Machine learning of neural representations of emotion identifies suicidal youth - <AUTHOR> https://www.methodsman.com/blog/mri-suicide <comment><USER2> "This study used machine-learning algorithms (Gaussian Naive Bayes) to identify such individuals (17 suicidal ideators versus 17 controls) with high (91%) accuracy, based on their altered functional magnetic resonance imaging neural signatures of death-related and life-related concepts."

Anyone with a Nature subscription want to check whether they simply trained their discriminator and then used it on the same data set? There's no mention in the abstract of testing it against a fresh control set and that's not promising.

[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-017-0234-y?error=cook...](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-017-0234-y?error=cookies_not_supported&code=6e85e088-d042-4f52-a19e-320e2cd0bdd0)

<comment><USER3> 17 subjects per group is _extremely_ small.

Looking at it either from a machine learning or statistical point of view, using such a small sample is problematic.

This is the chronic issue with fMRI studies, since administering an fMRI is extremely expensive, and has led to some very difficult to reproduce results in the field.

<comment><USER4> People love the "n=XX is far too little data!" argument, yet it's more complicated than that. Sometimes 600,000 is too little, yet sometimes 17 is enough.

Example: you believe a newly found plant species is toxic. You give it to 17 "grad students volunteers", while giving a placebo to 17 others. All in the first group die aa gruesome death within 20 hours. None of the others do.

Result: yes significance. (also: tenure!)

I'm not saying that this study is significant (the statistics seem to be slightly beyond my event horizon), and your criticism also stops short of an outright dismissal of the research. But sample size alone makes for a bad measure of quality. Yes, even p-values are better.

<comment><USER5> I really hope you wouldn't get tenure for a study that killed all your subjects.

<comment><USER6> Subjects? But they're volunteer grad students!

<comment><USER5> Subjects, minions, whatever you want to call them :p

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Doesn't 91% seem far too low to be useful for the general population? Consider that only 7% of the background population experiences one or more depressive episode per year[0] (edit: okay maybe 8% in youth). Assuming independence and using the higher 8% background rate figure for youth, .91 * .08 = 7.3% of the population will receive a true positive result and (1-.91) * (1-.08) = 8.3% of the population will receive a false positive result. This is "pretty bad" — false positives outweigh the true positives — making the value of a positive result useless.

(Consider what happens to people so-diagnosed as suicidal when in fact they are not (false positives). Involuntary psychiatric imprisonment is a terrible thing if it isn't absolutely necessary.)

[0]: [https://www.healthline.com/health/depression/facts- statistic...](https://www.healthline.com/health/depression/facts-statistics- infographic)

<comment><USER8> > I don't have the stats grounding to come up with the proportion of true > positives to false positives, but I suspect this would be "pretty bad" — > vastly more false positives than true positives

IANAStatistician, but let's consider the system is right 91% of the time and we try to detect those 7% you mentioned. Let's take 1000 people. 70 people are depressive and 930 aren't. Out of those, 70 _0.91=63 will be correctly classified as depressive by the system and 930_ 0.91=846 will be correctly classified as non-depressive.

That leaves us with 63 positives, 846 negatives, 7 false negatives and 84 false positives. False positives largely outnumber false negatives, but they also outnumber the true positives.

(if a statistician read this, please correct me if I'm wrong)

<comment><USER7> Yeah. I came to largely the same conclusion but used the 8% number for youth, given the current title.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Will it be that 10% of people are suicidal and it always predicts non- suicidal?

Will it be that accuracy actually means AUC?

Will it be that they are reporting predictive skill on the training data?

<comment><USER10> It's training data. There's 17 suicidal and 17 non-suicidal scans, for a total of 34 scans. They trained 34 models, leaving one scan out each time. Of those 34 models, 31 correctly predicted the left-out scan.

IANAStatistician, but this seems like a trash result.

<comment><USER9> Cross validation is ok if you do it once, but they repeatedly did it and chose the features based on the results. You can't keep adjusting your model/features based on cross validation performance without overfitting to the training data.

<comment><USER11> How did they adjust the model/features based on CV performance? It looks to me like they did LOOCV.

<comment><USER9> Read the second paragraph I quoted above:

"The features used by the classifier to characterize a participant consisted of a vector of activation levels for several (discriminating) concepts in a set of (discriminating) brain locations. To determine how many and which concepts were most discriminating between ideators and controls, a reiterative procedure analogous to stepwise regression was used, first finding the single most discriminating concept and then the second most discriminating concept, reiterating until the next step reduced the accuracy. A similar procedure was used to determine the most discriminating locations (clusters)."

The features were chosen using the same data as used to assess predictive skill.

<comment><USER12> That quote does not support your summary, unless you are basing it on the information not explicitly mentioned. (I.e. they didn't say that they were only using training data to select features, but if they are any competent, they did.)

<comment><USER9> See the last part of this post: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15598117](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15598117)

Can you provide pseudocode consistent with what they described (in the post you responding to) that wouldn't lead to leakage? I can't see it.

<comment><USER12> Select a training set, leaving out one sample for validation. For all features, train a classifier on the training set using that feature. Keep the one that gives the highest discrimination score on the training set. Repeat with more features. Then evaluate the final classifier on the validation sample, which has so far not been seen in any of the steps. The result provides an estimate of the risk on unseen data from the same distribution.

To get the estimation variance down, you can repeat this for all possible choices of validation sample. That means, you start the feature selection process on the new training set over from scratch and obtain another risk estimate. If they kept the features selected earlier, that estimate would be "contaminated" and not independent, but if they correctly start over, the procedure is valid.

<comment><USER9> My understanding is you are saying create N (N=34 in this case) different parallel models that use different features/etc. Then take the average (or whatever summary stat) of the accuracies to get the predictive skill.

When we want to use these models, we run new/test data through all N=34 models in parallel and calculate a prediction from each. Then somehow these predictions need to be combined (one again an average, etc). This is the average of the predictions, not accuracies/whatever.

Where was the step combining these predictions present during the training? It seems your scheme necessarily calculates an accuracy based on a different process than needs to be applied to new data.

<comment><USER12> No, when you want to classify a new sample, you take a model trained on the complete labeled data you have and use the prediction of that. The validation procedure using those 34 models trained on subsets of the data is just to tell you how accurate you should expect the result to be. Afterwards, you can throw those models away.

Of course you could build an ensemble model, but if you want to know the expected accuracy of doing that, you need to include the ensemble-building into your validation procedure. (Or use some theorem that lets you estimate the ensemble performance from that of individual models, if that is possible.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> "Words like death and cruelty differentially activated the left superior medial frontal area and the medial frontal/anterior cingulate in the individuals with suicidal ideation – these are areas associated with self- referential thought." I wonder how they reacted to "alive" and "humane"

</comment><comment><USER14> It's the kind of "studies" you call BS on first, then go on to figure out the details. Not a very scientific process for sure, but always produces the correct result.

[https://www.naturalblaze.com/2017/03/scandal-mri-brain- imagi...](https://www.naturalblaze.com/2017/03/scandal-mri-brain-imaging- completely-unreliable.html)

<comment><USER15> At least post the original article[0] if not the paper[1], rather than some weird alt-health website.

[0] [https://www.sciencealert.com/a-bug-in-fmri-software-could- in...](https://www.sciencealert.com/a-bug-in-fmri-software-could-invalidate- decades-of-brain-research-scientists-discover) [1] [http://www.pnas.org/content/113/28/7900.abstract](http://www.pnas.org/content/113/28/7900.abstract)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Slightly off topic but the book "Change your brain change your life" was pretty interesting. Perhaps not as scientific as some would prefer, but none the less thought provoking.

</comment><comment><USER17> Basically you extract a matrix representation of the active or inactive regions that is classified and have DNN learn it like you would learn images, is that a correct assumption?

</comment><comment><USER18> To the moderators, the title would be more accurate with 'fMRI' as opposed to 'MRI'. The latter is typically used to examine structural brain elements, whereas fMRI is thought to correlate with brain activity and, by extension, thought.

Confusing the two would lead to the more unusual conclusion that suicidal ideation is associated with abnormal brain connectivity, while the authors are instead focusing on neuronal activity.

<comment><USER19> Specifically fMRI measures blood flow across the brain (the BOLD response) which is correlated with neuron activity. It has good spatial resolution but poor temporal resolution [0], compared to EEG which gives you good temporal resolution but poor spatial resolution.

[0] i.e. you know with precision where in the brain activity occurred, but less precisely when it occurred in time

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> So what will they do after they detect you are suicidal? Stick you in a psych ward? Yet more attempts at taking away the rights of those going through trauma.

<comment><USER21> That seems like putting the cart before the horse.

Diagnosis tools could mean faster access to treatment. Currently in the UK the waiting list for access to mental health treatment is on the range of two to three years. Transforming "suicidal ideation" from a "vague human-given diagnosis" to "tool-given diagnosis" makes it politically easier to push for that.

In any case, _that 's not going to happen_ based off a single study with _91% accuracy_.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Maybe they should use this test before gun purchases... I don't think someone suicidal should purchase a gun...hell I don't care if they kill themselves, but lately a lot of suicides were mass suicides...we don't need more of that shit.

<comment><USER23> Problem is people buy guns when they aren't suicidal.

Tip: If you own a gun and are feeling suicidal, give it to a trusted person for safekeeping.

<comment><USER24> It can't hurt to get rid of the gun if you're suicidal. But would it actually make a difference? Suicide rates across countries aren't related to gun availability.

<comment><USER25> Suicide is definitely linked to gun availability.

"A study by the Harvard School of Public Health of all 50 U.S. states reveals a powerful link between rates of firearm ownership and suicides. Based on a survey of American households conducted in 2002, HSPH Assistant Professor of Health Policy and Management Matthew Miller, Research Associate Deborah Azrael, and colleagues at the School's Injury Control Research Center (ICRC), found that in states where guns were prevalent—as in Wyoming, where 63 percent of households reported owning guns—rates of suicide were higher. The inverse was also true: where gun ownership was less common, suicide rates were also lower."

[https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and- suicide/](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/)

<comment><USER26> Gun ownership in the U.S. is strongly correlated with socio-economic status, locality, etc.

Everybody points to the Australian example, where suicides declined after the 1996 gun control legislation. But unemployment in Australia peaked in 1995 and declined precipitously afterward until 2009.

Given everything we know about suicide rates in other countries, and about changes in suicide rates domestically (e.g. recent increase as gun ownership goes _down_[1]), it would very odd if gun ownership was a root cause of suicide.

That said, in a country with a strong gun culture like the U.S., I would totally expect a generational dip in suicides if we substantially removed access to guns. But then I'd expect it to normalize when suicidal individuals became more comfortable with other methods. Just like with mass shootings, there's a strong imitation effect. Take away the model that people imitate and it might be awhile until there's a regression to the mean.

Even so, that's still reasonable justification for limiting access to guns-- saving tens of thousands of individuals. I'm not sure I'd agree with such a policy prescription because of the insane gun politics, but it's quite defensible from a public health perspective.

[1] Number of guns have increased but they're concentrated in fewer households.

<comment><USER7> [https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means- matter/](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/)

Tl;dr?

* Many suicide attempts occur with little planning during a short-term crisis.

* Intent isn't all that determines whether an attempter lives or dies; means also matter.

* 90% of attempters who survive do NOT go on to die by suicide later.

* Access to firearms is a risk factor for suicide.

* Firearms used in youth suicide usually belong to a parent.

* Reducing access to lethal means saves lives.

<comment><USER26> Those are all just rationalizations. They can't reflect anything intrinsic about suicide risk if they can't predict relative suicide rates outside the U.S.

Suicide is an epiphenomenon of larger socio-economic issues. Among OECD countries the U.S. comes in the middle of the pack. If guns were a causative factor, then considering how prevalent they are (by a ridiculous factor!) our rates should be much higher:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_the_United_States#/...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Suicide- deaths-per-100000-trend.jpg) [http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/03/how-does- americas-suicid...](http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/03/how-does-americas- suicide-rate-compare-globally/) [http://www.oecd- ilibrary.org/sites/health_glance-2011-en/01/...](http://www.oecd- ilibrary.org/sites/health_glance-2011-en/01/06/g1-06-01.html?itemId=%2Fcontent%2Fchapter%2Fhealth_glance-2011-9-en&_csp_=dc7450c10468a7a49a6262726a53ecee)

Any correlation between guns and suicide in the U.S. is easily understood in terms of modeling--guns are how Americans kill themselves. Take away the guns and, yes, there'll be a dip in suicide rates, until Americans learn how people kill themselves elsewhere around the world. Heck, they're already learning that with opioids.

Let's go back to what I said about Australia. I claimed that the change in Australian suicide rates is better understood in terms of the unemployment rate. Now let's test that hypothesis. [... google google google ... ] Here we go:

      Suicide has reached a 10-year high in Australia as 3027
      people killed themselves last year, the largest cause of
      death among 15 to 44-year-olds.

      Last year, 12.6 people in every 100,000 killed themselves
      compared to 12 the year before, 11.4 in 2012 and a low of
      10.4 in 2006.

      -- http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/suicide-rate-in-australia-reaches-10year-high/news-story/cb5d8384aadb571778775bda236f3c35

What was the rate in 1995, the year before the gun control law? 13.0. ([https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Depart...](https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2011-2012/Suicide#_Toc299625631))

So suicides were at their lowest the very same year that unemployment was at its lowest (2006)? Check! And they rose as unemployment rose? Check! To the point where they're back at the pre-law level? Check!

I won't deny that there's some nuance here that we can tease out, but if you read the actual papers that link guns to suicide, they do a much worse job at nuance. In fact, not a single one of the papers I've read even considered the unemployment rate. Which is patently bad science.

Correlation is not causation. All the gun suicide papers do is point out specious correlations. But you don't need a degree in statistics to know this. And you don't need a science degree to be able to see the gargantuan holes in these arguments--that the correlations have simpler explanations.

I'm not denying that gun control could appreciably effect suicide rates. Imitation and modeling have huge effects--much more well-established than the supposed gun effect. So huge that even news media abstain from reporting suicides, _especially_ _methods_ of suicide. Saving thousands of lives with gun control, even if it's an ephemeral gain, is an absolute benefit that's worth debating about. But let's just be honest about this stuff.

<comment><USER25> I hope that you submit your thoughts to a place more formal than this comment, I find the unemployment thing interesting. Particularly in Australia with $540 per fortnight unemployment and free healthcare, you could compare the difference between suicides and safety nets, and the overall suicide cost of poor safety nets.

It does seem like you agree in your last paragraph though though... gun control would lower suicide rates. People would try other methods which have higher failure rates, people's lives would be saved. Not all of them, but an appreciable amount.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Wednesday + Thursday O'Reilly Strataconf keynotes video-streamed free - <AUTHOR> http://strataconf.com/strata2011/public/content/video

<comment><AUTHOR> Schedule:

Wednesday, February 2nd

8:45am - 9:00am Opening Welcome Edd Dumbill, Alistair Croll

9:00am - 9:10am What Data Tells Us Hilary Mason

9:10am - 9:25am Privacy and Big Behavioral Data in the B2B Space James Powell

9:25am - 9:35am The Mythology of Big Data Mark Madsen

9:35am - 9:50am Data Without Limits Werner Vogels

9:50am - 10:00am Data Everywhere: There Ought to Be a Marketplace for It Zane Adam

10:00am - 10:10am Delivering Big Data: A Conversation with Mike Olson and Rod Smith Abhishek Mehta, Mike Olson, Rod Smith

Thursday, February 3rd

8:45am - 8:50am Opening Welcome - Day 2 Alistair Croll, Edd Dumbill

8:50am - 9:00am Free Our Data: How We Made Sense of Huge Datasets Simon Rogers

9:00am - 9:15am Posthumans, Big Data and New Interfaces Alistair Croll, Toby Segaran, Amber Case, Bradford Cross

9:15am - 9:25am Why Legacy Databases Can't Survive the Data Deluge - It's About Dollars and Sense Ed Boyajian

9:25am - 9:35am The Heat Death of the Data Warehouse Barry Devlin

9:35am - 9:45am Innovating Data Teams DJ Patil

9:45am - 9:55am Your Data Rules the World Scott Yara

9:55am - 10:10am Can Big Data Fix Healthcare? Carol McCall</comment>


Glint of sunlight seen off lake on Saturn's moon Titan. - <AUTHOR> http://www.newscientist.com/gallery/dn15018-pick-of-the-pictures

<comment><USER2> That's cool. Sometimes I wish I worked on planetary exploration rather than astrophysics...</comment>


After marijuana, are magic mushrooms next to be decriminalised in California? - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/25/magic-mushrooms-decriminalization-california <comment><USER2> If it follows the trajectory of marijuana, it starts with clinical use and destigmatization. People who wouldn't normally support legalization or even decriminalization can and will be convinced by anecdotes and articles about safe, controlled, and therapeutic use. It happened with MJ, it can happen again.

That being said, safe, controlled use is especially important for powerfully psychoactive substances. Make no mistake--psilocybin is much more powerful than THC. While I support use of psilocybin and the aim of the petition and its authors, I recognize the essential role that medical marijuana played in winning hearts and minds of John Q. Public.

If you feel the same way, check out the work done by the Heffter Research Institute ([http://heffter.org/](http://heffter.org/)) They've funded many studies on the effectiveness of psilocybin (disclosure: I know the founder).

<comment><USER3> That, and getting casual, social use of mushrooms to appear in prominent TV shows and movies. Not the party scenes from a frat movie, but 30-, 40-, and even 50-somethings consuming them in a social setting in which the supporting actors don't even raise an eyebrow or cast it in a positive light.

Make it seem to the public that it's a normal thing, everyone is doing it. Once a large enough portion of the voting population see it as no big deal, they're more likely to say "why not?" at the polls, even if they don't have any interest in partaking.

It takes several years, but it has proven effective.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think it is too early to push this. Wait for marijuana to be fully integrated throughout the state before pushing something like this.

<comment><USER5> I am open to being wrong, but I agree. I think that this is might be a good thing as far as lessening the stigma surrounding magic mushrooms, but I feel as though there needs to be a better reason than "I'm at a loss at what to do politically, but the only thing I feel like we could do is get psilocybin into more people's hands."

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> In my opinion, for certain psychological issues mushrooms are much more beneficial than medical marijuana. However like the article states, mushrooms need to be treated with the respect they deserve and must be taken carefully and in a safe and comforting environment. I don't see this taking off yet though. The potential a mushroom trip going in the wrong direction is much more likely than THC and can be and extremely terrifying experience. I speak from experience, but if respected properly and approached in a good manner, I think they can be extremely beneficial.

</comment><comment><USER7> Reminds me of medical heroin ads on GTA V radio.

</comment><comment><USER8> It should have been first but hey, nice to see any progress on this.

</comment><comment><USER9> Subproject 58. Groovy.</comment>


Why I Left [Language_1] for [Language_2] - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@igorhorst/why-i-left-language-1-for-language-2-1d2fa418cd4c#.q35vgv4vz <comment><USER2> Igor, this is magnificent. All it needs is a generator script to select language X and language Y, or database X and database Y and then autopost to Hacker News.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm doubtful that Hacker News would tolerate autoposts. But it would make for an excellent "Show HN" sideproject that somebody can make to boost their coding skills.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Haha, but srsly I'm struggling with callback hell on the server coming from [lang_p], does this still apply?

<comment><USER2> If you are in callback hell then you should be using ES2015 with ES7's async/await.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I know this is a generic joke, but the use of [spoiler] is a pretty good punchline. We could use more of this.

<comment><USER5> Yeah, [spoiler] killed the applicability of this where I couldn't cut and paste it here during the language fights. Yet, I bust out laughing seeing [spoiler]. That was just too funny. Especially "corroboration" that followed.

<comment><AUTHOR> Interestingly, I really liked [spoiler] too, but I also hoped that this blog post could be reused in future language fights (and it is a shame that [spoiler] could prevent that). Potentially a revised version of this blog post could be helpful.

Anyway, this link ([http://joelgrus.com/2013/12/24/why-programming-language-x- is...](http://joelgrus.com/2013/12/24/why-programming-language-x-is- unambiguously-better-than-programming-language-y/)) is decent enough for copying and pasting.

<comment><USER5> There we go! That's what I need.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Awesome.</comment>


Typists who clear 70 wpm can't even say where the keys are - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/12/typists-who-clear-70wpm-cant-even-say-where-the-keys-are/ <comment><USER2> If I need to sort out key locations on a keyboard, I usually type out the alphabet and note where the keys fall (I know the sequence, I couldn't tell you many key locations straight off without reconstructing them).

Recently doing some keyboard maintenance (cleaning out cruft), I'd managed to reassemble things _almost_ perfectly, though I swapped the 'I' and '0' keys. Didn't realize this until I was trying to hit some specific application options and realized that what I was typing (by looking at the keyboard) wasn't what was appearing. When typing whole words I was working from my typing training and hadn't bumped into the problem.

It's an example of muscle memory and ingrained knowledge. Having to think _explicitly_ of the actions you're going to perform is a great way to freeze someone up (I've heard this said of baseball players and other athletes). You _do_ want to work through things consciously early in practice, but once you've developed a talent, the trick is to find the right cues (often counterintuitive) to improve movements or skills.

</comment><comment><USER3> Haha! I did just that 2 weeks back, dredmorbius. At first with a completely blank keyboard, I struggled a bit. I decided to fit in the Ctrl Winkey Alt the left row of keys first and it all happened naturally after that.</comment>


Crowd-sourced Eclipse Autocompletion - <AUTHOR> http://de.slideshare.net/Microbiotic/being-amazon-for-software-developers-ide-20-crowdsourcing-mal-anders-javaland-2014

<comment><USER2> Not sure about the overall proposal but static code analysis and code completion as a service is something I have been wishing for.

But that is only for a selfish reason, it would save me from having to do the work for my own IDE HiveMind (crudzilla.com) :)

*Perhaps this is something the Eclipse project should undertake, decouple the JDT from the Eclipse IDE so that it can be used by other developer front-end tools.</comment>


Ask HN: What's one piece of advice you'd give your past self 10 years ago? - <AUTHOR> If you could go back 10 years ago what's one piece of advice you'd give your past self? <comment><USER2> Don't get married.

</comment><comment><USER3> start a blog</comment>


Phenomenal and Enigmatic (JavaScript demo) - <AUTHOR> http://lbrtw.com/demo

<comment><USER2> Awesome. Old memories comes to life again...</comment>


Show HN: JavaScript method/function cache decorator - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/brn/cache-decorator <comment><USER2> This looks nice, and I may have some use for it, although I'm surprised this didn't exist yet.

At the same time I feel that this kind of caching is as often a smell as it is necessary in an application.</comment>


The war between Nokia and Apple - <AUTHOR> http://mobileopportunity.blogspot.com/2007/09/war-between-nokia-and-apple.html <comment><USER2> Nokia has been acquiring quite a few mobile startups recently. Apparently the new CEO is trying to push the company to be a mobile content leader.

In the US, they've got a long way to go in order to compete against Apple though.

Whats interesting is they plan on having Ovi an open platform, meaning it will interface with 3rd party services like Flickr. I somehow dont see Apple doing that..</comment>


Put your keys in the fridge to keep them safe from car thieves - <AUTHOR> https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/komando/2018/08/10/forget-tin-foil-put-your-keys-fridge-keep-them-safe-car-thieves/939536002/ <comment><USER3> It's beyond perplexing that the author of this article is completely aware that putting your key in a foil-lined bag is one option, yet they spend most of the article talking about refrigerators and microwaves, which are infinitely less convenient and even dangerous. I suppose the fridge gets more clicks, though?

<comment><USER4> It might provide some solace knowing the author probably didn't write the headline ...

[https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/lets-stop-arguing-with- he...](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/lets-stop-arguing-with-headlines- that-the-writer-didnt-write)

<comment><USER5> No solace. So it was Bob the editor who wrote the headline and not Steve the author? I guess that matters a lot to Steve, but to me, the reader, this is a meaningless, irrelevant distinction. Steve cares a lot about absolving Steve, I guess, but, like, this couldn't possibly matter any less to literally anybody else.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> There was an excellent report recently by the NICB here: [https://youtu.be/EE5Ygm0aFMk](https://youtu.be/EE5Ygm0aFMk)

I'm surprised that auto manufacturers didn't anticipate off the shelf solutions for diagnostics and law enforcement making their way into the hands of thieves.

You can imagine creative uses of a drone and one of these keyfob relay in order to get as close to as many keyfobs as possible and breaking into a whole parking lot worth of luxury cars.

<comment><USER7> Why stop at one drone?

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I just drive an old beater. Sure-fire deterrent to theft, and even having things stolen out of it.

It runs great, and I can fix it myself.

A vehicle is a way for me and my family to get from point A to point B.... I don't use it as a status symbol.

<comment><USER9> So you just claim that everyone who prefers a nice ride and newer technological assistants etc is using their car for status symbol.

I bet you also use only sandals to get from A to B? Because proper shoes would be a status symbol and no one wants to steal sandals.

I am sorry but newer cars beat old ones in many points. Sure there is a point after your car becomes a status symbol, but being an old beater is not that point.

<comment><USER10> > So you just claim that everyone who prefers a nice ride and newer > technological assistants etc is using their car for status symbol

Where does avryhof make that claim?

<comment><USER9> This pretty much implies that anyone that doesn't "just" use their car to get from A to B is using it as a status symbol (in his view at least):

> A vehicle is a way for me and my family to get from point A to point B.... I > don't use it as a status symbol.

<comment><USER10> > This pretty much implies

Well, according to you. I didn't read it that way at all.

avryhof drives a beater car, but the loss of status that might imply doesn't mean much to them because it's just a way of getting from A to B. That doesn't remotely say that everyone else uses their car as a status symbol, just that driving a beater often implies low status or poverty.

I drive a beater car -> I don't mind that it's not very prestigious -> It's just transport.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It's somewhat absurd how insecure car computer systems are. It may not be hugely problematic currently (though as the article illustrates, it's not completely innocuous), but I wonder if manufacturers will improve this before self-driving cars start large-scale rollout; Otherwise, it should be interesting to see the first cases of people's cars driving themselves away overnight.

</comment><comment><USER12> It won't be long before we long for the days where we had two or three keys: one for the door, one for the ignition, and one for the trunk.

\- Replacement is dirt cheap (talking pre-chipped keys here).

\- They require no batteries.

\- They'll last 20+ years.

\- If you don't have the keys you don't have the car (What criminals lockpick and hotwire cars anymore?).

Then again, we'll have to covet holding on to long-lasting cars, though. So scratch that.

<comment><USER13> I know i've said this before, but I'm 90% sure Ford used to have two separate keys. One for the door and ignition and one that only opened the trunk.

<comment><USER14> It is (or was?) quite common to have a valet key, which would start the car, but not open the trunk or glove compartment--and in some cases would limit the speed of the car to below e.g. 30mph, in case some valet tried to take the car for a Ferris Bueller-style joyride, I suppose!

<comment><USER15> Mercedes-Benz's have a pop-out metal clip that can be used to lock the glove and trunk. It's designed to be extract with a simple press so that dropping you car with a valet doesn't require turning off the car to remove it.

Clearly the lock isn't meant to stop a determined intruder. It's more of the " _Locks are for honest people_ " type thing to indicate that you shouldn't be opening the glove or trunk.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Why can't the cars (and keys) have something like a TOTP authentication mechanism?

</comment><comment><USER17> I drive a restored 1972 Dastun 240z. It doesn't even have powered windows.

<comment><USER18> My 1985 Supra seems stone-age when standing beside any modern car (including my winter car, a 2003 Outback), but the fact that every component does one single job makes me a lot more comfortable about parking it somewhere - <USER2> alarm is aftermarket and properly fitted (remarkably reliable), and I have to actually push a button to open the doors. The locks themselves are purely mechanical. Anyone breaking into it is going to have to make some noise.

And I don't have to store my keys in an elevator to stop someone with an amplifier breaking into it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Putting batteries in the fridge / freezer will dramatically shorten their life.

</comment><comment><USER20> > Steps to stop car thieves

5\. Leave your car in the garage with the door closed

<comment><USER21> Isn't the wireless garage opener security even worse than cars? They probably open after simply replaying the signal.

<comment><USER22> Most decent garage door openers use "rolling codes" these days. For example, Genie's "Intellicode"[0]:

> The Intellicode Access Security System provides state-of-the-art security > for your home by automatically changing your opener's access code every time > you push the remote control button. This prevents an unauthorized person > from stealing the access code to your opener system and gaining entry to > your garage.

A quick Google turned up OpenSesame[1] which says this about "rolling codes":

> These are not foolproof from attack, but do prevent the OpenSesame attack > along with traditional brute forcing attacks. Suggested vendors: current > products from LiftMaster and Genie.

[0] [http://www.geniecompany.com/garage-door- openers/retail_std-f...](http://www.geniecompany.com/garage-door- openers/retail_std-features.aspx)

[1] [http://samy.pl/opensesame/](http://samy.pl/opensesame/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Edit: I have been too optimistic. The technology seems much more susceptible to relay attacks than I expected.

<comment><USER19> Recently there's been a rise in auto-thefts in Sausalito using the relay attack. It's not theoretical... you're being overly optimistic.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How does news and media get shared within your workplace? - <AUTHOR>

An 'Ask HN' that I hope leads to a 'Show HN':
I've created an internal tool at my workplace, Upstatement, for our ~10 employees to be able to share web articles and our daily findings to everyone in the office in a non-interruptive manner. It gets good usage, and I'm curious how my idea might transform or scale to be useful for other companies.
It'd be extra useful if your response hinted at:
> Do you feel as though you may be missing out on a wealth of interesting news and media your coworkers may be consuming without sharing internally?
> When you find an article of interest, do you send it or share it directly with others in your workplace in any way? Do you share it on social media or to other general public channels?
> Are there any communication tools used in your company for sharing found media? For better or for worse? Email? HipChat or other messaging platforms? Newsletters? Shared account applications?
> What types of resources, if any, are provided by your company to discover and/or share engaging content with others? How does news and media relevant to your company culture spread? Does discussion ensue?
Thanks for any thoughts and responses! <comment><USER2> My workplace barely shares workplace related news (server outages, scheduled maintenance, etc.) so we certainly don't share general news. I don't think we'd ever adopt a solution like this either, for the above mentioned reason.

</comment><comment><USER3> I definitely have a take on this, as this gets to the heart of what our startup does. Two of our products very specifically involve elements of "how to share things in an office setting".

If you'll indulge me a moment of what might be taken as self-promotion (it's not really intended that way though), I'll tell you about what out thing does, as a way of explaining some of my thinking on how a company can / should do this sort of thing.

For starters, we have a product, Neddick[1], which looks a lot like Reddit. You can submit links, discuss those links, tag them, vote on them, and rank them by different criteria. We support the notion of "channels" which is our equivalent to "sub reddits" in Reddit lingo. But in addition to manual submission, we allow the configuration of _n_ RSS feeds, and any given "channel" can aggregate 0.. _n_ feeds. So if you wanted to, for example, define a "marketing" channel and point it all the popular marketing blogs, you could do that. Or you could create a "techies" channel, point it at Hacker News, Techcrunch, GroovyBlogs.org, etc. Whatever makes sense.

OK, so given a Reddit like thing, where we are starting to do some different stuff is here... we are implementing what we call "triggers" and "filters" to give a user more control over what happens with content in the system. Filters let you filter a channel down to only those entries that match certain criteria (title keyword, body keyword, score, submitter, etc.). Triggers are a similar notion, but they fire in reaction to events like "new entry posted", "entry tagged", "entry voted on", etc., and allow users to hook an action to the event. So you can arrange to, for example, have an entry emailed if it hits a certain score or receives a certain tag.

We also have an explicit "share" button that we attach to entries that allows you to share the entry via email, XMPP, or via a RESTful POST (in ActivityStrea.ms format) to a URL. Right now we are focused on using that feature to allow users to "share" entries to our other product, Quoddy[2], which is an Enterprise Social Network. As an ESN, it lets you do all the kinds of things you might imagine an ESN doing, and we're working now on Semantic Web integration so we can do automatic content enrichment, etc.

So yeah, I'm a big fan of technological tooling for sharing information and knowledge in an office setting. Now, the kinds of things we're building, I think, start to have the most value once an organization gets to a certain threshold of size/complexity (say, 500 employees or more). A 10 person company might be able to get by with just an email list or something a lot simpler than our thing. Honestly, we're building mainly for bigger companies, as our ESN has SOA/ESB integration, BPM integration and a lot of "enterprise" stuff (which stands to reason, seeing as it's an "enterprise" social network! :-) )

Obviously I think that information / knowledge sharing are important, or we wouldn't be working on this stuff. But here's where it gets more interesting in my opinion... if all you do is share links, blurbs, whatever, you gain _some_ value from that, but you don't gain the maximum value from it. You can email your office a link to a great article about, say, a new programming technique that you think should be adopted, or a new marketing approach, and it's very easy for it to just disappear into the ether, for various reasons. We think this kind of information sharing should have deeper hooks into how people actually get work done, and should support tooling to help A. keep things from getting lost, B. route just the right information to just the right people, and C. provide context to help support decision making. That's why we thing things like BPM and ESB integration are important to an ESN.. imagine if somebody shares a link to a document, and when you view it, you get pointers to open workflow User Tasks which are related to that document, or to recent business events which have some connection to that document. Or, imagine if you have a button you can click that takes the link that got shared, and actually starts a workflow around it.

One thing about this stuff though... culture is huge. Some companies are a good fit for this kind of stuff, and some aren't. Companies that are very "flat" organizationally, that promote empowered employees and widespread collaboration, will love this stuff. Companies that are heavy on top-down, command & control hierarchy, that are very divisive politically, where knowledge hoarding is practiced, etc., won't use this stuff even if you implement it.

Anyway, if you ever want to bat some ideas around offline, feel free to shoot me an email. Information sharing / knowledge management / collaboration are kind of my passion, so I'm always interested in talking about this stuff.

[1]: [https://github.com/fogbeam/Neddick](https://github.com/fogbeam/Neddick)

[2]: [https://github.com/fogbeam/Quoddy](https://github.com/fogbeam/Quoddy)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks so much for sharing your experience. Looking forward to taking a look at the tools you've been working on. Self-promotion as a result of sharing some really great experience and examples is totally acceptable =)

I haven't reached the 50+ employee level of thinking for this problem yet, nevermind 500+. It's interesting to hear about the diverse paths and channels of information you're providing in order to service a curated experience to that big of a crowd. Thanks again!</comment></comment>


Venice Battles Flooding Amid Highest Tide in 50 Years - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/13/world/europe/venice-flood.html <comment><USER2> Maybe it's because I am Italian, but I am honestly shocked by the lack of empathy and blatant superficiality of some of the comments, especially given the usual insightfulness of HN.

There's the guy who's been to Venice "multiple times" who's explaining why it would be better if it sank. Another one had a conversation at a "dinner party about vacation homes" and how are a bad investment. The other: "Venice is Atlantis of the 21th century", and finally "they shouldn't have built Venice on 118 islands in the first place".

Venice is a real city, home to thousands of people that are currently struggling with the damage that all of this caused. Their businesses are threatened. An entire city and region is on its knees. It is a site of undescribable historical and artistic beauty, a treasure that belongs to all mankind.

Seriously, some of you might have been too deep into your ARR and TSLA and lost the ability to empathize.

Maybe this news doesn't belong on HN at all.

<comment><USER3> Sorry, no, Venice isn't what I'd call a real city. It's a tourist trap. AFAICT, the only people who sleep there are tourists. The "locals" who service the place commute from outside of the town.

When I went there I was at first enchanted by it, but as I did what I normally and go looking the social differences I didn't find it for a while - it is all shops, restaurants and hotels. So I kept walking. It was only one I was well out of the older parts, and well away from the tourists did I see the sorts of things I visit foreign places to experience. Things like a coffin being lifted down from a house window using a motorised ladder, a grocer in a largish boat overflowing with produce, stopping every so often to let the local women on.

I have no idea how these real places are fairing, but I suspect much better because the walls of the canals were higher.

As for the tourist trap that is the heart of Venice - this will just add to it's reputation. Parts of St Marks are under water every day. Walking through a church, a very well maintained and elegant church at that, and sitting on a pew wait the salt water lapping an inch or so below your bum is a novel experience. I heartily recommend it to everyone.

But once crass the commercialism of the place begins to grate take a walk to the real Venice, where the locals are born, marry and die. It's gritty, real and nowhere near as pretty, but I remember my walk through there far better than I remember Venice itself. I do hope the people who live there are OK.

<comment><USER4> > Sorry, no, Venice isn't what I'd call a real city. It's a tourist trap. > AFAICT, the only people who sleep there are tourists. The "locals" who > service the place commute from outside of the town.

Sorry but no. The entirety of my mother's family still lives there, in the "city" city. A lot of people still live and work in the inner Venezia. There are some commuters especially from Mestre, but that is what you expect with any medium sized center with satellite smaller towns around.

Also "Venice" is quite misleading because aside the usual tourist destinations, the city has quite a large horizontal development inland. You contraddict yourself stating first that Venice is only a tourist trap with no locals and then stating that you saw local women buy groceries, and inviting people to visit the "real" Venice, which of course you saw, which of course has a resident population.

Your vacation-long experience might not necessarily reflect the truth.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The MOSE project is supposed to protect Venice from high tides, with mobile barriers: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOSE_Project](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOSE_Project)

Unfortunately it's been under planning first and then construction for decades, mired by corruption scandals, delays, and billions of Euros in cost overruns. It's currently scheduled to be delivered by the end of 2021, having first been put out to tender in 1975.

<comment><USER6> I hear some people saying that by the time it's built, rising sea levels may have already obsoleted it.

<comment><USER7> Venice was built on marshy landfill in a lagoon and has sunk 23cm in the last century. This is the main problem here. It will continue sinking and there's no way to make that stop as you can't build stable foundations under an entire stone city built in the actual sea on top of mushy mud and not anything stable. Venice is and always has been inevitably doomed due to poor engineering choices made centuries ago. Same goes for much of New Orleans.

<comment><USER8> Interesting. It looks like the sea level has also risen by about 17.5cm in the last century - [https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change- indica...](https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators- sea-level)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I hate sharing FB but this is where we can see some recent pics and videos as posted by Venitians today [https://www.facebook.com/1292366660/posts/10215308807895434/](https://www.facebook.com/1292366660/posts/10215308807895434/)

<comment><USER10> And here [1] you can see what the region would look like with rising coastlines, based on a Climate Central interactive map (which can be used for any global coastal city).

1 - [https://ss2.climatecentral.org/index.html#8/44.984/11.272](https://ss2.climatecentral.org/index.html#8/44.984/11.272)

<comment><USER11> Interesting, but a bit deceiving. When selecting "current coast" it shows the current coastlines, but selecting even a single foot of sea level rise it draws the new coast respecting the actual elevation. The problem with this is that in several places, for example around Venice and in the Netherlands, the land is already below the sea level, so they appear to flood even with a single inch of water. Which is not the case.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I was a dinner party when the topic of vacation homes comes came up. We were all young professionals in tech so a vacation home in middle age was not out of the question.

When I mentioned my reluctance to invest in beach front property everyone seemed confused -- I don't own a home yet but it makes me wonder, how much is climate change being considered as a factor for family real estate? I'm sure commercial developers are taking these things into account but are normal people?

<comment><USER13> The sea level rise is slow enough, at less than 1cm per year projected average to 2100, that it doesn't have a material affect on your decision, unless the land is freakishly flat and low (like a sand atoll somewhere) So respectfully, I think your aversion is more emotional than logical.

Lots of emotional down-voting going on. I'm still right.

<comment><USER14> A difference of even 2 feet makes a difference across huge swaths of US beachfront property. A storm surges can get up to 34.8 feet at current sea levels. Moving that to 36.8 would both more frequently destroy structures within 35' of sea level, and B put massive numbers of new buildings at risk.

<comment><USER13> You just classified the difference in storm surge as 6%. That is too small to be a defining part of your final decision.

<comment><USER14> People want to build as close to the ocean as they can, they also want to build in a safety factors After all that 34.8' is the highest level ever recorded. Is 30' is good enough how about 25'? And when you go down that road it gets very non linear with 10' being almost worthless and 40' near total protection from storm surges.

Thus it's not a question of absolute levels, but rather safety factors and insurance premiums that are at issue.

PS: Though this is simplified as it's both storm surge and high waves that cause problems, but that's another story.

<comment><USER13> If you're making any decision with only 6% tolerances on one side and vague things like storms and tides on the other, you're in trouble.

I just don't see that as making the difference in a decision to buy or not buy. I don't even see it making the list of things to weigh.

<comment><USER14> Ahh, you're still thinking if that as 6%. Hatteras NC is 50 miles long generally less than a mile wide and the absolutely highest point is 56' above sea level. More topically for these islands Nags Head, North Carolina averages 3' above sea level at high tide. People build everything on stilts and It's simply accepted that it's all temporary at some level.

As the barrier islands essentially make up the only beach front property across half of North Carolina, that's the only real option for vacation homes like this. That and fishing support a relatively small population, but the total investment on these islands adds into the billions.

In that context 2' means far more than a 6% difference. Little there can withstand a cat 4+ hurricane even without the ocean, however slowly loosing inches is already making a difference.

<comment><USER13> Well 2ft of 3ft is no longer 6%, that's a material difference that matters if you want to buy there.

What I would consider is what it would cost to raise the land by that 2ft. I think that's so little by comparison to what the land costs that you can practically discount the effect of climate change on your decision.

People hated on all of my comments in this entire thread, but at the end of the day I put my faith in the math and I think they're all wrong and I'm right.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Could Venice be raised, as Chicago once was? [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_of_Chicago](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_of_Chicago)

<comment><USER16> It might be feasible, but I doubt the Italian government has the organizational ability to rally scientists and engineers around it. (I'm Italian, it's IMHO, but I speak with some past experience).

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Miami in 10 years, San Francisco in 25.

<comment><USER18> Have you looked at San Francisco's topography? It isn't flat....all of the west coast cities are pretty safe.

<comment><USER19> Topography?

<comment><USER18> Fixed, thanks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Why has the title been changed from "Venice Battles Flooding Amid Highest Tide in 50 Years" to "Venice Floods Because of Highest Tide in 50 Years"?

It hasn't flooded _because of_ the record tide. I thought for a moment this meant that the barrage had been completed but was today overwhelmed.

<comment><AUTHOR> The NYT changed the headline after the story was submitted. (I'm the original submitter.)

<comment><USER20> Ah. I should have suspected that and phrased my query accordingly. Apologies for any slight on your good name.

<comment><AUTHOR> No worries :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Maybe don't build a city on 118 small islands and expect the water levels to never ever change? Seems more like a failure to plan for the future.

<comment><USER22> I imagine this was said in jest. But it's worth mentioning that Venice has _sunk_ almost 10 inches in the last century. Even if water levels hadn't changed -- and of course they have -- Venice would still be facing serious problems.

<comment><USER23> I don't think it's in jest, and I actually agree with that statement to an extent.

If humans weren't polluting the atmosphere, the climate would still be changing. The only difference is time scale and possibly the temperature delta.

This is why building cities right up against the shoreline isn't a very good idea in the long term. And, no, you can have ports without building metropolises right next to the water. Someone's going to say that I'm a "climate denier" which is totally false because I believe in anthropogenic global warming.

<comment><USER24> Scale is also the only difference between a beautiful snowflake and a terrifying avalanche. It's the difference between drinking a refreshing glass of water and being waterboarded.

Scale matters a lot.

<comment><USER25> I really like these analogies. You are so right.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Having been to Venice multiple times, I have somewhat of a contrarian view: even if the entire city were underwater, it wouldn't really change much. Venice as an actual place to live died decades ago. It's nothing more than Disneyland at this point.

If it found itself under the Adriatic in 50 years, I imagine it would simply become an underwater Disneyland. The architecture might actually be better preserved for future generations; for example, had Venice sunk prior to the mid-80's, there wouldn't be a McDonald's there (yup, there's a McDonald's in Venice.)

<comment><USER9> Venice is actually a great place to live if you don't prioritize for comfort but appreciate other aspects of life.

I guess it really depends on each person but not having cars really makes up for many other disadvantages.

Which makes you think how bad cars in the city are in general.

You don't really appreciate this until they are gone.

<comment><USER26> Oh I think the idea of Venice is brilliant. Historically it must have been incredible, when the palaces were actually in use and not simply museums. But at this point the entire economy of the city is based on tourism. Any trace of authentic life sunk a long time ago.

<comment><USER9> I can understand it feels like this, but I assure real people live and work there, and there is a real local culture and authentic life.

I lived there and I lived in many other cities like Paris, London, Munich, Krakow, Bangkok and Bali.

Venice is one of the most authentic cities of them all.

The language is alive and evolving.

It's a bit like the fight club, real locals recognize each others, while the tourists think it's just a Disneyland.

Quite fascinating!

<comment><USER27> Peoples' "authentic life" is finding a job, finding housing, finding a school for the kids, interacting with neighbors, dealing with trash pickup and water bills, etc. A tourist can never experience that. Even if you experience the flooding with real Venetians, you're not going to deal with the water damage for weeks afterward, or attempting to get insurance claims paid. But that's "authentic life."

Charming restaurants, quirky bookshops, etc., that's not "authentic life." That's frivolity. Sharing frivolities with the locals doesn't give you any insight into their "authentic life." Tourism is _always Disneyland._ It's always fake. It's just different versions of Disneyland for people of different temperaments.

(It's funny you mention Bangkok. I was born in Bangkok. What exactly is less "authentic" about it than Venice? How can a city even be less "authentic" than another city?)

<comment><USER28> Au contraire: fantasy and frivolity are essential to an "authentic life". Regardless of where you were born and what station you were born into.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Venice is doomed. A beautiful civilization, the Atlantis of the Twenty-First century.

<comment><USER30> And no, we won't be able to 3D-print it back to life, but ultimately that is what time does, erasing civilizations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Flooding and other symptoms of climate change are externalities that countries & corporations are not acknowledging let alone paying for. Who's responsible for compensating the businesses of Venice who are effected? Is it the government of Venice? Italy? If history has taught us anything, these entities are on their own.

<comment> the-dude Are you stating that any flooding and other symptoms of climate change are externalities of countries and corporations?

Would the earth be static if there were no countries or corporations?

<comment><USER32> Uhm, I would answer that as a Yes (but I think you would disagree). It'd be a subsistence level of existence for the several (tens of) millions of humans in existence in that scenario, but one with hardly any human impact on the global climate. The thought would be that massive specialisation led to our current level of (material) wealth and that both countries and corporations are signals of cooperation and thus facilite specialisation.

Even if I think of something like a Nozickian world as a starter, with exchangeable money as a transaction facility for transferring information, I immediately think we would see the roaming "tribes" as something akin to corporations.

<comment> the-dude Sea level has been rising thousands, ten thousands of years : 6-8k yrs ago, I would be able to walk to the UK from NL.

The North Sea was inhatibed : [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland)

<comment><USER33> The rate at which the sea levels rose was much slower and much of that water was frozen in the arctic. The past couple of centuries are exceptionally different.

<comment> the-dude Would you care to back that up? If I DDG it [https://duckduckgo.com/?q=historic+sea+level+rise&t=ffab&ia=...](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=historic+sea+level+rise&t=ffab&ia=web)

I end up at [https://skepticalscience.com/Past-150000-Years-of-Sea- Level-...](https://skepticalscience.com/Past-150000-Years-of-Sea-Level- History-Suggests-High-Rates-of-Future-Sea-Level-Rise.html) ( that's right ) :

"During all episodes of major global ice loss, sea level rise has reached rates of at least 1.2 metres per century (equivalent to 12 mm per year). This is 4 times the current rate of sea level rise."

Not relying on one opinion, I view the XKCD of the sibbling : no sources.

Next hit on DDG : [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_sea_level](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_sea_level) :

"Observational and modeling studies of mass loss from glaciers and ice caps indicate a contribution to a sea-level rise of 2 to 4 cm over the 20th century. "

Which is very low.

Would you care to back up your statement?

<comment><USER34> > Not relying on one opinion, I view the XKCD of the sibbling : no sources.

I'm having a hard time parsing that... Are you suggesting the XKCD graph lacks sources?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Can we please keep these political hit job pieces off of HN? /s</comment>


It's the Sugar, Folks - <AUTHOR> http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/its-the-sugar-folks/?smid=tw-share <comment><USER2> Two comments from the article that I liked:

As the principal author of this study, I wanted to clarify some of its details for scientifically-minded readers, in order to avoid misinterpretations: <http://epianalysis.wordpress.com/2013/02/27/sugardiabetes/>

\-----

The opening line ("Sugar is indeed toxic.") is distorted and inane. Sugars are not toxic, as evidenced by our evolution of taste buds that respond so positively to them. Sugars are a dense source of energy, which is why our metabolic systems cherish them. Let's leave such excessive, unsubstantiated commentary to The Onion or Mad Magazine, and just apply common sense to our diets.

<comment><USER3> It's a problem of translation between the chemistry definition of toxic (it will kill you in short order) and the common definition (poisonous, noxious). Bittman was using the latter, with an understanding that the dose makes the poison.

<comment><USER2> I don't think either of those definitions are well served by evidence.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> A NYT Editor's Pick Comment:

""" I'm glad the smoking gun has been found.

High fructose corn syrup is in virtually everything people buy to eat. It needs to go. Enough people's lives have been ruined. The design and engineering of prepared foods people commonly buy is toxic and addictive.

Now we need to re-educate people and make sure long-held views are erased. People have long blamed gluttony for obesity and obesity for diabetes. We now know it isn't true and that the super-sugars we are being force-fed are the culprit. We must all, together, demand that processed sugars such as high- fructose corn syrup be banned or, at the very least, severely restricted. I don't use the words force-fed lightly. Those among us who are on food stamps or a limited income have no choice but to buy the cheapest foods. Those are the ones that most commonly have the highest amount of sugars added. Anyone with a busy lifestyle eats out a lot. Fast foods, including the ones that claim to be "better," are laced with sugars, sodium, and fat.

We must demand policies that protect us from harm and the greed-driven irresponsible practices of Big Food.

Thank you, Mr. Bittman, for keeping us informed. """

So is "Big Food" the new scapegoat? I guess the next article we'll see a comment proclaiming how "Big Grocery" prices unhealthy foods too low, so now it's their fault.

This is a great study, and it's results are extremely interesting, but this article, and the inferences people are getting from it border on witch trials. The article does a great job of doing everything but coming out and saying what the commenter does "They're force feeding us toxins!". There is such a clear departure from responsibility in today's culture it's almost astonishing. The blame lies 100% with nobody, but the individual has just as much a part to play as those producing the food.

Edit: Does anyone notice the language used in the comment? "Force-fed", "re- educate", "We must all, together", "Enough people's lives have been ruined". It sounds almost like something from 1984.

Also, look how easily the commenter provides inclusion to victimhood... anyone "with a busy lifestyle", or those who "are on food stamps or a limited income". Limited income is pretty broad. It's interesting also, how they "have no choice but to buy the cheapest foods".

<comment><USER5> One of the harder lessons stamped into me by the last few years in finance is just how wrong the myth of the rational consumer is, regardless of my liberal individualist world-view. The best of us make terrible decisions in almost everything we don't consciously analyse, i.e. almost everything. The rest busy ourselves with illustrating Murphy's Law in strings of bad decisions. When a system provides individuals with easy bad decisions it should not be surprising when people behave per expectation, and thus, not sufficient to blame them.

<comment><USER4> It's extremely dangerous to excuse someone of not wishing to make conscious, good decisions.

<comment><USER6> Despite studies showing that people have a limited amount of willpower, after which they revert to habit?

<comment><USER7> I would think HNers of all people would understand the idea of abstraction and information hiding. We have so many parts of our lives that to try to get a complete understanding of even _one_ of them is pretty complicated.

 _What's the best toothpaste to buy if I want white teeth? Will it hurt my enamel? What about gingivitis? What about tooth brush hardness? What about flossing? What's the proper technique? Should I do it before or after I brush?_

And that's just dental hygiene.

So yes, while this libertarian ideal of "the free market solves everything" and "fuck the consumer if they won't educate themselves" is nice in theory, in practice it's not effective public policy. It simply isn't possible to be completely informed on everything that goes into every part of our lives -- if you actually want to live, that is.

<comment><USER8> that doesnt mean there's a better option though. what else are we gonna do, have some committee tell us which toothpaste to use?

<comment><USER7> Basic regulations about what makes a toothpaste fit to sell is a good start.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is ridiculous. Sugars are fundamental bio-molecules and are essential for life.

Yes, we know that over-eating causes diabetes and obesity. And this study says that foods high in sugar pose the greatest threat. But seriously, are we going to start to say that sugar is _toxic_ in the same way that cigarettes are toxic? We can manage the dangers of sugar toxicity pretty easily by exercising. The damage done by smoking... not so much.

This reminds me of a pet peeve that my grad advisor had. In our area it was common to see signs that said something to the effect of "No dumping of chemicals". He loved to point out that water was a chemical.

<comment><USER10> I think the point that is left out by the article, but emphasized by Robert Lustig (Dr. mentioned in the article) is that sugar, in nature, is almost always accompanied by large quantities of fiber, which prevent it from being absorbed too quickly.

Sugar isn't toxic, but refined sugar, or sugar that has been separated from the fiber it sits with (fruit juice) is indirectly toxic. Dr. Lustig's research has demonstrated this, and he has some very detailed lectures on the subject. He isn't some quack: he is a leading researcher in both understanding AND TREATING pediatric Type II Diabetes, which is a newly occurring disease.

When I drink a beer, I understand that the alcohol I love so much in it is essentially a toxin, that in low enough quantities won't hurt me. I also know that regualr, periodic consumption of it will negatively effect my health. Oddly enough, Lustig's research has shown that fructose, in quantities which are completely normal for someone who has just consumed a moderate amount of refined sugar or fruit juice, has a very similar effect on the liver to alcohol. Not completely identical, but similar. I suggest you watch the video.

I have a 6 year old son and a second child on the way. The only fruit juice he gets to have is extremely diluted with water. This isn't me overreacting as an ignoramus. I've looked at the data, evaluated the research, and found it extremely compelling. Ever use a juicer? Think about how many oranges it takes to make an 8 oz. glass. (It takes several, and if you tried to eat that many, you would be full halfway through due to the fiber.) Refined sugar is just juiced sugar cane with extra chemical preparation.

Oranges are good for you. Orange juice is bad for you. I know it screams out BS, but I assure you, look at the science. You will, as I was, be shocked. How the hell can this stuff I've been eating all my life be THIS bad for me, without me knowing it.

<comment><USER11> I made juice this morning: 2 oranges, 2 kiwi, and 1 grapefruit. Made two cups of juice for my wife and me. I don't know about the science of sugar, but eating 1 orange, 1 kiwi, and half a grapefruit doesn't seem excessive to me.

<comment><USER12> If you ate the fruit it would be much better for you. Instead you are basically taking something healthy overall, extracting the candy part out, and throwing away the parts that are best for you.

<comment><USER13> Well, atleast he's getting some vitamins and minerals.

Eating fruit is better than drinking fresh fruit juice, which is better than drinking Mountain Dew.

<comment><USER14> If hewere drinking the fruit juice in place of Mountain Dew it might be better, but I doubt he was chugging Mountain Dew for breakfast before he started drinking fruit juice.

The problem is that people think fruit juice is healthy and nutritious, and they aren't aware they should limit consumption.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> >In other words, according to this study, obesity doesn't cause diabetes: sugar does.

 _Sigh._ No, according to this study, there is a stronger _correlation_ between sugar and diabetes than between obesity and diabetes.

>Each 150 kilocalories/person/day increase in total calorie availability related to a 0.1 percent rise in diabetes prevalence (not significant), whereas a 150 kilocalories/person/day rise in sugar availability (one 12-ounce can of soft drink) was associated with a 1.1 percent rise in diabetes prevalence.

Much better! Lead with that next time, medical research reporter.

All in all, this seems like a pretty good study that controls for a lot of confounding variables that a lot of diet related studies completely neglect. I just wish the reporting here, and in general in all medical research reporting, wasn't so sloppy. The goal should be to spread awareness of new findings, not to spread misconceptions.

<comment><USER10> "The study controlled for poverty, urbanization, aging, obesity and physical activity. It controlled for other foods and total calories. In short, it controlled for everything controllable, and it satisfied the longstanding "Bradford Hill" criteria for what's called medical inference of causation by linking dose (the more sugar that's available, the more occurrences of diabetes); duration (if sugar is available longer, the prevalence of diabetes increases); directionality (not only does diabetes increase with more sugar, it decreases with less sugar); and precedence (diabetics don't start consuming more sugar; people who consume more sugar are more likely to become diabetics)."

As far as observational studies, (of which I am a huge skeptic), this one is pretty well controlled for. It's not like they studied 7 nations, or 11 nations. They studied 175 nations. That allows for a whole lot of controllability for various factors.

<comment><USER16> Not on that list: family history/genetics. I believe that has already been identified as a significant risk factor for diabetes. So it's not just the sugar.

<comment><USER17> It controls for etnic variables, by using trends instead of comparing raw numbers and some more advanced techniques.

It can not control for family because it was population-wide, not person-wide (and yes, that is a flaw that the authors acknoledge).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Wouldn't it be better for us to link directly to the study, rather than to Bittman's editorial about it? I find the study harmonizes nicely with my view of the world, and I'm even ok with Bittman, but he's not a subject matter expert at all. He's the NYT's former food writer who recently decided to write more about food policy.

</comment><comment><USER19> They had better change the messaging. I'm in favor of common-sense regulation of mass-production food ingredients, and "sugar is toxic" even rubs me the wrong way.

<comment><USER20> We need to tax sugar like we tax tobacco for the same reasons. It will decrease consumption. Those taxes will pay for the medical expenses of people with diabetes.

<comment><USER21> When is this going to stop? Endless government regulation is not the solution to everything. Look, there's a huge health movement going on in the country _right_ _now_. Just like there was an anti-smoking movement starting up before the government ever got involved with that. The people who fund this crap aren't looking to do good, they just want more tax revenue (or more grant dollars from those who want more tax revenue). That's what they've always wanted.

Don't believe me? Restaurants are now voluntarily adding calorie numbers to menus, because the lower calorie stuff is higher margin and people buy it. Vitamin water, coke zero, pepsi one/0, izze, baked chips, etc... etc... etc.. take up much more room in the grocery stores than they used to. Trader joes and whole foods are massive businesses now and threatening the big boys like kroger. I'm not saying obesity isn't a problem, but I do think we'll see the trend start changing for the better soon.

There's no need for regulation. The public will shift on it's own. All we need is better education. Almost everyone I know(in my age group and younger) eat much more healthily than their parents do/did simply because they are better informed. Contrary to popular belief, people do make rational decisions when it comes to eating (excluding socioeconomic factors).

<comment><USER22> > Don't believe me? Restaurants are now voluntarily adding calorie numbers to > menus, because the lower calorie stuff is higher margin and people buy it.

Actually, if you are in California then it's more likely because of a 2009 law[1]:

"Putting our heads in the gastronomic sand became a bit harder starting July 1, 2009, when a new law went into effect making California the first state to mandate that chain restaurants--those with 20 or more locations--provide a calorie count for everything on the menu."

[1] [http://www.examiner.com/article/calorie-count-california- res...](http://www.examiner.com/article/calorie-count-california-restaurant- law-urges-restraint)

<comment><USER23> I moved from Texas to California and I can confirm that, while there _does_ seem to be a trend toward more and more restaurants voluntarily including this information, you don't really SEE it until you cross the border into California.

This is an example of a business regulation that has had a directly positive impact on my daily food choices... I find that I automatically choose lower calorie foods just because the calorie numbers guilt me into doing so. In fact, this one thing led to a general softening of my hard-core libertarian "no regulations ever let the market decide" stance of the past.

<comment><USER22> Yeah, I have to say I really appreciate this as well. It's especially eye opening to go into a movie theater and see the large popcorn labelled as 1500 calories (!!!).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> A very related, and VERY WELL PRESENTED and scientific video explanation of why sugar is poison, presented to residents at the University of California: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM>

If you like TED talks, this will just blow your mind. It gets highly medical at one point of the talk, but HN should be able to follow along. I recommend watching this when you have an hour of absolute free time and want to learn.

</comment><comment><USER25> There is no mention of it in this thread so far, so here: <http://reddit.com/r/keto> Check the sidebar out.

See the transformations which happen to people when they (mostly) give up consuming sugars: [http://www.reddit.com/r/keto/search?q=progress&sort=top&...](http://www.reddit.com/r/keto/search?q=progress&sort=top&restrict_sr=on)

<comment><USER26> Keto cuts out carbs including those that are converted to just glucose, not just sugar (which is 50% fructose). It's not the same thing at all.

<comment><USER25> Uh, sorry, what exactly did I say? I said mostly giving up sugars, which is why I mentioned keto.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I'm sitting here, dumbfounded, in a mix of response between "no shit" and "this isn't something that needs to be regulated".

</comment><comment><USER28> Is there something special about sugar compared to other carbs? If I had to choose between eating bread or cake for the same calories will cake hurt me more?

<comment><USER29> The difference is that table sugar and high fructose corn syrup are about 50% fructose (the rest glucose).

While glucose (which is what bread is mostly metabolized into) can be used by every cell in the body, fructose must be broken down by the liver using a metabolic pathway similar to that used by alcohol.

There is a hypothesis that once a person's metabolism has been damaged by enough fructose, that any carbohydrate is likely to cause obesity. Basically, that insulin resistance seems to affect fat cell last and once it sets it glucose will be preferentially absorbed by fat cells.

So people with a well-functioning insulin response should be able to eat relatively large amounts of (non-fructose-containing) carbohydrates without issue, but those in whom the insulin response is damaged (probably a majority of Americans over age 25) might need to cut back on all carbohydrates to stay lean.

But again, this is very much an untested hypothesis.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> What do they mean by sugar "availability" in the study? How is that measured, by the price in a given country, imports?

<comment><USER30> I was going to publish a comment on the study about that- my background is in agricultural economics so I'm very familiar with the database they used. I am curious to know which FAOstat data they used. Was it Sugar, Raw Equivalent or Sugar, Refined Equivalent? Either way, the FAO data is calculated based on production + imports - exports. They admit in the paper itself that this is not a perfect proxy ("It is thought that much of the FAO data on foods and nutrients in the food supply have limits to their reliability") for consumption so it is alarming, but predictable to see this being termed as such by the media.

I don't know if it's the best series of data to use for this. I would have used a much longer series if possible because to be honest the past ten years have not seen a dramatic change in sugar consumption, but I guess their diabetes prevalence dataset only spanned that long. But that brings up the question of the lag for developing diabetes itself, it's not like 50 extra calories. I also couldn't find if they threw out countries with weird or obviously low quality data. Israel's data, for example, is a bit strange. It goes from around 500 kcal/capita/day sugar to 230. I find it hard to believe that consumption habits changed so drastically there.

They also do not discuss much about why they, as non-economists, chose to use econometric rather than epidemiology or biostat methods. I also hate that their final graph is totally unlabeled and there is no option to download a format that would allow one to see which dots correspond to which country.

It would be wise for some of the alarmists on this thread to read the paper and this sentence in particular " Hence, any of the findings we observe here are meant to be exploratory in nature, helping us to detect broad population patterns that deserve further testing through prospective longitudinal cohort studies in international settings, which are only now coming underway."

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> There's an interesting idea in this article:

      ... and ideally removing fructose (the "sweet" molecule in sugar
      that causes the damage) from the "generally recognized as safe"
      list, because that's what gives the industry license to
      contaminate our food supply.

Ignoring the loaded language, does anyone know what the consequences of removing fructose from the GRAS list would be?

<comment><USER32> If fructose is removed from the GRAS list, that would imply fruits are no longer considered safe to eat.

<comment><USER31> Does not being GRAS imply a duty to test edible plants for containing something? That seems difficult. Of course, it wouldn't be the first crazy regulation...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> >>> The next steps are obvious, logical, clear and up to the Food and Drug Administration. To fulfill its mission, the agency must respond to this information by re-evaluating the toxicity of sugar, arriving at a daily value — how much added sugar is safe? — and ideally removing fructose (the "sweet" molecule in sugar that causes the damage) from the "generally recognized as safe" list, because that's what gives the industry license to contaminate our food supply."

Oh fer cryin out loud, just try to educate people a little better on how to MODERATE intake of everything, don't go overboard here and try to get a ban on sugar.... What is this world coming to when everybody expects some bigger force to make all the decisions for them and keep them safe. Learn how to think for yourselves and take some vested interest in you actions and decisions. Gotta strike a balance between natural selection and idiotracy I suppose...

<comment><USER34> I don't want a bigger force to make the decisions for me, but I am quite happy to delegate some of my authority to the government and have it act on my behalf by requiring more accurate labeling and so forth. I eat a very healthy diet, but I don't have the time or inclination to keep up with every last additive and food manufacturing process out there. In fact, I'm happy to pay some of my taxes so other people can study that as their full-time job.

<comment><USER35> There's a huge difference between banning sugar and regulating labeling. Even Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson supports food labeling (though purists might be opposed to that).

<comment><USER34> Nobody's proposing a ban on sugar.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Every time I see an article related to Medicine on HN it seems a high amount of people comment without reading or at least comprehending the article. It's pretty and remind me of the negative parts of Reddit.

</comment><comment><USER37> I'm uncomfortable with how this article keeps repeating that because it's "not possible" to do a better study, that the result must be conclusive. That simply does not follow. The fact that you can't do a better study doesn't mean we should believe the result of the best study we have uncritically - and it certainly doesn't mean by itself that the "smoking gun" has been found. So many health myths have been conclusively believed in the past that we should know better than this by now.

</comment><comment><USER38> I think many people know by know sugar is "toxic" and is responsible for pandemic obesity, type 2 diabetes and 99% of the dental mafia, erm... industry; at least I for one preach against sugar every time there's a discussion on diets and food.

This might have just reached a level where authorities need to get their shit together and do something about it... And this is the sad and hard part as many of our politicians may be "subsidised" by the food industry.

</comment><comment><USER39> With luck, this will encourage people to cook their own food. It isn't that hard to do, doesn't really take that much time, and the benefit of knowing what you are eating really helps inform your diet choices.

</comment><comment><USER40> Is aspartame a good alternative?

<comment><USER41> No it isn't. If you're going to use it or products containing it, I strongly suggest you research this subject for yourself since this is not the place to argue the toss. When you do so, as ever, look to the money.

<comment><USER42> _look to the money_

What is that supposed to mean? Coke ( _et al_ ) probably make more money per volume on the diet drinks. So now that we've looked at the money, so what? As for health, you've got conspiracy nuts on one side, and a clear link with obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay on the other.

<comment><USER17> > What is that supposed to mean?

It means that, when you read a study, also read the name of the entity financing it.

<comment><USER42> What study are you referring to?

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy>

 _Aspartame has been deemed safe for human consumption by over 100 regulatory agencies in their respective countries_

...are they all financed (corrupted) by your unidentified bogeyman?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Are You The Best Version Of Yourself? - The Converted Geek Guide To Self-Upgrade - <AUTHOR> http://www.dragosroua.com/are-you-the-best-version-of-yourself/ <comment><USER2> No. I'm currently what's checked out of HEAD, plus a few local changes I haven't committed yet.

<comment><AUTHOR> If I would have to check her out, I usually start with MORE then slightly leaning towards LESS. Soon, all I do is just a TAIL every now and then...

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> What? I need a driver to have a wife?

<comment><USER4> I've found that some girlfriends act as viruses (#4) unless your drivers (#3) are very robust. Sometimes you can fix the driver to be less vulnerable, but sometimes you just have to uninstall the driver and advise the hardware to interface with another system that has a more robust driver.

<comment><AUTHOR> that's what I call making an upgrade, but they're usually call this being dummped. Girls and their strange lingo... Why can't they talk like normal, 64bits dual core guys like us?</comment></comment></comment>


About 33 bits - <AUTHOR> http://33bits.org/about/

<comment><USER2> Hey, I'm the author of this blog. Much of my previous deanonymization research has been discussed on HN; see [http://www.google.com/search?q=33bits.orgsite:news.ycombinat...](http://www.google.com/search?q=33bits.orgsite:news.ycombinator.com) Also, if you find the premise of the blog interesting check out the sitemap linked from the page.

But since this post is about the About page, let me share a couple of lessons I've learned from the blog, which has been more successful in communicating my research than I'd dared to hope for when I started it 3.5 years ago.

1\. Those of us working on technical areas often struggle to explain our ideas to others not as technical, in a way that avoids oversimplification and losing essential meaning. Sometimes you'll discover an analogy or metaphor or phrase that does both. Seize those chances, they're powerful.

2\. Coming up with a name is more important than you might think. If a good name will make your idea or product even 5% stickier, it follows that it may be worthwhile to spend 5% of your time just coming up with the name. One way to do it is to be constantly on the lookout for a good name while you're working on the product.

3\. If you're writing about something that has policy implications, and want it to be read in Washington, it's hard but not impossible. Two important requirements are to network and build up an audience — they aren't going to read your blog just because it ranks high in Google searches — and to use language that non-technical people can understand.

Happy to answer any questions!

<comment><USER3> I've been trying to think of a way of using typing cadence to capture "bits" of information. Think you would have a good solution for that?

Take this scenario (and also check out the exclaimer at the bottom!).

All users on the earth type the same paragraph, or perhaps some password (clearly the longer the most distinct fingerprint, but bear with me on this).

Based on this sequence of keypresses, I capture the timestamp that each keypress is activated, and then the duration that each key is held down for.

Based on this information, how would you recommend, or suggest that a person goes about detecting some unique fingerprint from these values.

I was thinking the best way would be to have each keypress some space point and the duration held down a vector. And then if each use is entering the same paragraph, the distance accross all of the vectors could be used to calculate some identifying fingerprint.

Exclaimer: I'm absolutely not interested in the slightest in tracking users. Every weekend I try and research something that interests me. Last weekend was user fingerprinting based on the typing speed and cadence of users.

<comment><USER2> This is a well-known technology :-) See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystroke_dynamics>

In the research community it's a proven and accepted concept. There are products in the market that do two-factor authentication based on password + keystroke dynamics, but I don't know how well they work.

<comment><USER3> Thanks! I was sure it must have been called something!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I understand the Log2 concept of people able to narrow down something via binary search, but I have a question: don't the "facts" about a person have to divide the remaining population in half (or into smaller chunks)?

For instance if you know "Frank" doesn't wear a Rolex, that would not rule out very many people. So statistically, it would probably be better to know if Frank has red hair, as that could rule out a lot more people.

Also, let's say you have it narrowed down to four people, but the last bit of information is common to all of them. You now have to get another bit, and possibly another, correct?

EDIT: Felt like I didn't express my main point well enough: while you can certainly narrow down people with "bits" of information, information is most of the time not just 1 or 0 and can be fuzzy (or too common) to be useful in a binary search, although with the right bits of information it can of course be fruitful.

I'm really interested by this concept and also curious as to if anyone is employing it on a mass scale.

<comment><USER5> "Also, let's say you have it narrowed down to four people, but the last bit of information is common to all of them."

The definition of a bit is something which removes half the possibilities. If you have 4 people and acquire a "bit" of information that breaks them into two categories, one with 4 people and one with 0 people, you, by definition, in fact have 0 bits.

Fractional bits are not only possible, they are by far the common case. With a lg2 in the definition of the bit, it's pretty uncommon to have integral bits.

Critical insight: What we call a "bit" in a computer and a "bit" in information theory are related but not the same thing. You can't have a fraction of a bit stored in your computer's RAM, the words are meaningless. It is best to simply flush your idea of what you think a bit is and start over again from scratch when studying information theory, then when you are comfortable with it the connections will become obvious. Starting from the RAM side is actively harmful.

<comment><USER4> This makes sense, thanks for explaining the semantics. So basically, you're confirming that you'd need 33 "bits" of information, which doesn't necessarily mean you can use 33 pieces of information because a bit is a lot more specific than a one-off piece of information.

<comment><USER6> 33 bits of information can amount to fewer than 33 pieces of information. Quoting from the article: "...knowing your hometown gives me 16 bits of entropy about you".

 _Edit: a relevant anecdote: when I was in high school, a friend went as an exchange student to Costa Rica. As an experiment, I had her send me a blank postcard with nothing on it but "pohl 68320 USA". It arrived in my post office box without a hitch._

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think the premise is false. You would need about 33 _unique_ bits. I doubt that you can prove the existence of a person-independent algorithm to gather these.

<comment><USER2> See <strike>comment #12</strike> the comment posted at February 12, 2010 at 5:15 am in the blog post.* The term entropy refers to uniqueness.

As for the development of algorithms to gather those bits, that's what my entire Ph.D. is about and what my blog is mostly about. This is what I've been proving for the last 6 years.

*Just realized comment numbers are unstable. Bad wordpress.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> On anonymity and privacy... I always thought this was an interesting fact:

Birthday, Gender and Zipcode is enough to identify someone uniquely approximately 85% of the time.

And a quickly googled source but the meme is older than that: [http://godplaysdice.blogspot.com/2009/12/uniquely- identifyin...](http://godplaysdice.blogspot.com/2009/12/uniquely-identifying- people-by-birth.html)

<comment><USER9> Really? That would imply there's only 730 people living in a given zip code (365 days in a year * 2 genders). Unless you mean birth date.

<comment><USER10> Yes, he meant birth date.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Just out of curoisity, how many bits would it take to include all the people that have ever lived? Also, how many to realistically cover the the future?

<comment><USER12> Stop me if I am wrong but…

According to… [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=how+many+people+have+li...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=how+many+people+have+lived+on+earth) <http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=106+billion+in+binary>

37 bits

<comment><USER13> Isn't the answer always 42?

<comment><USER12> If you take the timespan of HHGTTG into account yes. ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> > There are only 6.6 billion people in the world, so you only need 33 bits > (more precisely, 32.6 bits) of information about a person to determine who > they are.

I think you should count the dead as well. But then, 33 bits ~= 8 billion, which should still be enough, I guess.</comment>


Elon Musk Is Digging a Hyperloop Tunnel in Maryland - <AUTHOR> http://fortune.com/2017/10/20/elon-musk-hyperloop-tunnel-maryland/ <comment><AUTHOR> The governor of Maryland seems more excited about it than Elon Musk, but this is apparently the first 10 miles of a tunnel from Baltimore to Washington DC.

More details about the site in this article: [http://www.govtech.com/fs/infrastructure/Maryland-Issues- Con...](http://www.govtech.com/fs/infrastructure/Maryland-Issues-Conditional- Permit-for-Hyperloop-Tunnel.html)

"Hogan administration officials said Thursday the state has issued a conditional utility permit to let Musk's tunneling firm, The Boring Co., dig a 10.3-mile tunnel beneath the state-owned portion of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway, between the Baltimore city line and Maryland 175 in Hanover."</comment>


Show HN: Filld – Gas delivered to your car, on demand - <AUTHOR> http://filld.co/

<comment><USER2> Holy crap, we've come to a startup so specific it can only exist in Silicon Valley an the like.

Average fillup: 20 gallons. $7.00 / 20 = 35 cents. Difference between regional gas stations: 30 cents. So .35 + .15 = .50 per gallon.

Local news here reports when gas goes up 10 cents a gallon. Here's a startup that has looked at the market and said .50 cents a gallon per tank isn't so bad. People will want that to avoid stopping at a gas station. Not around here anyway.

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't know about America but here in Europe most gas caps are locked with either a key or a mechanism where it's only possible to open if the front door on the side of the vehicle where the gas cap is located is opened. How are you dealing with that?

<comment><USER4> from their FAQ...

> For vehicles that require the driver to disengage the gas cap, we ask that > you leave your gas cap slightly ajar to allow us in.

> Leaving my gas cap open? Is that safe?

> Yes, open caps are not noticeable. If you are concerned, you can request our > driver ping you when they are being dispatched to your vehicle and you can > open it just before your car is Filld.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This seems like it would make more sense for Filld and consumers on a recurring delivery model.</comment>


China's Tech Giants Have a Second Job: Helping Beijing Spy on Its People - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-tech-giants-have-a-second-job-helping-the-government-see-everything-1512056284 <comment><USER2> AT&T used to help the US with this, too. See 'The Idea Factory' for details on the 'Secret Schedules' the head of AT&T and AT&T research had so they could go explain their tech and make it easy to tap by Washington.

</comment><comment><USER3> That's all tech giants in pretty much all countries. And not just their own people, they spy on foreigners too.

There's a reason why russia and china kick out foreign tech companies from time to time. There's a reason why EU demands access to source code/hardware specs/etc from foreign tech companies.

It's why all major nations ( US, China, Russia, etc ) are working towards creating and manufacturing a wholy native tech stack for their sensitive government and corporate institutions.</comment>


Arista Networks CEO offers journalist pre-IPO shares after he covers them - <AUTHOR> http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2014/05/08/yes-were-in-a-tech-bubble-heres-how-i-know-it/

<comment><USER2> Submitting the article with this title is a creative way to ensure it doesn't make the front page. Well played.</comment>