why that would be (maybe there are plant species they depend on which spread too slowly?), but it creates a worrisome picture of their habitat being squeezed out of existence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Note that the new HONEST act is designed to stop the EPA being able to act in studies like this because the environmental data can't be independently reproduced.

See [https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/how- to-g...](https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/how-to-gut-the- epa-in-the-name-of-honesty/519462/) and various other coverage.

<comment><USER10> Don't you love the cozy, feel-good names politicians attach to horrible legislature?

<comment><USER11> This is straight from 1984 double-speak

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> American farming practices are a perfect storm of detriments to the honey bee. Widespread use of pesticides is, of course, directly bad. The monoculture of crops also exacerbates the accumulation of pesticides, since bees get a smaller variety of food. And due to the heavily managed style of beekeeping, hives are closer together and are inhibited from swarming, leading to even more propagation of Varroa mites.

<comment><USER13> During yesterday's evening walk past a corn field, it occurred to me that the impending roboticization (?) of farming may enable synergistic multiple plant fields/plantings on a large scale. What was the old (apocryphal, or not?) Native American combination: Corn, squash, and beans? (I'm just going by memory, as I was yesterday evening while walking.)

We may be on the edge of a new wave of a more organic farming, on a mass scale. Using plant _communities_ and synergies to reduce or need for the more simplistic, mass application of chemicals.

Without even getting into all the genetic engineering and the like that is sure, however you feel about it, to continue.

<comment><USER14> I have also had that idea. Instead of giant machines only capable of harvesting monocultures, couldn't we downscale to small, autonomous vehicles that can farm efficiently on a vegetable garden at scale. Many cheap drones to farm the way our ancestors did using manual labour

<comment><USER15> That would be quite the change. In fact, it could enable many people to produce a lot on their own land, because they don't have to spend all the time doing it.

<comment><USER16> The sound is a problem in this plan. Bees are very sensitive to vibration. They would probably desert any cultured place with drones working continously. Can be avoided if you schedule the drone work, but must be adressed.

<comment><USER13> I wonder what the range of their sensitivity would be, for various scenarios.

If you have a bot passing through every couple of days, would they continue to visit the rest of the field where the bot is not currently present?

Very interesting factor to consider and be concerned about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Funded by Bayer and Syngenta.

The extremely cynical interpretation is that Bayer patented the first neonic in 1985 and the major one (Imidacloprid) is now off-patent.

Bayer would probably love it to be banned, so that everyone has to switch to some newer, less tested, _more patent protected_ discovery of theirs.

<comment><USER18> It's a cute story, but Bayer has disputed the results of this study, still disagrees that their pesticides impact bee populations, and shows no signs of phasing out sales as far as I know.

<comment><USER19> >still disagrees that their pesticides impact bee populations

I know that you are using the word pesticide, but the insecticide is question... would kill insects like bees?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Did anyone ever assert that neonicotinoids were harmless to bees? I thought the questions were about whether the harm was sustainable at an effective level of use, whether (and how quickly) bee populations (and which species) could adapt to their presence, whether harm to pollinators could be mitigated by changes in the way we use these pesticides. The harm also had to be compared to the benefit of their use (generally in terms of improvements in crop yield and quality). An ideal environment for pollinators has to be measured in terms of the requirement to feed a population of human beings that has doubled in my lifetime, and like it or not, pesticides and other chemicals are part of that. The reason neonicotinoids were originally attractive was reduced toxicity to mammals and birds, so it's not a no-brainer to replace them with something else.

<comment><USER21> As far as I remember the story from many years ago:

FDA panel found the link, they recommended stopping the chemical.

The head of FDA pocketed the research/recommendation in his desk until "further".

It was half a billion dollar industry of which that guy got a piece of the money through some channel.

Net result:

USA had to import bees from Australia.

EU banned the set of chemicals

My grandfather, after 50 years of bee keeping lost half of the swarms, until we figured out what's happening and what's killing them.

Lobbying shoduld be made illegal.

<comment><USER22> "US had to import bees from Australia"? _They 're not a native species_. All US honey bees are "imported".

<comment><USER23> Importing because of a recent mass wipeout is different than using descendants of previous imports.

<comment><USER22> Without stipulating that this actually happened --- that bee farmers today are relying entirely on Australian imports --- you're still begging the question. Why? What difference does it make?

<comment><USER23> Personally, I think any mass death event of an important species is _extremely_ worrisome, irrespective of their source, and necessitates root- cause analysis and careful examination of the current equilibrium.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I think one important thing to point out here is this is a _insecticide_ study, not an _herbicide_ study, because they're very very different things.

That being said, I'd like to see the results replicated independently. As there article points out, there are a bunch of asterisks in the claims... and a lot of conflicting conclusions.

EDIT: Use the correct term pointed out to me

<comment><USER25> Herbicides are a subset of pesticides.

(I know, I used to think "pesticide" meant it killed _creatures_ , but plants are also pests.)

<comment><USER24> Yep, you are indeed correct.

The correct comment should be: This article is about a specific class of insecticide, not a herbicides.

Coincidently, I learned that Neonicotinoids means 'chemically similar to nicotine', I thought that was a coincidence at first.

<comment><USER26> So "nicotinoids" means "chemically similar to nicotine", and... "neo-" means new. Some of the literature refers to nicotinoids and some to neonicotinoids.

What I haven't been able to figure out is if there was essentially a "second wave" of nicotinoids that someone -- a scientist or marketer -- figured was deserving of the "neo-" prefix.

<comment><USER27> One random, uneducated guess from me: Maybe the "neo-" prefix is only for those that don't show up in nature, so they have to be produced in labs, and are thus "new" to the environment?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Here's WaPo on why you want to read more than just the headline on this:

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of- science/wp/2...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of- science/wp/2017/06/29/controversial-pesticides-may-threaten-queen-bees- alternatives-could-be-worse/)

</comment><comment><USER28> Whoaaa! see

"Do Neonics Hurt Bees? Researchers and the Media Say Yes. The Data Do Not. " at

[http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201...](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/06/the_data_do_not_support_the_idea_that_neonics_hurt_bees.html)

wherein they state:

"One problem: The data in the paper (and hundreds of pages of supporting data not included but available in background form to reporters) do not support that bold conclusion. No, there is no consensus evidence that neonics are "slowly killing bees." No, this study did not add to the evidence that neonics are driving bee health problems."

...

"But based on the study's data, the headline could just as easily have read: "Landmark Study Shows Neonic Pesticides Improve Bee Health"—and it would have been equally correct."

<comment><USER29> Funny, I was just going to mention my good friend Jon Entine as someone to watch out for. Thanks for providing the hook.

 _Jon Entine is a media-savvy corporate propagandist and pseudo-journalist who fronts the opinions and positions of chemical corporations by pretending to be an independent journalist. He has ties to biotech companies Monsanto and Syngenta while playing a key role in another industry front group known as the American Council on Science and Health, a thinly-veiled corporate front group that Sourcewatch describes as holding "a generally apologetic stance regarding virtually every other health and environmental hazard produced by modern industry, accepting corporate funding from Coca-Cola, Kellogg, General Mills, Pepsico, and the American Beverage Association, among others."_

[http://www.propagandists.org/propagandists/jon- entine/](http://www.propagandists.org/propagandists/jon-entine/)

That _Slate_ are engaged with a special partnership with Entine's propaganda mill speaks exceedingly poorly of _Slate_.

Specific to the _Slate_ article, Entine claims that bee populations aren't dying. The supporting link is to an article that states ... bee populations are dying, and where they aren't dying and leaving corpses behind, they are simply vanishing without a trace. Sadly for Mr. Entine's argument, neither death nor disappearance makes for a health bee colony. He's attempting to mislead, misdirect, and language-lawyer his way around a point. He fails.

I've encountered him previously. Ironically, if his propagandistic techniques weren't so over-the-top self-parodying, he might have snuck past my bullshit filter.

[https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/1LmnHGHi...](https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/1LmnHGHi7yS)

<comment><USER30> The author of the Gplus screed should spend some time looking at Nassim Nicholas Taleb's Twitter history. He might then understand the context of the article Entine wrote. But then, both that piece and the Propagandists article do little more than make guilt by association attacks.

<comment><USER29> There's also Etine's "If you can't attack the science, attack the scientist". Which a) has been pulled from his website but b) exists on the Internet Archive and c) points to an article at _The American_ , motto, "The Journal of the American Enterprise Institute" (yet another Libertarian / Free Market Fundamentalism disinformation mill), and which goes into gory detail projecting the whole mechanism of personal and reputationa attacks, on the other party.

Ironic as those attacks were polished and perfected by the Libertarian / Free Market Fundamentalism crowd, as well documented by Robert Proctor, Naomi Oreskes, and others.

[http://web.archive.org/web/20110430225600/http://www.america...](http://web.archive.org/web/20110430225600/http://www.american.com:80/archive/2011/april/milwaukees- best-no-longer)

The _substance_ of that particular article: Entine's defence of the now largely deprecated chemical bysphenol A, a/k/a BPA, an endocrine disruptor.

"based on other evidence -- largely from animal studies -- the FDA expressed "some concern" about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior, and prostate glands in fetuses, infants, and young children."

[http://www.webmd.com/children/bpa](http://www.webmd.com/children/bpa)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> This is one area where the scientific method feels like a subpar approach to deciding policy. I'll grant that it's likely better than the alternative in most cases but man does it create some really dangerous blind spots.

<comment><USER25> The EU temporarily banned the chemical four years ago on the precautionary principle.

I like this approach: the harm done by not being able to use these pesticides for a while, were they to turn out to not be harmful, would surely be outweighed by the risk of further harming the ecosystem.

<comment><USER32> This approach was also under attack while negotiating TTIP and other trade agreements. Ironically it was badmouthed as unscientific - as if it's better to throw any new heavily patented chemical on the market and let science figure out reliably that it's problematic - something that can take up to 20 years if it's with possible at all with enough scientific rigor - of course public research can't get any details due to patents and trade secrets - <USER3> ecosystems are not exactly easy to replicate in the lab.

<comment><USER33> >of course public research can't get any details due to patents and trade secrets //

Not sure about other jurisdictions but UK patent law allows an invention to be worked for research purposes.

Presumably companies don't get licenses to produce chemicals for widespread release to the environment without disclosure of the details, so trade secrets shouldn't be a problem?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> "Although the study found that neonicotinoids have an overall negative effect on bees, the results aren't completely clear-cut: the pesticides seemed to harm bees at the UK and Hungarian sites, but apparently had a positive effect on honeybees in Germany. Pywell notes that the German effects were "short lived", and the reason for them is unclear. They might be linked in part to the generally healthier state of hives in the German arm of the trial, he speculates"

Bollocks! Neonics harm bees because that is what they are designed to do - break insects. I'm not an expert but there have been rather a lot of articles in New Scientist describing "confused" bees relating to neonics over the last few years.

<comment><USER29> The data say what they do, and the article seems to reflect this.

Threshold and compound effects are not unknown in science.

Though given a comment on funding sources (Bayer and Sygenta -- formerly Zeneca), some skepticism may be warranted.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14684161](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14684161)

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> [http://www.scienceinfo.news/monsanto-unveils- neonicotinoid-p...](http://www.scienceinfo.news/monsanto-unveils- neonicotinoid-pesticide-resistant-transgenic-bee/)

the last paragraph is rather enlightening...

<comment><USER36> Isn't this a satire website? The next article is named "Leaving the fridge door open to halt global warming".

<comment><AUTHOR> See nisa's recommendation for the 'about' link, which is very informative.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Time to bring back DDT. It was banned for misinformed reasons without any evidence to show that accumulation contributed to cancer or anything else nasty in mammals.[1] Neonics are reported to be 5,000-10,000 more toxic to bees. [2]

A 5 minute walk in fields around me will lead to at least 3 ticks latching on. We're now facing the Lone Star tick that causes a life threatening meat allergy (wtf) and Lyme's disease. I've also personally reported one of the first cases of West Nile virus in this state from a found dead bird. Now there's Zika, which seems great for humans. Oh and we can't forget the re- proliferation of bed bugs as well. But yeah, we should keep trusting the newer classes of pesticides that don't work as well and haven't been studied as thoroughly.

[1][https://junkscience.com/1999/07/100-things-you-should- know-a...](https://junkscience.com/1999/07/100-things-you-should-know-about- ddt/)

[2][http://www.tfsp.info/findings/harm/](http://www.tfsp.info/findings/harm/)

<comment><USER38> Bed bugs are practically immune to DDT. I looked into this a few years ago because DDT seemed like a perfect fit for the problem. (Mattresses are indoors, easy to saturate and used for more than a decade.) Turns out the LD50 for DDT is like 100000 ppm.‡ Think about that. Ten. Percent. Of their body weight.

(IMHO, DDT should be allowed for mosquito nets, as long as they are only used indoors and people know to incinerate the old nets instead of throwing them out. It is so darn effective and we were so boneheaded stupid the first time around.)

‡ [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bed_bug_control_techniques#Pes...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bed_bug_control_techniques#Pesticide_resistance)

<comment><USER37> > Bed bugs are practically immune to DDT. I looked into this a few years ago > because DDT seemed like a perfect fit for the problem. (Mattresses are > indoors, easy to saturate and used for more than a decade.) Turns out the > LD50 for DDT is like 100000 ppm.‡ Think about that. Ten. Percent. Of their > body weight.

Ugh, noted. Thanks for the correction. I am aware of some resistance among specific mosquito species as well, but the residual repellant effect still makes it crazy useful for application on screens, nets, and tents.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> This is actually good news. Colony collapse disorder has been a pretty mysterious problem up until now. Identifying a possible cause gives us a chance to stop it. This might not even require legislation.

Now that farmers are aware of the link many will choose to reduce or stop using neonicotinoids entirely. If they don't do this voluntarily, they may be forced to do so by commercial beekeepers. Many farms rely on commercial beekeepers who they hire to transport bee hives to their fields when pollination is required. These beekeepers may simply refuse to hire out their bees to farms using neonicotinoid pesticides. It threatens their livelihood _directly_ after all.

This is certainly bad news for neonicotinoid producers, at least in the short term. It's possible that neonicotinoids are not the problem and that reducing their use will do nothing to stop CCD. However, it seems inevitable that this is something that _will_ be tried. We can only hope that the alternatives that farmers choose don't turn out to be even worse for bees.

</comment><comment><USER40> Pesticides harm your brain too apparently:

[http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/environment- report-...](http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/environment-report-eu- pesticide-link-brain-damage-lower-iq-billions-of-pounds-lost-organic- food-a7771056.html)

<comment><USER41> Organophosphates are very nasty indeed, if you look at research into those with large exposures, farmers, sheep dipping in particular;

[http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/calls- hillsboro...](http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/calls-hillsborough- style-inquiry-sheep-dip-9118546)

[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/18/uk- gover...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/18/uk-government- criticised-for-ongoing-delay-in-farm-poisoning-case-sheep-dipping)

or this; "The present findings suggest OP pesticides are more harmful than previously thought, even at low levels of exposure."

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3042861/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3042861/)

Then there is the Gulf War Syndrome which has been associated to high levels of insecticide use;

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1319191/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1319191/)

and this more recently, 'Pesticides: an update of human exposure and toxicity'

" A huge body of evidence exists on the possible role of pesticide exposures in the elevated incidence of human diseases such as cancers, Alzheimer, Parkinson, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, asthma, bronchitis, infertility, birth defects, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism, diabetes, and obesity. Most of the disorders are induced by insecticides and herbicides most notably organophosphorus, organochlorines, phenoxyacetic acids, and triazine compounds."

[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00204-016-1849-...](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00204-016-1849-x)

<comment><USER41> " In summary, young children may be especially vulnerable to pesticides because of the sensitivity of their developing organ systems combined with a limited ability to enzymatically detoxify these chemicals (13,123,126-131). According to the National Academy of Sciences (13), children's OP exposures are of special concern because "exposure to neurotoxic compounds at levels believed to be safe for adults could result in permanent loss of brain function if it occurred during the prenatal and early childhood period of brain development" (13). Because there is so little information available on the levels and routes of children's pesticide exposure, it is not feasible to conduct a risk assessment predicting the likelihood of adverse effects based on animal studies. Thus far, there are no data in children to support or refute the hypothesized health effects of chronic low-level pesticide exposure."

[https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/di...](https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display.files/fileID/12739)

"We conclude that PT and PO are genotoxic, while DF shows mitogenic activity. An important finding of this study is that PT had higher genotoxic potential than PO, which warrants for further investigations to correctly evaluate the hazards of exposure to these chemicals."

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18418871](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18418871)

"Collectively, our results implicate gluconeogenesis as the key mechanism behind organophosphate-induced hyperglycemia, mediated by the organophosphate- degrading potential of gut microbiota. This study reveals the gut microbiome- mediated diabetogenic nature of organophosphates and hence that the usage of these insecticides should be reconsidered."

[https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13...](https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-016-1134-6)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> It must be painful to pay 3+ million for a study which ends up doing you a disservice. I wonder if these researchers will be able to find work outside of academia in the future now that other corporations know that they can't be corrupted.

</comment><comment><USER43> Reminds me of this excellent Radiolab episode: [http://www.radiolab.org/story/what-dollar-value- nature/](http://www.radiolab.org/story/what-dollar-value-nature/)

Even people who care nothing for the irreplaceable beauty of nature ought to consider how much measurable economic value we risk destroying in the name of short-term profits. Of course (as the podcast explores) it's a complicated equation, but still a very compelling one.

</comment><comment><USER44> Sounds like perfect Monstanto, destroy the ecosystem, kill bees, get loads of money....

Bet this was planned long way before this research was done. Surely, folks in the industry understand from A/B outcomes same as we do understand IT.

Our kids might get slightly worse earth ecosystem then we have now.

</comment><comment><USER45> Wouldn't this be a good challenge for evolution?

</comment><comment><USER46> yes we can automate, replace bees with robots. yes. we are the greatest.

</comment><comment><USER47> Is smoking tobacco harmful to your health? Is lead in petrol poisoning children? Is the earth heating up due to mankind's actions? Are bees being harmed by pesticides?

Seems like all these things have answers that, being honest, we all knew the answer to long before the question was "settled". But there was an awful lot of money to be made prolonging the ambiguity.

<comment><USER48> I (and I'm sure many others) feel exactly the same way. But we also need to admit the possibility of something like confirmation bias. So, you've mentioned several cases where we finally got a result which was exactly what we expected all along. Those cases stand out to use because they our brains naturally prefer them to cases where we were wrong. So then I have a couple of questions.

When were we wrong? What are some other cases which didn't turn out like we expected? It may be harder to think of them but they must exist. What would have been the consequence of acting too early on those cases based on our speculation, now that we know we had been wrong?

Do you think we should start to take a more proactive approach to these kinds of problems? I mean, should we look at a problem and assume it's caused by whatever happens to look like the culprit?

<comment><USER49> One example of where we are wrong is the commonly held belief that saccharin causes cancer. I mean, it's artificial, it's cheating to get sweetness, it has to be bad right? Turns out the initial studies looking at bladder cancer in rats were misleading (lots of confounders).

See this link for some basic information: [https://www.cancer.gov/about- cancer/causes-prevention/risk/d...](https://www.cancer.gov/about- cancer/causes-prevention/risk/diet/artificial-sweeteners-fact-sheet)

There is a further good writeup on it in the great book "The Biology of Cancer" by Robert A Weinberg, but it is a textbook.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> It's still more ambiguous than stated given the differing results per country(both positive and negative) and they didn't control for fungicide use.

 _We clustered sites into triplets ( >3.2 km between sites) and randomly allocated sites to one of three treatments: (i) clothianidin applied at 11.86 to 18.05 grams of active ingredient per hectare (g a.i. ha−1) with a fungicide (thriam and prochloraz) and nonsystemic pyrethroid (beta-cyfluthrin) (trade name Modesto); (ii) thiamethoxam applied at 10.07 to 11.14 g a.i. ha−1 and combined with the fungicides fludioxonil and metalaxyl-M (trade name Cruiser); and (iii) control OSR receiving a commercial fungicide (thriam and dimethomorph in Germany and Hungary and thriam and prochloraz in the United Kingdom) but no neonicotinoid seed treatment._

Fungicides may have synergistic effects when used with pesticides. [0][1][2]

The other study, "Chronic exposure to neonicotinoids reduces honey bee health near corn crops" is a bit more credible. Corn is a non-uniform seed and more apt to ablate the seed coat and generate significant dust issues, hence Canada's regulation to for seed lubrication. Ground persistence and mobility make setting up adjacent pollinator refuge sites a potential source of neonicotinoids in addition to the irrigated surface water. That corn is wind pollinated and only provides a nutrient poor pollen kind of exacerbates that, I think. Contrast that with western Canada where CCD hasn't been observed in canola regions, canola seed is uniform and canola provides both nutritious pollen and nectar.

I still don't think an outright ban at this point is the right choice especially given the limited alternatives and research into those alternatives. Organophosphates are significantly worse for both humans and bees. Pyrethrins aren't exactly safe for bees either, with both being broad- spectrum insecticides and requiring more frequent application via foliar spraying. Even IPM guidelines for a pest like the flea beetle rank several types of neonicotinoids above using pyrethrins[3].

There really aren't any easy solutions but, reevaluating the use of prophylactic seed treatment should be worth a consideration.

[0]: [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ps.4449/abstract](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ps.4449/abstract)

[1]: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3558502/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3558502/)

[2]: [http://lib.gig.ac.cn/local/ejournal/ETC/ETC1996/1504/ETC-199...](http://lib.gig.ac.cn/local/ejournal/ETC/ETC1996/1504/ETC-1996-15\(4\)-525-534.pdf)

[3]: [http://ipm.ucanr.edu/PMG/r783301411.html](http://ipm.ucanr.edu/PMG/r783301411.html)

</comment><comment><USER51> Beads?

</comment><comment><USER52> We need to hear all sides of this debate before coming to any conclusions.

It's probably time to inject as much political vitriol into this as possible, and pretend to debate this controversial 'study' and so-called 'science' for another several decades at a minimum to really verify the science. If the bees aren't politicized and ranted against by talking heads, politicians, and cable TV pundits, how will we ever know what to think of them?

Bees are for wimps, pollinating is part of the study thumping pro-science evidence based agenda!

<comment><USER53> Could you please not troll like this on Hacker News?

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

<comment><USER52> My apologies, not meant to troll but rather be a commentary on how our nation handles science and data.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Good, now can they confirm/publish that pesticides cause harm to HUMANS?

<comment><USER25> "pesticides" covers a broad range of substances.

Which do you mean?

<comment><USER55> Glyphosate specifically</comment></comment></comment>


"At Harvard they have this policy where if you pass too many classes they ask you to leave." - <AUTHOR> http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ch06.html

<comment><USER2> Man, Stallman is like the prime example of what happens when your nerdiness gets stuck in a feedback loop. Not that I haven't known others, believe me.

</comment><comment><USER3> Is that what they call "graduation"?

</comment><comment><USER4> True true</comment>


Danish forum members building manned space rocket (and submarine) - <AUTHOR> http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3271649

<comment><USER2> Cool stuff, but characterizing NOX as "safe" with respect to LOX is crazy, IMHO. Witness the Scaled Composites fatal accident, doing a "cold flow" test.

There's a poor safety culture around nitrous because many people have used it at small scales, or in the racing community, without too many problems.

In part, there's a scaling issue here. If your pipe full of nitrous is less than some (unknown) critical diameter, then spontaneous decomposition that happens in the pipe gets quenched. As you scale things up ... oh, you hit your pipe with a hammer on a hot day. Oops, you're dead.

OTOH, people know LOX can be dangerous, so they treat it with respect. Except for that barbecue quy on Youtube.

<comment><USER3> Automotive nitrous oxide systems are also fairly safe because they're well- tested mass-produced consumer products. Homemade, modified or improperly installed automotive nitrous systems can and do explode. There's a series of photos well-known on just about any car-related forum of a Nissan Maxima that had a nitrous bottle explode in a garage; the level of destruction is impressive.

Oxidizers are dangerous - in many cases far more dangerous than the fuel. Of course, most people are going to treat something labeled "rocket fuel" with respect.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> They're a non-profit before they are Something Awful forum members. Not trying to disrespect goons here, I'm one also, but the priorities need to be straightened.

See RiderOfGiraffe's comment on this same page.

</comment><comment><USER5> See also: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1624552>

</comment><comment><USER6> Would you write a headline saying "X HN member is Y" if I had an interesting project?

They have no affiliation with SA. It's not a small forum project that turned into extraterrestrial space flight.

</comment><comment><USER7> The submarine is normally docked right outside my window.</comment>


The Expanding World of Poverty Capitalism - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/opinion/thomas-edsall-the-expanding-world-of-poverty-capitalism.html <comment><USER2> I know some will balk out of fear and comfort, but we are approaching a boundary that will force these schemes to expand into the socio-economic strata that you also belong to. Sure it's easy to ignore the brewing storm because it's at the horizon, but what happens when the government and the corrupt officials find that they have sucked the poor and down-trodden dry and their revenue streams are atrophying. Let's see, you speed, well we need to make sure that you are not a serial speeder and need to monitor you for an increasing number of months at a cost of $100 per month for equipment and services. Let's see...what else? You drink.... you've been drunk in public. Well we need to make sure you are not doing illegal things while you are drunk so we need to monitor you for an ever expanding number of months.

<comment><USER3> The alternative is incarceration; would you rather that be mandatory? Crimes were committed (whether what was committed _should_ be a crime is a different discussion), incarceration is the normal punishment and means of ensuring the crime (nor others) is not repeated within a given period of time. Thanks to technology & private services, we _can_ give the convicted an option which prevents/discourages recidivism within that period, but otherwise lets them largely return to freedom. Being costs above and beyond what the jurisdiction has budgeted (on the represented will of the people), either let the convicted opt for paying for the means for that freedom, or take the free route of being locked in a box for a prolonged period. Sure there are issues subject to objection in this, but remember: the alternative is dump these options and just incarcerate.

BTW, PSA: an out-of-state driver in NY caught speeding can be subjected to an additional >$300 "safe driving assurance" (or some rot) fee, paid to ensure said driver is not arrested outright next time discovered (for any reason) driving in the state. No 3rd-party services/mechanisms involved, just straight-up legal extortion which, per the lead article's premise, hits the poor harder than the better-off.

<comment><USER4> The just alternative is that the State pays for the programs it deems necessary to force on people for the good of society. It's not a question of funding: incarceration is at least an order of magnitude more expensive than surveillance.

If you think that large punitive fines are a useful disincentive to crime (whether that's true or not depends on several factors, but for people living paycheck to paycheck and in deep debt, probably not), fine, argue that. But that's a separate issue. So far as I can tell, there's no policy argument for making people for their own surveillance, if what you're concerned about is improving social outcomes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Several comments here are addressing the use of the word "capitalism." It's being used because this op-ed writer knows his audience.

Writing on the editorial pages of the Times, he knows he is reaching a primarily liberal audience. He is writing in the context of Democratic political campaigning against big corporations about the financial meltdown, growing income inequality, poor job growth coincident with record corporate profits, and tax shenigans like inversions.

In short, he's speaking to an audience that tends to be suspicious of businesses larger than the local grocer, and that has already been whippped up in that direction for several years now.

So: he frames his pet issue in those terms, in order to get the maximum response from the audience. (It's also why he name-drops several Republicans, despite the fact that these fees are charged in localities controlled by either party).

Seen objectively, the issue is not actually with capitalism, since one of the major examples of fees hitting the poor are municipal court fees--which don't go to private companies at all. They are directly assessed by the local government to pay government expenses. But they're still hurting the poor. NPR had a great story about it recently:

[http://www.npr.org/2014/05/19/312158516/increasing-court- fee...](http://www.npr.org/2014/05/19/312158516/increasing-court-fees-punish- the-poor)

</comment><comment><USER6> Alex Tabarrok has been discussing this passionately on the Marginal Revolution blog:

[http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/08/fer...](http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/08/ferguson- and-the-debtors-prison.html)

[http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/04/deb...](http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/04/debtors- prison-for-failure-to-pay-for-your-own-trial.html)

</comment><comment><USER7> This seems expensive, inefficient and destined to trap people in a cycle of poverty.

I'd rather my taxes cover the true cost of the court system and the courts focus on reforming individuals rather than cost recovery.

<comment><USER3> _destined to trap people in a cycle of poverty._

Only if those people persist in committing crimes.

<comment><USER8> It doesn't seem like you understand. This privatization is creating a cycle that is contributing to people being repeat offenders.

So yes, "only if these people persist in committing crimes", but the government is making it harder on them to get their life back together after committing the 1st crime.

<comment><USER3> The $free alternative of incarceration remains, independent of whether costly alternatives exist.

Alas, human nature is such that making it easy "to get their life back together after committing the 1st crime" decreases the incentive to do so. The main point of sentencing is to discourage recidivism.

I'm concerned about a subculture normalizing crimes, 1st or subsequent. Objecting to punishment with zero consideration of the cause thereof facilitates the underlying problem.

<comment><USER9> I worry more about subcultures having their normal criminalized e.g. the drugs _those people do_ need to be punished severely.

This goes back to prohibition and the Ku Klux Klan supporting it to antagonise Irish Catholics.

<comment><USER8> This is already happening with crack vs coke, but I assume you know that =)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The very fact this article is talking about government and business in symbiosis means the author doesn't understand the word 'Capitalism'.

When big business are in cahoots with government, to good or bad effect (usually bad) it's Corporatism, not Capitalism.

<comment><USER11> So what's your definition of capitalism?

I think the original definition originated sometime in the 19th century, probably from Marx, and it meant the actual, real world system (this is different from communism, which designated an ideal).

I always understood it as an economic system based on two characteristics:

1\. Private ownership of capital.

2\. Labor as a market commodity.

I think these two aptly describe both 19th century and current economic systems, and I don't think this implies anything about symbiosis (or lack of thereof) between government and business.

Addendum: Maybe you mean _free market_ , which, in my view, is a different thing. At least because it, like communism, describes an ideal, not an factually existing system (I am not aware of sufficiently closed economic system which could be considered to be a free market).

<comment><USER10> "So what's your definition of capitalism?" \- Mutual, voluntary free economic association of trade in commodity, time and subjective value.

The original definition was prior to that, first used by Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot in a positive, anti-feudalist sense.

Those two are components of Capitalism, but by no means is is inclusive of the concept of central governance. When banks are centralised, they aren't privately owned.

When the money and currency itself is printed and distributed by a central regime, it isn't private. So when the value itself isn't private, then ownership of capital isn't private.

The terminology to best describe this hybrid of centralised ownership of currency and labor and partial free-markets are better described as 'Corporatism' or to be more brutal an 'Oligarchy'.

<comment><USER11> > The original definition was prior to that, first used by Anne-Robert-Jacques > Turgot in a positive, anti-feudalist sense.

I think you're wrong. I looked around the Internet and it really seems that the word "capitalism" originated from "capitalist", first used by Marx in Communist Manifesto.

See e.g. [https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=1005122700456](https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=1005122700456)

(I would be interested to see exact quote from Turgot, that uses the word.)

What you describe was called "economic freedom" or "economic liberalism". And I already said that, when I mentioned "free market". Markets obviously are prerequisite for capitalism, but they don't have to be free in this sense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is all sick in it's own way, but it's not capitalism. Why do people equate every system in which someone makes a profit with capitalism?

<comment><USER13> It's the evil twin of capitalism, crony capitalism, which is what we have in this country.

(Technically, it should be called fascism, since it's the binding together (fasces) of government and business in an unholy union.)

<comment><USER14> Crony capitalism, corporatism... Call it whatever you want, but it doesn't really exist outside the framework of capitalism. I'll keep looking for the true scotsman just in case I'm wrong, though.

<comment><USER15> Eh. There's one thing where people are able to purchase, own, and maintain capital, and make money off its output. There's another thing that's about using the coercive force of the state to force people to send you resources that they wouldn't if they were free to do as they pleased. It's meaningful to refer to the former as "capitalism" and call the latter something more like "fascism". It's also quite meaningful to discuss the discuss the manner in which they interact and the impurity of extant capitalist systems.

But the big people in charge (or at least with connections) forcing the little people to send them resources? That's a pattern far older than the notion of capital investments, and dates back to our early primate days, before our most basic notions of investing in the future through things like, say, agriculture. So I say it's pretty much orthogonal to capitalism.

<comment><USER16> > _" But the big people in charge (or at least with connections) forcing the > little people to send them resources?"_

This sounds like feudalism to me, though I know the word has negative connotations, and is now associated only with the distant past.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> "in Washington state, N.P.R. found, offenders even get charged a fee for a jury trial — with a 12-person jury costing $250, twice the fee for a six- person jury."

Is that legal/constitutional?

<comment><USER18> No idea about legality (not being in or from US I have an excuse for my ignorance); however the idea of charging the defendants for administering justice can be traced back to _at least_ the inquisition. They had a price list for "interrogation" operations, which were payable by the subject being tortu^Winterrogated.

Because a good number of their subjects failed to survive the administrations, these costs were often extracted from their family and relatives, retroactively.

On the director's commentary track for Brazil, Terry Gilliam notes that the inquisition's practice of charging fees for their (in)justice was one of the major ideas when honing the script and the storyboard.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I'd like to see the data behind this quote:

"This new system of offender-funded law enforcement creates a vicious circle: The poorer the defendants are, the longer it will take them to pay off the fines, fees and charges; the more debt they accumulate, the longer they will remain on probation or in jail; and the more likely they are to be unemployable and to become recidivists."

<comment><USER20> It isn't deeply empirical, but this article provides some exposition on it:

[http://www.npr.org/2014/05/19/312158516/increasing-court- fee...](http://www.npr.org/2014/05/19/312158516/increasing-court-fees-punish- the-poor)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> It seems more and more every day the government of the United States is not there to serve or help it's citizens - it's purely there to serve and help big business.

Sooner or later this has to end. I just hope it's not too violent when it does.

<comment><USER22> Why does it have to be violent at all? Many people on this site are a fan of Larry Lessig. Check out his alternative to the "violent end" of big business Mayday.us

<comment><USER21> I don't think it _has_ to be violent, but I think the way things are going it will be.

Tens of millions of people are without healthcare, getting their homes taken away and are unable to provide for their families.

To put it bluntly, they're desperate.

Also, America has a history of violence, an armed populace and a "I'll take what's mine" foundational attitude.

Combine desperate people with a history of violence, and you get Ferguson, New Orleans, etc. etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> This is surprisingly reminiscent of a particular scene from a Terry Gilliam's _Brazil_ : [http://youtu.be/nSQ5EsbT4cE](http://youtu.be/nSQ5EsbT4cE)

No doubt other science fiction authors and directors have tacked this topic as well.

</comment><comment><USER24> Tax the rich.

<comment><USER25> And the right to steal from, or "tax", the rich, comes from where? In other words, I'm curious how you think this is moral.

<comment><USER26> I'm curious how you think it's moral to deny justice to, or steal from the poor.

<comment><USER25> I don't think those are moral things to do. But if you vote you do, because you are funding a group of people (the government) that does exactly that: denies justice to the poor (e.g. the war on drugs), and steals from them (e.g. the poor have fewer tax-evading strategies at their disposal).

<comment><USER26> This is obviously false. Voting is a way of interacting with the state. Neither voting nor not-voting implies support for any particular state policy any more than using a state issued currency or holding a passport does.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> To Curb Global Poverty Every 3rd World Currency Should Be Pegged To OPEC Oil For 4 Years Till [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triffin_dilemma](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triffin_dilemma) Is Resolved.

</comment><comment><USER28> No good can come from this.

</comment><comment><USER29> Sounds like a good idea.</comment>


Turning into a hacker aged 27 - <AUTHOR> http://pragmaticstartup.wordpress.com/2011/03/02/turning-into-a-hacker-aged-27/ <comment><USER3> I started learning how to code at 27 and am 29 now, still going strong. Frankly I wanted to do a web-startup, but realized that unless you can code, you're nerfed. Learning how to code completely free's you from being permanently stuck in "idea mode".

The exception to that is if you have a lot of cash, and are willing to hire someone to build something for you. That's very expensive of course, since you're competing with companies offering them $80k - $150k+ /yr. jobs plus benefits. You can find cheaper labor, but you'll get what you pay for.

Have lots of fun learning! Programming can be extremely rewarding! :)

<comment><USER4> Even if you are hiring a programmer, it's still helpful to know how to code. You will be able explain your ideas and discuss the project intelligently.

<comment><USER5> And most importantly, determine whether a potential hire has any clue to begin with. Without some knowledge of your own, it's a roll of the dice.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I have huge respect for your drive and ambition, but there's something I just don't get (and it applies to many aspiring hackers/entrepreneurs, not just you). Why do you need a mentor? Why "cold emailing startups"? Why do you need somebody to "take you in"? Why not just hit the books and start hacking away?

This isn't meant to be a personal attack on you by any means. I've noticed a huge movement toward "mentorship" lately, and I'm just not seeing the purpose. Even worse, those who do not get these _critical_ mentorships wither away and blame others for their shortcomings and failures. Obviously you were fortunate enough to find a group who "took you in", but what would happen if you didn't?

Downvote if you want, but I'm honestly curious as to what's going on with this mentorship trend.

<comment><USER7> Tl; dr: Somethings will probably be learned quicker if coding with a team/more experienced developers. Architecture/security/design/layout stuff that just takes years of experience to get really good at, for example. I'm learning to code also but have been learning primarily on my own. Perhaps a combination thereof would be optimal.

Thanks for this comment. I started coding about 8 months ago and am enjoying it thoroughly (I just turned 30 and have a background in business). I was actually thinking about doing the same thing this guy's done - get a developer intern position somewhere since reading this post earlier this morning. I'm sure I would learn tons that I wouldn't otherwise learn (I'm thinking specifically architectural and security type stuff, among other stuff) but am also learning tons on my own.

Just last night I was talking with a good friend that has been coding for 15 years and he suggested something kind of similar: fix the bugs and maintain some code that a more experienced developer can check - run errands so to speak. That way I'm not breaking something or pushing insecure, buggy code into production. I think a combination of the two would be optimal.

<comment><USER8> I've done a lot of maintenance programming, and I think it's a horrible way to start and a difficult rut to get out of. Fixing someone else's bugs all day is demoralizing and creates all kinds of cognitive dissonance about whether or not you actually hate programming. Write your own code and learn from your own bugs. If you have to, get a non-programming day job and write code on the side. At least that's what I would do if I were starting over.

Why is it a difficult rut to get out of? Because when people build teams to build systems from scratch, they look for other people who have built things from scratch. Then when they need someone to maintain it, they look for someone who has maintained other piles of buggy crap.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm 25 years old and I'm pretty much doing the same thing. Taking time off to work on my programming chops instead of jumping into another idea again as the "business guy". It sure beats spending six-figures getting an MBA or going to grad school these days... and I'm learning a ton. I'm absolutely loving it.

I learned Python first, then learned how to use linux and emacs, played with firefox add-ons to learn Javascript better, then started building web apps in PHP/MySQL, and now my plan is to spend my days learning and building stuff in Ruby and my nights working through these four books: [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/414779/what-should-a- self...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/414779/what-should-a-self-taught- programmer-with-no-degree-learn-read/4473810#4473810)

Best resource ever is from @yegg, I always check this for guidance before learning anything new: <http://www.gabrielweinberg.com/startupswiki/Ask_YC_Archive>

I've come a long way since I first set up my server on Slicehost. Good luck on your journey too.

<comment><USER10> 25 here as well. Started with python, moved to Javascript (building chrome extensions), and currently have been getting into obj-c/iOS building iphone apps. I'm working full time right now, and find it a little difficult to progress because I'm so tired after after work. I'm really trying to push myself though. I want to move to webapps (django) at some point, but have to scratch a few itches on the iphone platform first.

<comment><USER9> Nice, I'd love to get into iphone apps sometime later on too. Yeah, I bet it is tough with a full-time job, which is why I'm so glad I'm taking time off to really focus on this while I still can at this age.

Keep it up!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> That's the age when I really started coding. Now I'm in my second full-time programming job and building a pretty great resume.

My tips:

1) Study and practice. Pick a topic you don't know, choose a book that's well reviewed, and learn it.

2) It's better to ask a dumb question than to never know the answer.

3) Do a bit (not too much) of reading on things like HN and JoelOnSoftware, etc, to help you pick what to study next. (Like when I read Spolsky's argument for why distributed version control is better than centralized, I eventually decided to learn Git. Or when I saw all the buzz about Rails, it pointed me that direction.)

3) Learn the crap out of your tools. I started out with a Windows HTML editor. A couple years later, I was using Vim in Unix and I'm way more productive. But I'm still learning new stuff about it every day. I intend to know it backwards and forwards eventually.

4) You'll never know everything - don't get discouraged.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the tips. Out of curiosity, what were you doing before and what made you jump to programming?

<comment><USER11> I was a journalist, and unhappy. Took a break, went back to school (to study music), met a girl, and we decided to get married. By that time she was in grad school a few hours away. When we married, I moved there and had to find a new job.

I knew HTML and got a job doing tech support for cell phones. My employer had no internal web site and I saw that they needed a page to share links to reference sites, so I made a simple HTML page, just dropped onto a shared file server, not even a web server. Then I started adding pages of training material, etc.

I had just heard (this was 2007) that CSS could be used for layout - gasp! - so I bought Eric Meyer's CSS: The Definitive Guide and studied during lunch breaks and evenings. I spiffed up the site. Next I got Head First Javascript to add some animated menus. Soon after, somebody told me about jQuery, and eventually I caught onto that.

As I added more pages, it sucked to have to copy and paste my common menu, so a friend recommended PHP. I had to set up Apache for that, though, so I used XAMPP. Now I could do includes! But wouldn't it be nice to have some database interaction? I read a PHP book and added that too. Eventually the system was pretty complex, with object-oriented database interactions, permissions controls, AJAX widgets, etc.

All this time I was getting advice from my best friend (we were roommates in college), who is a truly awesome coder with famous companies on his resume. And I was discovering that I really enjoyed this stuff and had a knack for it. Also, all this time, I was still doing tech support: I could be knee-deep in a coding problem and get a phone call, and I had to pick it up, and it might take 2 hours.

But by the time I left, I had a good enough resume to get a full-time programming job. And I continue to learn. I've made the jump to Ruby and Rails (Ruby is a lovely language), test-driven development, etc. I'll never be DHH or Linus Torvalds, but I hope to do solid work and keep having fun.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm taking a wild guess here, but I suspect there are many people who need that entry level/internship opportunity to cement some concepts while working on a team.

The problem is, like the rest of America, junior positions seem to have vanished. At least on job boards and hiring pages.

Can anyone point us to a good resource to find junior positions or even internships in front-end coding or UX design?

I'm not asking for any company to completely teach me stuff. The ideal position would require a portfolio but maybe one that isn't completely cross- browser, production-quality code.

<comment><USER6> You have a very good point. I've never realized it before, but now that I think about it, this is something that I see all the time - a complete and utter lack of entry level positions on job boards and hiring pages across the web. I wonder if there's an opportunity to be had here? There must certainly be a thriving untapped market of entry-level programmers who may be willing to take a pay cut to hone their skills for a year or two...

<comment><USER13> Bwahaha, there's a huge market of entry-level workers in all kinds of fields (software being just one of them) where people work essentially for free (unpaid internships or internships with a small stipend). It's kind of disgusting!

<comment><USER14> And illegal in the UK. There's an ongoing campaign about these -some nice examples can be seen at <http://fuckyeahfreeinterns.tumblr.com/>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I really like the idea of looking for someone to apprentice with. It's awesome that he found someone to take him in. "look to the master, follow the master, walk with the master, see through the master, become the master."

I started coding HTML/CSS/Javascript when I was 15. When I was 18 I was working on a $14M project doing HTML & jQuery. 19 and 20 rolled around and I thought I was hot shit and could get away without knowing much about object oriented programming and database design. Boy, did experience beat me with a heavy stick.

After blowing through a lot of money paying other people, and not being able to evaluate what they were doing, I started learning to program myself a little over a year ago (December 2009). It has been, by far, the best investment I've ever made.

You HAVE to have mentors, though, bookwork and experience alone don't cut it. Some of my mentors, didn't do anything but talk to me - and ingrain in me the importance of fundamentals - and some basic vocabulary. Some stuff that didn't make sense when I heard it, but produced those "Aha" moments later. Other stuff, like the importance of pre-planning, prototyping, code readability, and NEVER using code you don't fully understand, I was told from the beginning were very important.

Plus, mentors can be different types of people in different types of situations. One of my mentors was an experienced programmer who I lived with for a few months. Others were dudes on stackexchange and serverfault (Yes, that counts), and others were those I read.

The bottom line is, you need to see yourself as an apprentice, always looking for a master to learn from.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think that mindset just generally applies to everything in life. I've been greatly humbled by my personal experiences at my previous startup. I came away with one clear though: I know shit about what I thought I knew.

Being in a room with smarter/wiser people than you can only make you move forwards. And do that enough, I hope to actually join the club someday. Heh.

And yea, SO rocks but I think a lot of newbies are taking advantage of it and getting shot down advice to wannabe hackers: do your homework first or get flamed on SO!

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> 10,000 hours. From Outliers and others as the number of hours you have to do something to be proficient at it. The common thread for most hacker coder types is that they just really really liked the "power" associated with writing code that could do anything, and so they started spending all of their time writing code doing all sorts of things.

All night debug sessions? Check. Several complete rewrites from scratch? Check. Using a language feature considered "unsafe" because it was the only way to get done what one needed? Check. Figuring out what "unsafe" meant? Check.

Once people are writing all of this code many want to know exactly how their code gets translated into what the computer does and they go off into their 'compiler' stage (some stay there for ever :-). This is where folks write their own compilers, by first writing their own lexical analyzers, then needing to parse those, and then needing to take those parse trees and generate new code with them.

There is a lot of exploration to do in 10,000 hrs. That's coding 6 hrs a day (and by that I mean coding, not checking Facebook or reading HN :-) for 5 years. There aren't a lot of short cuts. Sure there are CS programs which will show you what other people learned in their 10K hrs and help distill the concepts down for you but, like playing Piano, its not "known" until its in your finger bones.

Mentors are great for helping you get unstuck (since being stuck means you aren't coding which means you're not clocking your 10K hrs) and they can sometimes give you a heads up on road your travelling down, but mostly I think they are best for just sharing your enthusiasm and adding energy.

</comment><comment><USER17> Any advice for a 24yr old trying to work in high performance computing?

Decided about a year ago to switch careers, and I've been getting familiar w/ a few low level languages (C, C++, Java), and working my way through a few books like SICP, Cormen's and Skiena's algorithms books, Code Complete, etc.

The OP seems to have landed an internship already, whereas I have been failing miserably at this. I've been cold emailing companies, applying for internships, etc. I've written a few basic beginner type programs, nothing large scale or real world yet.

I have a ways to go, but it sure would be nice to have some sort of mentoring and/or get involved with real projects of some kind. I'm doing great self- teaching, but there's obviously value in working with more experienced developers. I know having code to show is important (github, opensource), but what else should I be doing to land that first software job?

<comment><USER18> Well if my experience is of any use... Keep at it! I didn't graduate from a top tier college or have been creating game engines since 9 years old, so I had to start at the ground floor like most people. It was extremely difficult at the beginning. From what I noticed, cold emailing rarely works. I had the most feedback/interviews/responses from either recruiters, networking and actually moving to tech hubs like Silicon Valley.

From the code perspective, a lot of companies noticed my open source contributions. Granted they were mostly minor utility code, there's always that little spark of joy from their voices whenever we go over that topic.

So go join an open source project! I know it's reiterated over and over again, but a good project can act as proxy real-world experience in helping you discover what it takes to write production quality code.

I guess if there was a single tip I could give, just be highly visible in committed code, web presence (as a programmer, not as a party animal) in websites and social networks, and face-to-face networking. That would raise your chances of being noticed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> As important as reading and learning tools is; my experience is that you'll absorb much more by starting hobby projects and hacking your way through them.

After you've set up a development environment (on your home machine / laptop will do), pick a project that's been on your mind and just start. Everytime you run into something you don't know how to do, hit stackoverflow, read through APIs, and figure it out. Piece by piece you'll become a programmer.

Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER20> Started 1 year ago, but more seriously last August and did a handful of projects from the ground up to learn. <http://democratic.ly>, <http://contexium.com>. I think my most interesting work is an email based knowledge base app which I haven't released. I also did 2 other email based group communication applications.

Overall I doubt I will ever be a programmer, but at least now when I think of an idea, I do not think "Who can build this? For how much?", i think "Do I like this idea enough to build a working prototype?".

And the best part about being a newbie is not knowing your limitations.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thats exactly what I am aiming to achieve. Not CTO status but enough to hack out a prototype and THEN get a CTO to mend later on.

But dare I say in most people's eyes (e.g mine), you're definitely a programmer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Seems like there is a lot of this going around. My technical co-founder quit and now we're facing the question of getting another one or learning to code myself, since my other co-founder can't/won't. I remember being interested in coding at age 13, but for whatever reason I never followed up with it. I literally remember sitting in front of my Performa 636 CD looking at a web page telling me "How to become a hacker" and thinking eh...

Now I wish I had taken the leap. python at age 29 is no fun. But I am looking forward to learning it and becoming comfortable, much like when you move to a new city...or at least I hope.

<comment><USER22> _python at age 29 is no fun._

I had a great time with it at 32. Of course, to fully appreciate Python it helps to have spent years using Java and Perl.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Nai: Congrats for taking the plunge. Getting a faux internship will be immensely helpful. 18 months ago I did the exact same thing, begged a startup to let me work for them for free. Having someone who is invested in your success, interested in making you better, available for you to turn around and ask questions makes the process way faster.

18 months later, I still suck, but most importantly, my mentors taught me how to learn on my own, where to look for documentation, what sorts of problems to look for. I'm definitely not a 'hacker' in the way you're talking about, and every time I think I know something, I get slapped back to reality, but the REAL satisfaction is being able to just keep making forward progress. To be able to sit at a terminal and feel like your startup's destiny, YOUR destiny is in your hands is immensely empowering and a far cry from waiting and hoping your developer is on the same page as you.

One piece of advice, which I still struggle with: don't try to bite off too much. There's a compulsion to understand the entire codebase before you commit to that host startup's project. Don't. Figure out heat you want to get done and just try to understand a tiny corner of that codebase in isolation, then fix it. Keep doing that and you'll eventually have covered the whole codebase.

It's a long journey going forwards, but you'll look back and it'll seem like time has blasted by. Having good mentors in your startup will make all the difference.

<comment><AUTHOR> Bingo. It's in a way risk mitigation as well plus I think it makes it easily to speak the same language as your future cofounder.

Yeah, I'm starting off with bitesized problems. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> It doesn't matter how old you are-- you can be 5 years old or 48-- there is no denying that computer programming is good mental exercise, an amazing creative outlet, and (if you're any good) a skill that can make or break your career.

I'm 23 and I never got any compsci/programming training in college. I'm now working part-time and learning programming (Java, .NET, SQL, web scripting) full-time.

Why? 3 reasons.

1) I am sick and tired of not knowing how to create solutions that add real, measurable value to almost any human task imaginable. In 2 years, I'll be able to do so much more than I ever imagined in any office setting.

2) Good programmers have the job I dream of: being able to use their _minds_ all day to create cool stuff that other people depend on. Top talent gets paid pretty well.

3) The big secret that no one tells you in college is that if you want any decent office job in which you'll be using your mind instead of bullshit "management" or "leadership" (i.e. wielding social prowess to get what you want) skills, you're going to be programming. Want to make a spreadsheet? Guess what, John Walkenbach, the maker of the Excel Bible, says that even if you're just making a basic spreadsheet, it helps to think about it as object- oriented programming. And he's right. Especially if you're a power user of Excel, Excel == Programming. Period. Same with just about any other MS Office program.

The bottom line is that if you use a computer at work, like it or not, your freaking livelihood hinges on your ability to create and manage software and/or hardware. You might as well know what the hell you're doing.

</comment><comment><USER25> I wish more people on the business end of things had realizations like this. Kudos to the author for being honest with himself, and being willing to do what it takes to address a short coming.

</comment><comment><USER26> Now we just need to turn 27 year old hackers into learning a bit of the business side (like myself).

<comment><USER21> You can do that with a lot of reading I think...

<comment><USER27> Theory != practical. It takes picking up the phone and face-to-face meetings in my experience.

<comment><USER21> I meant on the web, personal stories/advice/what-not-to-dos of entrepreneurs in the startup realm. I wasn't suggesting picking up a text book. My background isn't business per say, but I've learned a great deal by reading and researching. I also took several business related classes in law school so maybe that makes it easier for me to grasp.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Do you think it's possible to become a programmer at age 43? I've always loved computers and have written programs in BASIC, VB, WordBasic, and the like, but never got into C or OO programming.

Would anyone hire a freshly-minted 43-year-old developer? Or is this a fool's errand?

<comment><USER29> It's never too late, but there is some age bias in hiring. You probably aren't going to work for a hot startup but there are plenty of interesting jobs, especially if you have some kind of domain specific knowledge that you can apply. My dad switched careers around 40 and went back to school and became a programmer until he retired in his 60's. He did a lot of payroll systems stuff. He worked for hospitals, insurance companies, manufacturing companies etc, starting out doing Cobol but kept up to date and in the end was doing .NET. In the beginning he took whatever job he could get and we moved around a lot, but it can be done. :)

<comment><USER28> Thanks - I do have some domain knowledge. I don't have to work for a hot startup...I'd rather work for somewhere a tad more stable. :) Done the startup thing a few times as a writer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Brilliant - I'm in a similar position (other, very useful and valuable, business skills that aren't worth nearly as much if I were to commit to a tech start-up, and next to no coding experience). I look forward to the journey, and perhaps some inspiration.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's sounds you're still undecided as to whether you want to take the leap? What are your reservations? Care to share?

<comment><USER30> Mostly, because I already run my own business (as a business coach) - <USER2> that up in Australia, then moved to London, now building it back up again. So between learning to code and putting on another client, its a large value difference in the short term.

Once this business is chugging along, I'll do something more scalable. But that's just as likely to involve publishing, where I have passion and experience, as it is to involve a startup, where passion alone would need to develop experience.

So it's entirely possible that I'll be sitting here in 10 years, having never learnt more than some basic HTML and CSS, because I keep creating more immediately valuable opportunities. Though I have noticed, as more of my friends have kids (we don't, yet), that 'long term' things like learning a new skill, going back to college, or even committing to a local football team, suddenly seem smaller and more realistically achievable - ask me now if I want to commit 10,000 hours to something new and I won't have time, but with a backdrop of 18+ years of child-minding in front of you, it doesn't seem nearly as large. Of course, as I understand it, kids take time too!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I saw a another post just like this on Quora. I wonder if its part of a larger trend?

<comment> kai-zer Sign of a top in the bubble?

I am considering the jump as well (from i-banking), and have been putting in a considerable amount of work, but part of me is worried the growth we have seen will come crashing down soon and opportunities will disappear. It is hard to give up a nice salary and job security, especially when a similar position is very difficult to return to if things don't work.

<comment><USER31> Would you be interested in being tutored on writing a web app? I'm assuming you live in NYC? I can tutor you how to build a full web stack incising delaying it to the end user. I'm interested in building a set of lessons for this purpose which I would then like to sell.if you don't know programmimng then it would be a bg commitment but You could definitely afford such a course. If interested you can email me: railsnoob @ yahoo dot com

<comment> kai-zer Not a total newbie, studied engineering, been programming little projects for years and had a few side jobs while in school doing mostly simple stuff. Will hit you up, curious what you have though, and always looking to make new connections.

<comment><USER31> Cool.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> If you don't want to code, oDesk can help you prototype quickly...just stick to a budget!

</comment><comment><USER33> Is there anyone else looking for a programming apprenticeship? I'd like to offer one.

</comment><comment><USER34> commented on your post.

I'm experiencing the excruciating pain of not being able to get your hands dirty... having great devs is great.. but the whole process of turning your vision to reality through code is something I'm embarking on as well.

<comment><AUTHOR> You should totally blog about it when you get the time!</comment></comment>


Petraeus quits over extra-marital affair - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/us/citing-affair-petraeus-resigns-as-cia-director.html?hp <comment><AUTHOR> What I don't get is why this is grounds for a resignation. Is there some sort of special security issue that supersedes his private life?

<comment><USER2> Being in the military he has no private life; he's in violation of the UCMJ. Also, because of his rank and position there are security issues. But I'm guessing the real reason for the investigation is that he pissed the wrong person off, or it probably would have been swept under the rug, so to speak.

<comment><USER3> CIA is civillian not military, so he is under civillian law. At least currently.

The affair, however, may have pre-dated his current apointment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Sad end to a great general's career.</comment>


Ask HN: Using Kindle DX to read large pdf text books - <AUTHOR>

Hi<p>I am interested in reading large pdf documents on the Kindle DX. For example http://www.math.umass.edu/~lavine/Book/book.pdf is 45 MB. Has any one had success transferring such large pdf documents to the Kindle DX? <comment><USER2> I loaded it in less than a minute through the USB to my Kindle DX. It displays fine. In fact it looks very good!!

<comment><USER3> How about a few of these? [http://textbookrevolution.org/index.php?title=Special:Ask...](http://textbookrevolution.org/index.php?title=Special:Ask&offset=0&limit=500&q=\[\[Category%3ABook\]\]&po=%3FAuthor%0A)

I want to buy a dx too, but like this fellow I'm worried it can't display all the free textbooks out there.

<comment><USER2> I have quite a number of those too. Some of the PDF's display better than others. The problem ones have the text bunched in one area and one artifact (a 'cut' mark) in the whitespace area. This stops the DX from zooming up to just the non-whitespace area. This happens in about 20% of the free pdf books. Most of the time it is still quite readable by rotating to horizontal mode.

I have about 150 textbooks on mine and I don't need to lug a laptop around anymore just to read pdf books. I love this thing.

There will be a few PDFs (badly made ones) that just won't show the font large enough. If you need 100%, stick to your other options.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Did you try it?</comment>