GitHub Archive Program - <AUTHOR> https://archiveprogram.github.com/ <comment><USER2> 10,000 years from now, society has been destroyed. And people come across a glass plate with laser etchings. How bummed will they be when they go through all of the effort of decoding it, only to learn it's like some python library for managing drivers on a 2014 Dell laptop running linux?

<comment><USER3> Only to find a packages.json file without a packages-lock.json file checked in, to make it impossible to restore the node_modules directory.

<comment><USER4> Don't worry npm and cockroaches will be the only things to survive a nuclear war

<comment><USER5> Pretty sure the universe is running on some advanced version of Erlang. Erlang VM would survive until heat death of the universe, when it finally crashes the heartbeat program will kick in and we'll have a new big bang

<comment><USER6> Obligatory XKCD citing: [https://xkcd.com/224/](https://xkcd.com/224/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Github has blocked access to my account with 10s of popular projects because one day they randomly sent me an email to click on a link to enable 2fa auth. I was coerced to enable it. A while later I lost access to the phone where the 2fa auth app was installed not having back up codes since I was pushed to enable 2fa in a rush now I'm completely locked out. I contacted support no fewer than 15 times with them saying I need to create a new account since I did not link my cell phone nor have back up codes. I had that account for over a decade and now I cannot even control the projects I was working on nor access any of my private repos. I have been communicating with them using the email I have on my account, but this is not sufficient for them to restore access to my account.

<comment><USER8> I'm sorry you lost your account (really, that sucks) but I don't understand framing this like Github is doing something wrong. It isn't like they banned you for spamming emojis.

You enabled 2fa, you lost your 2fa, and you did not have any recovery codes. Now you are asking for them to bypass the 2fa, and they are refusing.

Again, that sucks, but when I compare this to what the cell phone companies are doing with sim swapping, it increases my respect for Github.

<comment><USER9> There has to be a mechanism where you can get your account back if you provide some form of identification. I know that you get into other issues that way, but 2fa without a mechanism to restore account in case of phone/code loss (or inability to access, which is somewhat likely if you don't keep multiple copies of your codes) is pretty stupid.

<comment><USER10> The one I've had to use (and find reasonable) is to have "trusted devices". That's how it works, at least with 1Password:

\- You log with your 2FA into a device. \- You set this device as trusted. \- In case you lose your phone or 2FA device, log onto the trusted device and disable 2FA. \- Then set up 2FA again with new phone or device.

It's not perfect, but it's workable. For instance, while I won't enable trusted device on my laptop, having my desktop stolen is a way rarer occasion, so I enable the "trust this device" options. It's just a matter of thinking on the threat model and where you can place spots for recovery while loosing as little security as possible.

<comment><USER11> But that fine because the trusted device is the second factor (what you have).

You can have multiple second factors with Github. I currently have two Yubikeys and one authenticator app enabled. If I lose one I can still log in with another.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > On February 2, 2020, GitHub will capture a snapshot of every active public > repository, to be preserved in the GitHub Arctic Code Vault. This data will > be stored on 3,500-foot film reels, provided and encoded by Piql, a > Norwegian company that specializes in very-long-term data storage. The film > technology relies on silver halides on polyester. This medium has a lifespan > of 500 years as measured by the ISO; simulated aging tests indicate Piql's > film will last twice as long.

That just sounds like a fun project.

<comment><USER13> Right? Sounds so fun.

But also a great engineering exercise. I wouldn't be surprised if this exercise leads to lots of valuable improvements for GitHub users in the here and now. Trying to solve such a grand challenge forces you to develop a vocabulary and understanding of your current systems that can lead to more immediate improvements. I think it unlikely any of these archives will actually be accessed, but simply building them could lead to great side effects.

It's also great marketing, as I now believe that Microsoft/GitHub takes the job of not losing user data extremely seriously, more so than if they had spent an equivalent some of money buying an ad that says "We take not losing data seriously".

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> > The GitHub Arctic Code Vault is a data repository preserved in the Arctic > World Archive (AWA), a very-long-term archival facility 250 meters deep in > the permafrost of an Arctic mountain. The archive is located in a > decommissioned coal mine in the Svalbard archipelago, closer to the North > Pole than the Arctic Circle. GitHub will capture a snapshot of every active > public repository on 02/02/2020 and preserve that data in the Arctic Code > Vault.

<comment><USER14> Hope it's water tight

<comment><USER15> Unlike the svalbard seed vault: [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/19/arctic-s...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/19/arctic- stronghold-of-worlds-seeds-flooded-after-permafrost-melts)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> In a thousand years someone will inherit the ultimate legacy codebase.

<comment><USER17> At least they wouldn't be expected to maintain it running in production on some old mainframe

<comment><USER18> You've just jinxed someone.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Nice to see the Long Now Foundation involved with this. A friend of mine is a member. The work that they do is a pretty big deal given that not much of it is being done in today's culture of short term thinking.

www.longnow.org

<comment><USER20> We are thrilled to be partnering with the Long Now Foundation on this effort. They were a huge inspiration to us!

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> An interesting thought: The license of your open-source software will become irrelevant if this is cracked open in 1000 years because everything will be public domain, assuming copyright laws aren't changed drastically, but it's interesting to wonder about what future humans will think about the open- source license movement of the 1980's-to-present.

<comment><USER22> This has me wondering what is the first free or open-source software that will "fall" into the public domain, and when that will be?

<comment><USER21> Free (libre) software sort of faded into existence, simply because the notion to copyright software faded into existence, and free software sort of relies on people to consider that software can be copyrighted in the first place. "A-2 System" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-0_System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-0_System) is roughly the first open-source software, although I'm not sure an explicit license text even existed.

The second question is what will enter public domain first, business-owned software or individually-written software. If the latter, which open-source developer has died the earliest?

<comment><USER23> > If the latter, which open-source developer has died the earliest?

Can we just take a second to appreciate how downright inhumane copyright expiry is? It basically encourages _cheering for people to die_ because of copyright expiry.

<comment><USER21> I agree that it's dumb. The only clear alternative, N years after the work was created, has its own problems though, such as trying to figure out when each work was created to determine whether it's in the public domain or not.

<comment><USER24> Usually getting a upper bound on when something was first published is easier than finding out when and if some random person has died.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> How awfully convenient the news that github is literally putting an archive on ice breaks swallowing search traffic about how Github workers are resigning because they want the company to break their contract with the ICE...

<comment><USER26> Oh please, if you want to change border policy use the political process, not harangue a version control software company.

<comment><USER27> lol

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> > The 02/02/2020 snapshot archived in the GitHub Arctic Code Vault will sweep > up every active public GitHub repository, in addition to significant dormant > repos as determined by stars, dependencies, and an advisory panel.

[https://github.com/eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee/eeeeeeee...](https://github.com/eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee/eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee)

The archive team should be able to get a very good compression ratio on that repo.

</comment><comment><USER29> Is there a way to opt out of this? I'm not sure I want my code to be stored forever in a glacier with no way of deleting it.

<comment><USER30> I'm thinking I might want to opt in. What should I add to GitHub before February, to make sure it gets in the archive?

<comment><USER31> Nothing. So long as it's active, it will get archived.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Almost totally unrelated but:

> As today's vital code becomes yesterday's historical curiosity

shouldn't be "tomorrow's historical curiosity"?

<comment><USER33> Same question. If it is not wrong, could someone please explain?

<comment><USER34> Both are correct. The article's phrasing is that the code of today is "yesterday's historical curiosity" from the point of view of someone who looks at it tomorrow.

<comment><USER35> The article's phrasing doesn't seem that correct: yesterday's historical curiosity is not necessarily _today 's_ historical curiosity ( _today_ being 3000 AD).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Wait, stop, there's been a mistake! This means PHP will live on for another 1000 years!

</comment><comment><USER37> How do I submit a patch against archiveprogram.github.com? The copy contains a typo, and unlike GitLab—which has a footer at the bottom of most public-facing pages with a link back to the markdown source—there's no indicator of how to get this corrected.

</comment><comment><USER38> This effort actually touches me and brought tears to my eyes. Beautiful. Sometimes people do more amazing work than I could've imagined.

</comment><comment><USER39> Software/code rots if not touched for months. This is such a fruitless effort but does get Github some good PR. They should instead preserve ideas that make all software happen.

<comment><USER40> I find the assumption that software rots after months a sad thing. Most of that is poorly versioned libraries that change quickly. Something like the Go 1 compatibility promise means code written just against core Go should be fine if someone has the latest (maybe last) version of Go 1.

Also archeologists study rot.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> The Arctic World Archive description says: "The film technology relies on silver halides on polyester. This medium has a lifespan of 500 years as measured by the ISO; simulated aging tests indicate Piql's film will last twice as long."

Why not use a much more accessible medium like M-DISC, which claims a lifespan of at least 1,000 years? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-DISC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-DISC)

<comment><USER42> > Why not use a much more accessible medium like M-DISC

just wondering how an encoded digital format is more accessible than something printed on a transparent film that you can see by looking through it.

<comment><USER43> If it's QR codes as mentioned by people in this thread then those probably aren't easier to decode than a M-DISC would be.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> It would be interesting to include the great open databases of our time - Wikipedia, OpenStreetMap, AllTrials, various national open data portals...

</comment><comment><USER45> Cool.

I bet people in 2200 can't wait to figure out what version of node they need to run a specific gulp version from an obscure error, caused by an underlying dependency's reliance on an deprecated built-in (true story).

After figuring out that issue, they will need to debug why a specific package's version is broken, only to find out the maintainers 200 years ago hard-coded the century.

</comment><comment><USER46> I'm skeptical of the idea of static archives, especially when it comes to code. I think software is pretty much a living creature - with all of its environments and contexts and baggage. The only feasible way to survive it is to keep changing it. When it's no longer updated, we should pay a respect and bury them.

Plus, people are going to reinvent the wheel no matter what.

<comment><USER47> Common Lisp code begs to differ. It's not perfect but code that's half a century old (Lisp that's not even Common Lisp!) can run nearly untouched. It's a huge reason I write it.

<comment><USER48> I get where you're coming from, but the interpreter that you're using to run that code has been rewritten to suit the underlying architecture of your machine dozens of times in the intervening time.

I think that's what GP means, that if you don't include the "context" (interpreter, cpu architecture, power supply), you're only burying the most malleable tip of the iceberg.

It reminds me of the Zork source code that was published here some months ago. It was written in a language for which the compiler appears to have been lost. People have tried to develop compilers given the source code provided, but we can't get it to work _just_ right, because some crucial bit of context appears to be missing.

There will probably be people who maintain LISP and C for decades more, but imagine trying to write a Java or Haskell compiler with _only_ the source code for Kafka or Pandoc as your guide?

Not impossible of course, but hey, maybe you should check the source code for a JVM or ghc version (and maybe add a Linux distro and gcc for good measure) in with your source in time for the cut off date. :)

Point is, once you enumerate all of the dependencies, you realize the only solution is what GP said. Constant maintenance at _all_ levels is the only thing that keeps the ship running.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> > For greater data density and integrity, most of the data will be stored QR- > encoded

At face value, this seems like a really odd choice. I don't understand why you would choose QR encoding unless this was being printed. I feel like I'm missing something here.

<comment><USER50> It's being stored on film, according to the page.

<comment><USER49> Thanks! I somehow missed that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> I was really hoping this would simply mean enabling a "deprecated" flag for a repo.

<comment><USER20> Hey there, we have functionality in GitHub where you can archive a repo. Go here to learn how: [https://help.github.com/en/github/creating-cloning-and- archi...](https://help.github.com/en/github/creating-cloning-and-archiving- repositories/archiving-repositories)

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> It reminds me about _Google Code Archive_ [0]

[0] [https://code.google.com/archive/](https://code.google.com/archive/)

</comment><comment><USER53> Oh great, now my coding sins can live on forever!

</comment><comment><USER54> 1000 years from now, someone will find the python 3 source code and the whole world will finally upgrade their python 2 programs...

</comment><comment><USER55> Wow, are we preparing for a global catastrophe?

<comment><USER56> I think this is more in the line of

"Si vis pacem, para bellum"

Its very important to protect the civilizatory process from fallout, as severe or black-swan conditions might swipe what we have acomplished so far, and history is full of examples of advanced civilizations that were vanished and we had to dig out from the mud slowly without a chance to learn, starting all over again from scratch.

The civilizatory process is fragile and is always menaced by all sides, all the time. Its good to be always vigilant and prepared to anything.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> [https://www.softwareheritage.org/](https://www.softwareheritage.org/)

</comment><comment><USER58> will there be a computer in there that can survive 10,000 years so that you can compile the code?

<comment><USER20> I'm the PM at GitHub for the Archive Program. We aren't making the assumption that you will have computer. The archive will include a Tech Tree that explains in plain language the fundamentals of computer programming and how to use the material in the Arctic Code Vault. We will also include technical guides to QR decoding, file formats, character encodings, and other critical metadata so that the raw data can be converted back into source code for use by others in the future.

<comment><USER59> Will you publish these guides? Would make a good read.

<comment><USER20> That's the plan!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> Another great reason to store your blog on github!

</comment><comment><USER61> Ok. The program Is interesting. No more side track to other 2fa, ...

What is the issue of archiving like this may I ask.

</comment><comment><USER62> That's where come to die the MacOS open source community made irrelevant by the Apple notarization.

It's like these strange place full of dead elephant in africa.

</comment><comment><USER63> Conceptual acid test: Go to [https://archiveprogram.github.com](https://archiveprogram.github.com), then disable all CSS.

Observe: resultant web page is unusable.

<comment><USER64> How would I disable CSS in Chrome?

<comment><USER65> In Chrome DevTools you could delete the link element that includes the stylesheet.

<comment><USER64> I was able to do that (so, thank you) but don't understand what great grandparent means by unusable. I prefer it to the version with CSS (which I gave up on after about 2 seconds before getting intrigued by great grandparent). The list of partners is not rendered; is that what qualifies it as unusable, great grandparent?

(I am participating here solely out of curiosity about the web; am not trying to make any point or argue any position.)

<comment><USER63> The question is, will CSS and any other present-day tech be around in the medium-future?

We know plain text will be around.

I was surprised to find the website promoting this is tricked-out, which isn't consistent with very long-term vision of the project.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Why does searching for "cloud" on Google does not display AWS? - <AUTHOR> Its kind of ironic that Google's search results do not show Amazon Web Services, given that AWS holds 80%+ business of the cloud and still Google's results do not show AWS when you search for "cloud" or "cloud compute".  Not in the first 5 pages at least.<p>You get rest of the service providers and other articles about cloud linking to AWS, but not AWS. <comment><USER2> Cloud Drive is on the first page for me.

The AWS landing page is result 5 for "CLoud Compute," not including the "What is Cloud Computing" blurb that pops up and is itself an AWS link.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm guessing the URL doesn't contain "cloud" so it'll rank lower.</comment>


The Secret of Happiness - <AUTHOR> http://www.omswami.com/2016/06/the-secret-of-happiness.html <comment><USER2> >>> When you remain oblivious to the goodness, beauty and divinity in your life, or if you don't selflessly devote a portion of your time to a cause, life is then forced to hand you the third perspective: suffering. It may come as acute boredom, deep sadness, severe depression or a wake-up call in the form of great personal loss. Whether you want to go with the first, second or third option, the choice is yours.

>>> Himalayan lotuses don't grow in fresh water ponds, they blossom in marshes. Emptiness or unhappiness is not a dysfunction of life. It's not a malfunction of your mind. It simply means that life is telling you to reflect on yourself and your actions. It's asking you that you no longer neglect your calling or that you find one. The seed of fragrance is the very basis of your existence. When stagnation arrives, the lotus of transformation is ready to bloom. All you have to do is not oppose it.

very profound.</comment>


Ethics Question re: ToS for a Penny Auction Site - <AUTHOR>

I have recently gotten interested in a penny auction site, name withheld because I am likely violating their ToS.
All those low prices! All those people spending for bids! It piqued my interest.
So, I wrote a python script to pull some data automatically for history of bids. Then, I added some more. And some more.
Now, it keeps track of how many people are competing, and bids at the last possible second only when someone else might win, and it's very unlikely that anyone else will step in and reset the counter.
A recent auction I lost (I stepped out when the item went over my budget): the winner spent over $1,500 in bids by my estimate. I spent like $12.
So, HN, is this ethical? What should I do with this code? It's unlikely the Penny Auction site will be able to ban it without significant re-architecting. Heck, you could write it into a Chrome extension and it would be almost impossible to deal with programmatically.
I'm torn between enjoying getting cheap items now and then, open sourcing it, and getting in touch with the company to see what they think.
Advice welcomed! <comment><USER2> Is this definitely against the ToS? My feeling is that this was bound to happen. This is analogous to ebay sniping services, no? Even if they don't like it happening, I would be surprised if this didn't become fairly commonplace. Worst case scenario (though IANAL so I don't know if there could possibly be any legal action taken) is that your IP / account gets banned for violating the ToS.

As a thought exercise, can this really hurt their business? As you mentioned, $1500+ was spent in bids alone. Even if you won, only the other person lost, not the auction site. Now when everyone starts doing this, everyone uses this software to bid up to their budget, and we're back to square one. So long as people have competitive budgets, bidding just continues as normal.

<comment><AUTHOR> The ToS bans robots, so they clearly wish it to be against their ToS.

I am not clear at what level it's enforceable, other than banning me, probably they would not be allowed to keep anything of value I'm waiting to claim.

It seems clear so far that I have an advantage against non-bot-using bidders; I wouldn't like that if I were the CEO of the company, or if I were a bidder dutifully clicking over and over. I am not sure if it's unfair or not, hence the Ethics question here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Penny auction sites are like slot machines: The House always wins. It shouldn't be possible to trick the public interface (if they've coded it right), so any bid placed will make them money. In fact, warring bots will only increase their profit, so they probably won't invoke the ToS, UNLESS it is also profitable for them to disqualify your winning bid, then put the item up for auction again, without reimbursing earlier losing bids.

But you don't mention having actually won anything, so unless you have, don't be so sure that your script is worth anything.

<comment><AUTHOR> I haven't won anything yet, but there are only a few very expensive items auctioned per day. I lost one today -- my algorithm thought it likely someone else would outbid and it was wrong. Bummer! Again, I spent roughly one-sixth of the winner's bids.

I may turn this into an EC2 backed service on reflection, but of course, I need to win something first. ; ).

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Or turning it into a weekend project, and launching it as a service, that could be another possibility.

</comment><comment><USER4> cross reference cost/quality for various popular products on the penny auction with eBay and sell what you can.</comment>


What Neil and Buzz Left on the Moon - <AUTHOR> http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/21jul_llr/ <comment><USER2> probably a minor and tedious point, but it bugs me when journalists do this:

> (3) The universal force of gravity is very stable. Newton's gravitational > constant G has changed less than 1 part in 100-billion since the laser > experiments began.

technically worded correctly, but this language implies that we know it IS changing, by some small but non-zero amount.

actually, we haven't detected any change at all - so there's every chance it's NOT changing - but if it is, it's changed less than this small amount which our instruments won't measure more accurately than.

> No variation of the gravitational constant is discernible, (dG/dt) / G = > (0.0±1.1)x10–12 /yr

[http://ilrs.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/williams_lw13.pdf](http://ilrs.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/williams_lw13.pdf)

<comment><USER3> Can you explain how that reconcile with this recent news?[0] "Their tests yielded a new G value of 6.67545 × 10−11 m3⁄kg s2, which is higher than the current accepted value by about 240 parts per million"

Of course, that particular experiment could just have had some corrupting factors, but how do you know what experiments support a constant value and which ones don't without approaching tautology?

[0] [http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/09/high- gravitational...](http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/09/high- gravitational-constant/)

<comment><USER4> G is notoriously hard to measure accurately.

Wikipedia's entry on the topic suggests that you read a 1997 review paper at [http://iopscience.iop.org/0034-4885/60/2/001](http://iopscience.iop.org/0034-4885/60/2/001) . That abstract starts:

> Improvements in our knowledge of the absolute value of the Newtonian > gravitational constant, G, have come very slowly over the years. Most other > constants of nature are known (and some even predictable) to parts per > billion, or parts per million at worst. However, G stands mysteriously > alone, its history being that of a quantity which is extremely difficult to > measure and which remains virtually isolated from the theoretical structure > of the rest of physics. Several attempts aimed at changing this situation > are now underway, but the most recent experimental results have once again > produced conflicting values of G and, in spite of some progress and much > interest, there remains to date no universally accepted way of predicting > its absolute value.

The Wired article confirms that it's hard to measure, with some examples of the difficulties.

However, G* M is not hard to measure accurately. We believe the Earth gains about 100,000 kg per year from meteors, and in any case, the Moon and the Earth have changed by much less than one part in a million over the last few decades. So any change in G* M should be due to a change in G, even if we can't measure G directly.

This is of course also why we don't know the mass of the Earth better than a few hundred parts per million.

<comment><USER5> It's precisely because almost all gravitational dynamics are controlled by G*M (for some M) that G is so poorly-known. We're forced to do terrestrial experiments, and they're extremely difficult.

G is very seductive. It seems obvious that we should be able to measure a fundamental constant of nature to better than 14 ppm (or, if you take the scatter of current measurements, 100s of ppm), but it's really really hard.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > (1) The moon is spiraling away from Earth at a rate of 3.8 cm per year. Why? > Earth's ocean tides are responsible.

What a terrible explanation. I've done a physics course or two so I understand the physical process of how ocean tides are responsible (I think). But for your average person that's just silly.

Q. How do trees grow? A. Nuclear Fusion

<comment><USER6> exo762's reply is making my head hurt so here's a link in case you're curious as to how the tides are making the moon spiral outwards.

[http://www.windows2universe.org/kids_space/moon_orbit.html](http://www.windows2universe.org/kids_space/moon_orbit.html)

TL; DR - The earth's rotation drags the tidal bulge faster than the moon's orbit slowing the earth and giving more energy to the moon which moves it into a higher orbit.

<comment> Tuna-Fish ... I've known about the widening orbit of the moon, but I only just realized that if the moon was rotating in a different direction, it would eventually spiral down to the earth.

Imagine living on such a planet, with a large gravity capture moon, that provides a definite sell by date to living on the surface.

<comment><USER7> Was thinking about that too. It is sad that the moon is leaving us, but the opposite would be a lot worse. Could we survive such an event? Perhaps by chilling on Mars for a few thousand? years.

<comment> Tuna-Fish Few thousand would be lowballing it rather lot. An impact of that magnitude would melt the entire surface, boil the oceans, and strip off the atmosphere. It would take hundreds of millions of years for earth to recover, if it ever would.

Also, Mars is not that hospitable to life. The best option I see would be putting as much people and industry in orbit as possible, and try to live from asteroids.

<comment><USER8> > An impact of that magnitude

It wouldn't be an impact. For the moon to reduce its orbit to the point that it impacted the earth it would be moving rather slow as orbital objects go.

It would be more of a gradual merging as chunks of rock and ocean moved between the two bodies.

<comment><USER9> Exactly. See: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roche_limit](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roche_limit)

Basically, in this scenario the moon would either come down in chunks or would form a set of rings.

<comment><USER7> Yes, I was thinking a -3.8cm per year rate, and did contemplate the "squishing" that the moon Io has to deal with. Just pulled the timeframe from my rear end, probably would take that long just to get the process started. :/

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Isn't this what they did on the Big Bang Theory? I remember an episode when they shot a laser at the moon to ping it.

</comment><comment><USER11> Is it possible for anyone to use that reflector to calculate the earth-moon distance? What kind of laser is used for this? Do we know the precise location of the reflector?

<comment><USER12> There is a Mythbusters episode about moon landing hoax conspiracy theories where the hosts visited an observatory to test the lunar retro reflectors.

The laser they used was pretty big (don't know/remember the numbers) but the more impressive part was the detector. Despite the huge laser, just a handful of photons make it there and back and twice through the atmosphere.

Overall it didn't look like something you do on your back yard with off the shelf equipment, but it might be doable by a motivated hackerspace crew with a lot of time and some money on their hands.

<comment><AUTHOR> best issue a 'notice to airmen' if you go this route, pointing multiple-tens- of-watt lasers skyward is going to get you into a lot of trouble if you're not careful about it.

<comment><USER12> Yes, better report to the authorities _before_ you go waving a huge laser at the moon. In my home country, owning a laser this big requires a permit in the first place. You would definitely need to report it to the local aviation authority, who would re-route flights and notify aviators.

A few weeks ago there was a music festival with some big laser decorations and they actually changed the approach path to the largest airport in the country for the weekend.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> how can people still deny that we went to the moon when that thing has been sitting there since? Id think that those people who think that there was no moon landing would have done a fair amount of research about it, and would have learned of the existence of this man made thing there.

<comment><USER14> I don't think humans have walked on the moon. I wouldn't bet my life on it, and I don't have a complete narrative as to the why/how of it, but I'd put the odds at over 50%.

It's something of a technological anomaly. A few years back the Apollo program had been in complete shambles, burning the Apollo 1 astronauts to death. 30-40 years later, we are still crash landing probes into the surface of planets and blowing up space shuttles. But for a few years starting in 1969 we routinely soft landed a rocket on an unmapped alien surface, and then launched it again and docked with the command module orbiting at 3000 mph? It just doesn't seem to "fit".

I've seen enough historical examples to know that you CAN dupe most people most of the time.

Most people seem to be convinced by the "social proof". I really believe if it were the other way around, no one had heard of the moon landings, and you were going around telling people "no really, we landed on the moon, drove a car around on it and played golf!" ... that you would be completely ridiculed.

Anyway, not here to start a huge debate, just providing an answer to a question.

<comment><USER15> The problem with moon hoax theories is that, in the modern day, we're accustomed to extremely realistic CGI. What we don't realize is that in 1969, it would have been harder to _FAKE_ the moon landings than to _actually land on the moon_.

This video explains why: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGXTF6bs1IU](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGXTF6bs1IU)

<comment><USER16> > in 1969, it would have been harder to FAKE the moon landings than to > actually land on the moon.

All true, and it would have been much, much harder to keep it all completely secret for decades. Virtually no secrets survive that long.

<comment><USER17> > _completely secret for decades. Virtually no secrets survive that long._

How do you know that? If a secret _did_ last for decades, you wouldn't know about it.

I can actually give a couple counterexamples: two _big_ government secrets that lasted 3 decades:

(1) A US bomber accidentally dropped a hydrogen bomb out of an airplane into the dessert near Albuquerque, New Mexico, triggering a conventional but non- nuclear detonation. This happened in 1957 but was kept secret until 1986 -- a span of 29 years. "It was only in 1986 when an Albuquerque newspaper published an account based on military documents recovered through the Freedom of Information Act." (ref: [http://www.hkhinc.com/newmexico/albuquerque/doomsday/](http://www.hkhinc.com/newmexico/albuquerque/doomsday/) )

(2) The British were regularly reading encrypted German messages by around 1940. The codebreaking of the German Enigma machine was one of the greatest secrets of World War 2, and the British shared the knowledge with the Americans. This secret was revealed in 1974--after 34 years--because of two books by key intelligence figures. (ref: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra#Post- war_disclosures](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra#Post-war_disclosures) )

In both cases, at least dozens of people--but more likely hundreds of people-- would have been privy to the secrets.

I'm certainly not endorsing conspiracy theories about fake moon landings. I'm commenting only about the persistent meme that big secrets are quickly exposed: it's not necessarily true.

<comment><USER16> >> completely secret for decades. Virtually no secrets survive that long.

> How do you know that? If a secret did last for decades, you wouldn't know > about it.

No, I meant secrets that quickly came out (that weren't secret for long), versus things that were only revealed after a long time. It's a reasonable yardstick for the degree that things can be kept secret "for decades", my claim.

Things that really have remained secret:

* Where Jimmy Hoffa's body is buried.

* What happened to Judge Crater ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Force_Crater](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Force_Crater))

* What women want. Freud famously asked. but no one knows, certainly not women. This may belong in a different category, since it's not clear that anyone knows the secret.

> A US bomber accidentally dropped a hydrogen bomb out of an airplane into the > dessert near Albuquerque, New Mexico, triggering a conventional but non- > nuclear detonation. This happened in 1957 but was kept secret until 1986

So that's in the never-revealed secrets column? Just checking.

> This secret [Enigma] was revealed in 1974--after 34 years--because of two > books by key intelligence figures.

Actually, it was because of the British Official Secrets Act, that required silence on sensitive matters until the government granted permission, and that was obeyed by all concerned. The books were't simply published, after due consideration they were vetted by the authorities in advance of publication. That example belongs in the well-kept secrets act, because everyone involved obeyed the rules until given permission to do otherwise. If it had been a 50 year silence requirement, I suspect that it would still have been obeyed.

But I think you'll agree that rare exceptions don't disprove rules.

> I'm commenting only about the persistent meme that big secrets are quickly > exposed: it's not necessarily true.

Not "quickly exposed", that's not a position I took. Thirty or forty years is sufficient validation for my original claim.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> LRRR/CTD: Lunar Ranging Retro Reflector/Conspiracy Theory Demolisher

<comment><USER19> In what way does this demolish the various conspiracy theories? When confronted with evidence of man-made items on the Moon, the tin-foilers just say they were put there by robots.

Or aliens.

<comment><USER20> Well, technically, you could argue that the Apollo astronauts WERE aliens while they were on the moon.

<comment><USER7> Yea we're aliens!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> [http://www.startalkradio.net](http://www.startalkradio.net) \-- Latest episode (Part 1) with Buzz Aldrin was very good. Next week for Part 2.

</comment><comment><USER22> It always puzzles me that most people think that only Armstrong and Aldrin went to the Moon, although 12 men have walked on its surface.

May be it's me but I couldn't help thinking that the title of this article seems to help spread that idea: only Neil & Buzz went to the Moon, and it happened only once.

<comment><USER23> TFA does go on to reference "reflectors in the Sea of Tranquility (Apollo 11), at Fra Mauro (Apollo 14) and Hadley Rille (Apollo 15), and, sometimes, in the Sea of Serenity. There's a set of mirrors there onboard the parked Soviet Lunokhud 2 moon rover..."

That would sort of imply that it happened more than once. I do wonder, though, why the Sea of Serenity doesn't get a mission name tied to it.

<comment><USER24> "I do wonder, though, why the Sea of Serenity doesn't get a mission name tied to it."

1) Too depressing that 17 was probably the last time a human being will ever visit the moon, so lets not talk about it.

2) General lack of selenological (is that even a word?) knowledge. Its like saying I've never visited Ireland, although I have been to Dublin and Galway and a couple places in between, or some similar static type language failure like that. The armchair lawyers like to point out that the mission planners didn't use that name on the map for the landing, but the scientists in charge of the reflector did, or something along those lines.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Wasn't this covered in an episode of Big Bang Theory? AKA the fount of relevant scientific knowledge..

<comment><USER26> Yes, in the episode called "The Lunar Excitaion" ([http://bigbangtheory.wikia.com/wiki/The_Lunar_Excitation](http://bigbangtheory.wikia.com/wiki/The_Lunar_Excitation)), it's Season 3, Episode 23, aired first on May 24 2010.</comment></comment>


Flutter: Forbes Had It Right - <AUTHOR> https://www.ardanlabs.com/blog/2019/11/flutter-forbes-had-it-right.html <comment><USER2>
        That's six platforms you can release to
        while needing only one team to write the code.

Now you can disappoint more users than ever before with nonstandard UX!</comment>


Unmasking the father of high frequency trading - <AUTHOR> http://fortune.com/2014/06/10/high-frequency-trading-origins/ <comment><USER2> Tldr; Not really the father of hft.</comment>


7 reasons the tech sector should be scared - <AUTHOR> http://www.sfchronicle.com/technology/article/Has-the-tech-bubble-popped-and-we-just-haven-t-6775865.php <comment><USER2> Paywalled

<comment><USER3> click the "web" link above.</comment></comment>


Attention Disorder or Not, Pills to Help in School - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/09/health/attention-disorder-or-not-children-prescribed-pills-to-help-in-school.html?ref=ushttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/09/health/attention-disorder-or-not-children-prescribed-pills-to-help-in-school.html <comment><USER2> ADHD as a binary diagnosis seems odd to me. It seems within a normal range of spectrum that we're all on. Modern schooling and white collar work are so radically different from the environment where we evolved that it's surprising how well we've adapted.

Clearly ADHD medications work, which is wonderful. But why do we need to label people with a "disorder" in order to give them the meds?

Why is psychiatry so dead set on binary yes/no diagnoses, and labeling everything as a disorder? Is that the consequence of having to code records for insurance? Something related to prescription laws? Or is it an underlying mistake in psychiatry to think there is one right way to be, and other states are wrong?

<comment><USER3> _Clearly ADHD medications work, which is wonderful. But why do we need to label people with a "disorder" in order to give them the meds?_

The drug war paranoia makes it necessary. So does the bureaucratic system that allows only people with an official diagnosis to obtain any kind of medication, even mood modifiers that are inherently subtle and personal.

Well, it doesn't prohibit all kinds of medication. Lots of people who are using adderall (also known as amphetamines, benzedrine, or dexedrine -- a popular self-administered medicine until the 1970s) and the like would be using truly dangerous tobacco and liquor if amphetamines were not available.

It's not about insurance. The pills themselves are very cheap to make and most formulations are not under patent.

As long as we need to put people in jail for using these substances, we're going to need a way to mark whose use is legitimate and whose isn't. Measuring who has health insurance and a good stable relationship with a doctor is a good way to tell whom to imprison and whom not to.

Methamphetamine incidentally is different from adderall only by a single methyl moiety and has almost indistinguishable clinical effect in matched doses, though meth has longer lasting side effects due to the hydrophobic methyl group allowing the medicine to persist longer in fatty tissues.

<comment><USER4> I think one of the differences with Methamphetamine is that it can and generally is smoked which gives a much quicker onset and rush which makes it more addictive.

<comment><USER5> Not exactly. Only one form of methamphetamine is psychologically active, the dextrotatory enantiomer. It's different from dextroamphetamine in that it contains a methyl group that makes it more lipid-soluble, which helps it cross the blood-brain barrier more easily and protects it from being broken down by MAO enzymes.

Dexedrine is the brand name for dextroamphetamine, the dextrorotatory stereo- isomer of amphetamine.

About 75% of Adderall is dextroamphetamine. The other 25% is composed of three other amphetamine salts.

The main reason methampetamine is smokeable is because it is sold on the street in fairly racemic crystal form (i.e. it contains both the active dextrotatory and levorotatory forms). If adderall, dexedrine and other prescription amphetamine salts were sold in the same form, free of the inert binders, they'd be smokeable too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This article conflates a lot of mental health topics via the lens/story of single family that unfortunately has a wide range of behavior difficulties.

Risperdal is mentioned in the same breath as the standard ADHD precriptions. This is an anti psychotic which is meant to be prescribed to help manage recurrent aggressive / violent behavior and has a huge slew of side effects.

In contrast, most prescription stimulants used to treat (actual) ADHD have no side effects that persist after the cessation of taking the medication.

Likewise, it is well established fact that ADHD medications such as Adderall and Concerta are only effective when coupled with behavior therapy of some sort.

The larger picture behind this is that these adhd medications when taken at their recommended dosages help to make it easier to enter a focused state (as in the metaphorical sense of reducing the activation energy for a chemical reaction), and so direct efforts to develop the habits/ behaviors that are difficult with unmanaged ADHD are needed to attain any long term value out of ADHD medication.

point being: nothing new in this article, just lots of anecdote and a story built out of a single families mental health issues. Like wise the statistic that relevant diagnoses are increasing + a handy quote from a single doctor does not establish a systematic trend that should call to question the validity of a health condition.

this is also separate from the question of whether a school system designed around the time of the industrial revolution is still appropriate today

<comment><USER7> I think you nailed it in your last sentence. Where are the articles that point out how industrial 'batch' education is no longer serving kids of the present (the future)?

<comment><USER8> Well, as the article says, it's cheaper to medicate children than to change the environment. That includes the educational system.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I know techy types who like technological solutions and probably felt they benefited from using such drugs are overrepresented on this site, but did no one else register the defeatist, victimhood justifications for using the drugs?

Trying to solve a social problem with technology misses the point. I highlight these two quotes:

From the article: "I don't have a whole lot of choice," said Dr. Anderson, a pediatrician for many poor families in Cherokee County, north of Atlanta. "We've decided as a society that it's too expensive to modify the kid's environment. So we have to modify the kid."

 _We have to modify the kid???_

Also from the article: "We are effectively forcing local community psychiatrists to use the only tool at their disposal, which is psychotropic medications."

 _the only tool???_

Modifying human beings because we have no alternative? If you ask me, the side effects of this approach are not just the potential side effects of the drug on the individual, but complacency in not addressing the problems' causes, creating dependency of a social class on a drug, teaching children to take drugs to solve problems, creating a belief we have no alternatives, perpetuating a system that bores children and punishing them for their boredom, and so on.

Does nobody else wonder what other unintended consequences such a policy might create, independent of the drugs' safety or not?

<comment><USER10> This is kind of reflective of health care in general actually. The system in use (this isn't just the United States by the way, it's most of the Western world) is that we live in some state of 'healthiness' for most of our lives, where we do not interact regularly with health professionals (not just doctors) - except perhaps a pharmacist to fill some regular prescription.

Our interactions are clustered -after- we are deamed unhealthy. Only once the need is most urgent do try to become 'healthy' again. This predictably leads to a culture that favours drugs and surgery as solutions. This is so engrained that health care practically IS synonymous with drugs and surgery. This bias exists in everyone, from the health care professionals, to those who are sick, to those to who are healthy, to those who would lead us. We all have it.

The 'unintended consequences' of such a policy are the problems facing nearly all 1st world health care systems. Surging costs, potentially unsustainable growth, constant doubts of effectiveness (and actual questionable effectiveness in some areas), and in general, a culture that more or less treats staying healthy as a bang-bang control system.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Just checked what the attitude on Adderall is here in Japan. From ministry of health site ([http://kouseikyoku.mhlw.go.jp/kantoshinetsu/gyomu/bu_ka/shid...](http://kouseikyoku.mhlw.go.jp/kantoshinetsu/gyomu/bu_ka/shido_kansa/documents/qa_bringmedicines_070618.pdf)):

"Nobody can bring any medicine containing Methamphetamine or Amphetamine (Adderall and so on) into Japan. If you are found with any medicine containing Methamphetamine or Amphetamine illegally in Japan, you can be arrested as a criminal on the spot, immediately, without a warrant in principle."

<comment><USER12> Japan had an amphetamine epidemic in the 1950s, and has had a major down on them ever since. Asian countries in general seem to treat drug problems as something foisted on them by western imperialists, a belief for which there is _some_ historical basis; but it has also become a convenient narrative that's preferable to the loss of face involved in admitting that any of one's citizens might have a tendency towards abusing drugs or be disenchanted with the status quo.

<comment><USER13> Drug problem is not a political, but social one. It is connected with lower- class unemployment and general despair. Take a look at modern Russia - it is a disaster.

<comment> guard-of-terra Modern Russia seems to suffer more from alchohol than from drugs.

"War on drugs" seems dubious at best since according to official statistics my sub-division of Moscow has 7 times more alchoholics than it has drug addicsts (20000 vs 3000 if you're wondering, taken from a newspaper, don't think the number is any accurate but tend to believe the ballpark)

Efforts are made to make alchohol harder to buy with mixed result (but "mixed result" is one step better than "no result" we see from the worldwide war on drugs)

<comment><USER13> It is all much more complicated. Alcoholism affects mostly adult population, while drugs is mostly problem of adolescents. Sure, young are also getting drunk routinely, but it affects them much less, and habit isn't that strong.

A typical adult in Russia has so ruined, that he needs very small dosage and it affect him so heavy, transforms to almost an animal state. Young also have less tendency to abandon everything and just drink for weeks - they has much deeper social ties.

Drugs, on the other hand, creates fast and much stronger addiction, they also changes the mind, the attitude towards the world and life itself much deeper.

Another important factor is that dopers die very quickly, and you cannot see them suffering on the streets as you could see drunks whenever you happen to look. Usually, only close relatives have involved in a tragedy and it doesn't last too long - a year, on average, while drunkards could survive for decades..

So, problem is here. "War on drugs", is, of course, way to steal more money, not to offer any help with causes.

Government is involved because it affects their interests. A totalitarian state needs a cheap, unskilled workforce to build an assets and create wealth for the top-tier, but it need them sane and healthy. They cannot recruit sick slaves to serve in Army or to work on a construction sites. That is why there is a this "war on drugs" posters on the every wall.

And of course no body cares what older population does. If they going to die from alcoholism - that good for the government - less pension spending.

This is just a very rough outlook.)

<comment> guard-of-terra Drugs can create fast and much stronger addiction, but I can't say I see it actually happening much. Neither there are statisics suggesting that it happens at scale. Of course, some addicts presumably exist, but not enough to convert the problem from political one to social one (in observable Russia at least).

It still seems the main reason for war on drugs is mining government money and political leverage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> What annoys me with this, is are we going to get kids going through school, graduating from University, while taking amphetamines and then coming into the software industry and working 18 hour days without breaking a sweat?

If so, where's _my_ option to get these meds? Oh wait, I can't because I'm not ADHD, and because I wasn't "diagnosed" as a kid, it won't happen now.

I really hope the older programmers in our industry won't have to compete with people-on-drugs in the future... but it'll happen won't it?

<comment><USER15> Aren't racetams a superior alternative anyway, and more easily available?

<comment><USER16> Superior how? Last I checked there was 0 solid research linking them to pretty much any effect whatsoever.

<comment><USER17> Racetams, and in particular piracetam, have been studied in an extensive number of clinical experiments. Their effects aren't poorly understood.

<http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=piracetam>

You might want to filter the research by time to get more recent studies, but there's a vast body of knowledge built over decades.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> What attention is being paid to the potential long term effect of these stimulants on the serotonergic & dopaminergic systems of these young people's brains? Prescribing such powerful neurotoxins to young people who's brains are still very much in a developmental stage seems risky to say the least.

<comment><USER19> <http://www.erowid.org/experiences/exp.php?ID=67797> <http://www.erowid.org/experiences/exp.php?ID=22166> <http://www.erowid.org/experiences/exp.php?ID=47529>

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Some of the more hazardous side effects of adderall: • Dangerous increase in blood pressure • Tachycardia or a high pulse rate • Irregular heart rate • Difficulty breathing • Chest pain • Allergic reaction that includes swelling and redness in the eyes or throat • Migraine headaches • Syncope or losing consciousness • Blurry or double vision • Seizure activity and excessive and uncontrollable shaking • Extreme nervousness and paranoid delusions • Mood swings that include hostility and severe aggression • Depression

<comment><USER21> Also note that during college I was a 6'2, 210lb guy who experienced these effects from adderall with as low as a 10mg dosage. Some kids are prescribed 2-3 times that amount. Luckily for me, I decided it wasn't worth the side effects and I'd rather deal with any attention problems on my own. I feel sorry for the kids who never had the choice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I find it interesting to what lengths parents go to improve their children's grades. The fact that grades indeed go up after taking those pills just make this worse: people believe to see "measurable" success.

"We've decided as a society that it's too expensive to modify the kid's environment. So we have to modify the kid." - To me that is the gist of the article. We failed to provide an enjoyable learning experience for kids, so we have to make them enjoy it.

<comment><USER23> Or we just switch off the bits inside them that yearn for enjoyment in the first place. Our kids are either academic robots or suffering from a disorder of being human, and thus imperfect.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Pills are for the symptoms, not for the causes. The same holds for depressions and anxiety disorders.

Cognitive-behavior therapy is the way to re-train, re-program, unlearn a wrong habit.

There are sub-conscious habits, of course, which we cannot "see" without a training.

<comment><USER24> How is a neurochemical imbalance a wrong habit?

<comment><USER13> It is an effect, usually of flawed behavior. It is not hard-wired or even inherited.

One might have some genetic predisposition, say, a sensitive Amigdala or whatever it is, but even then it is possible to behave in such way that you will keep the level of arousal very low.

It doesn't mean you will not get aroused quickly, it means you will not stay in a permanent overload of stress hormones, but return to a calm and relaxed state very quickly.

Unless you have any organic damages or trauma or infection, your mental states and habitual emotional patterns could be successfully altered.

<comment><USER24> _It is an effect, usually of flawed behavior._

I'd love to see some peer-reviewed citations on this because, honestly, it sounds like New Age wishful bullshit.

<comment><USER13> Actually, it comes from very old ages.

Is there any peer-review of Tibetan medicine?)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I wouldn't be surprised if he loses his license for saying this. I've seen other doctors lose theirs for prescribing it too much. The government is really strict on this one, even mandating production limits.

</comment><comment><USER26> I've lived my whole life with untreated ADHD, and experienced issues all across life because of it, not just work or school. It took many months to get the proper treatment for it (i.e. medications), and perhaps it's a good thing it's that difficult.

But if I encounter anyone who has the "everyone has trouble focusing" crab mentality that I've had told to me, even by psychiatrists themselves, I'll punch them square in the jaw.

</comment><comment><USER27> I have already seen this Simpson episode <http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Brothers_Little_Helper>

Since 1999, the name of the drug was changed but the debate seems exactly the same.

</comment><comment> guard-of-terra I see the main problem of said pills in the following: Schools are boring, horrible and pointless experience. But if you're drugged enough you may just ignore that and happily buzz along like a zombie. Which in turn will lead you to not becoming angry with this crap, and not using yourself to change schools in the future.

Drugs for children seem to breed conformists. And conformism is bad because it ignores problems until they overhelm and crush the society.

</comment><comment><USER28> "All the medicated geniuses"</comment>


Show HN: Skynet Today, a site of informed and accessible coverage of AI news - <AUTHOR> https://www.skynettoday.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hi HN!

Been working on this project for a while, hope you dig it!

Also, everyone working on it does it in their free time, and we could still use more help (with front end dev too!) , please get in touch if you might be interested - [https://www.skynettoday.com/contact](https://www.skynettoday.com/contact)</comment>


Semi-transparent solar panels allow concurrent production of crops and power - <AUTHOR> https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/aenm.202001189 <comment><USER2> My mother ayed tomatoes in the spring when it was still cool. She covered them with clear plastic bags as she always has. But she needed one more bag so she used a blue recycling bag on one of the plants. Blue tinged really it's almost clear.

I pointed out to her one of the plants had yellow leaves. It was the plant with the blue bag.

Later in the summer the blue bag plant produced fruit just like the other plants. But the bottom of each tomato was disfigured and looked rotten but it was dry to the touch. It's blossom rot due to low calcium. I have to wonder if it was the blue bag or lack of/too much water. All the plants got the same nutrients only this one had the blue bag. It got red light and green light which plants don't need but no blue light.

Plants are seemingly very sensitive to sunlight quality. I'm sure the solar panels are clear but even a slight colour blockage may be harmful.

It was an interesting result.

<comment><USER3> The ratio of red and blue light controls various functions of a plant. In the context of aquarium plants, more red light makes them get tall and leggy, more blue light makes them be compact and bushy.

[https://gpnmag.com/article/effects-of-blue-light-on- plants/](https://gpnmag.com/article/effects-of-blue-light-on-plants/) talks a bit about it in the context of greenhouses and tomatoes, the picture in the middle shows 6 plants grown with wildly different red/blue ratios.

If the balance of the light coming through your solar panel was problematic, you could always filter out some of the overabundant light.

<comment><USER4> Is that how they know how close to the surface of the water they are?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Only people who spend most of their life in densely crowded cities could think that the planet has so little space that you'd need to grow crops underneath solar panels for efficiency's sake.

<comment><USER6> And only someone blind to the ecological damage that agriculture does would regard all that land as free to use by humans, without consequences.

Here [0] is a map of the world's remaining wilderness. Notice how it's nearly all desert, with the exception of the Amazon rainforest. And hey, guess what's happening to that?

We _are_ short of space. And time.

[0] [https://images.theconversation.com/files/256144/original/fil...](https://images.theconversation.com/files/256144/original/file-20190129-39344-xlctan.jpg)

<comment><USER7> Granted that the desert is effectively ideal for solar panels, and less useful for agriculture.

An interesting application of this technology would be building solar arrays along the edge of advancing deserts, with shade-tolerant plants with the sort of root systems which have been shown to halt and reverse desertification.

It's easier to do good things (such as halting the inexorable spread of the Sahara) if the operation is revenue-positive. Even though this would be more labor and less energy than just putting up a panel farm and calling it a day, it's more of a return on investment than the big old zero you'd get from just planting to try and fix dunes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Not just crops and power. I know a guy whose startup is using transparent solar panels in Germany on eco-friendly buildings with grass on roofs, to get power and eco-cooling, as well as Oxygen production - at least that is how he explained it. The concept is called green-roofs. Unfortunately I don't remember his startup's name.

A link with details about the concept, minus the use of transparent solar panels: [https://buildingradar.com/construction-blog/green- roofs/](https://buildingradar.com/construction-blog/green-roofs/)

<comment><USER9> The oxygen claim doesn't inspire confidence.

Plants don't produce any useful amount of oxygen, and real scientists know that.

<comment><USER10> A thing that they are good at however, is lowering temperatures in cities (compared to e.g. stone surfaces which store the warmth of the sun) – this alone might be a good reason to look into green roofs, given that we just passed the point of no return for Greenland's ice sheet recently.

It takes the same amount of energy to melt 1kg of 0°C ice into 0°C water as it takes to heat 1kg of 0°C water to 80°C.

<comment><USER9> I wonder how that compares to white painted or even reflective roofs?

The paint solutions don't require a gardener at least.

<comment><USER11> Usual white painted surfaces get hot too. And if you use some superhigh- reflectivity surface, you have to keep it clean.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> So this technique reduces the sunlight the plants receive by about 57% but only reduces biomass growth by about 30%. It's very interesting. I imagine you could enclose the sides with glass or plastic and make a greenhouse from it. That makes me wonder if the reduction in growth wouldn't be offset by the ability to extend the growing season.

<comment><USER13> > I imagine you could enclose the sides with glass or plastic and make a > greenhouse from it

FTA - that's why they tested on basil and spinach. Both crops are commonly grown in greenhouses

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> There's no shortage of open area to put solar panels. If we put a (nearly) continuous strip in every highway median, that would be a huge step forward, and still take up practically zero useable space. Even 1% of the federally owned land in the sun belt would generate an enormous amount of power.

<comment><USER15> "if the government were to take over the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in five year" \-- Milton Friedman (exaggerating, somewhat)

Better to put them on home roofs, and arrange for them to be owned by the homeowners, designed so that the occupants are (literally) empowered when the grid is mismanaged, as in California.

On highway medians control is more centralized, and they would require more maintenance and cleaning, which would be more disruptive in that location.

<comment><USER16> Rooftop photovoltaic is currently more expensive, less efficient, and surprisingly dangerous to install. Solar _thermal_ designs actually benefit from being on rooftops.

As to dust, economies of scale make a huge difference. It's rarely worth it, but using a farm truck to spray water across miles of panels is much more efficient than tens of thousands of homeowners doing the same.

<comment><USER7> It's also unattractive, which should matter to us.

Much of the distinctive beauty of traditional building in sunny areas comes from the roofs.

Solar tiling, which is still not a mature technology, doesn't add danger: we have to put _something_ on a roof, and if installing solar tile takes extra time, it isn't by much. And it looks good.

Less efficient and more expensive? Sure. But as the meme would have it, it's free real estate. And since we're living through a grotesque failure of robustness on a civilizational scale, let me point out that it's more robust as well, particularly combined with on-site batteries.

<comment><USER17> Why do they count as unattractive? It seems that the "definition" of eyesore is wholey independent of aesthetics and entirely based upon if it is functional and new. Old windmills, steam engine trains, and canals are considered quaint, wind turbines, shipping canals and modern trains are considered "visual pollution". Modern art fixtures often deliberately defy all rules of structure and aesthetics and don't get tarred with this. I only have weird hypothesises as for why.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I cannot imagine the revolution that solar power will produce if it can fall another 3-5x in the next 10 years. It is already at grid parity.

Although my personal hope is for storage, inverters, controllers and other technologies to get cheaper. Especially longer term storage beyond 4 hours.

<comment><USER19> I think it's unlikely you see any fossil generation in the mix in 10 years except in the most remote of locations (with no solar or wind potential).

Wind and solar are already around 2 cents/kWh utility scale, and batteries are catching up. No fossil or nuclear generation can compete with that.

<comment><USER20> > Batteries are catching up.

Are they? The US consumes 11.5TWh of electricity daily. It's estimated that it needs 3 weeks if storage to get to 100% carbon free [1]. By comparison global battery production in 2019 was 300GWh [2]. Even if you factor in the fact that the curve of battery production is rising, it'd take decades to fullfil just the US's storage demands with batteries. There are other storage options like hydroelectricity and pumping air into mineshafts, but those are geographically limited.

1\. [https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/03/01/12-hours-energy- stora...](https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/03/01/12-hours-energy- storage-80-percent-wind-solar/)

2\. [https://cleantechnica.com/2019/04/14/global-lithium-ion- batt...](https://cleantechnica.com/2019/04/14/global-lithium-ion-battery- planned-capacity-update-9-growth-in-a-single-month-march-charts/amp/)

<comment><USER21> Or stacking blocks

[https://qz.com/1355672/stacking-concrete-blocks-is-a- surpris...](https://qz.com/1355672/stacking-concrete-blocks-is-a-surprisingly- efficient-way-to-store-energy/)

<comment><USER20> Apparently each of these structures stores 20 MWh of energy. By comparison, the US consumes 11.5 TWh of electricity daily. To reach the 12 hours of storage estimated to be necessary to reach 80% renewable generation we'd need 287,500 of these towers. To reach the 3 weeks of storage necessary for 100% renewable generation we'd need 12,075,000 of these towers.

<comment><USER7> The former is easily achievable, if the towers are profitable to install. We only have to build them one at a time, and if a collection of 10-50 is cheaper than a peaker gas plant, then the utility decommissions the latter and builds the former.

The latter is simply not necessary. There are a number of ways to solve the last few percent, including leaving a few peaker plants running; presumably, we'll do all of them.

Those peakers can be carbon-neutral, because it's possible to run CO2 extractors. One implication of our renewables is that there are times when they generate power considerably in excess of requirements: using that energy to sequester carbon is plausible.

Of course, if we got over our civilizational horror of nuclear energy, we could solve this problem in a thorough and boring way. I'm not holding my breath.

<comment><USER21> Thorium reactors or pebble bed reactors might be options. The only reason we have the current designs is due to the us navies need to build a reactor that would fit on submarines and ships. That technology became the basis for our deployed reactors. Since then nothing else has been tried outside of small experimental plants from what I understand.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This is very interesting!

A few related questions come to mind:

1) What happens when two or more semi-transparent solar panels are stacked one behind the other? Is output power then comparable to the highest efficiency solar panel, do you get more, do you get less, and if so, how much less?

2) Polarization of light and solar panels -- what happens if light is polarized by a filter before going to a solar panel? And then, what happens (in terms of overall energy production) when that polarization filter is turned to an angle? And then the same question, applied to both regular solar panels, and these semi-transparent solar panels.

3) While I'm on the topic, has any researcher out there found a way to get even so much as a single millivolt/milliwatt (microvolt/microwatt?) from solar power coupled with a fully transparent surface, like let's say, glass, or some other crystal? I seem to recall some researcher somewhere that showed that very small charge regions occur at boundaries when sunlight hits plain transparent water -- but I do not recall the details...

</comment><comment><USER23> Our area of Oregon recently banned new solar farms on the grounds that it detracts from the beauty of the landscape – a wine region with lots of tourism. Ironically, that very beauty is threatened by the changing climate, which clean energy could help mitigate.

<comment><USER24> Let's be real for a second. Climate change isn't going to destroy Oregon's wine-growing regions within our lifetimes. A solar farm will change it within months. You can support or oppose solar farm bans according to your liking, but you should do so on the basis of facts. The two forces aren't even close to equal in magnitude and timing.

<comment><USER25> The "not within my lifetime so who cares" trope has been around for decades, and guess what? Climate change is happening faster than anyone imagined, mostly because scientists can only present findings on things they are certain about, which makes the predictions conservative. Most people are already seeing the impact of climate change, and if it's not visible to you personally, it has never been easier to seek out information on those that are. If you really can't see past your own lifetime and feel that you should be able to take whatever you want from the planet simply because you don't need to deal with the repercussions, then you are not part of human society and are free to leave the planet at any time.

<comment><USER26> No matter how you try to write it politely, "I don't agree with your position, kill yourself" is a shitty comment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Could we design one to mostly get energy from green light which plants reject anyway?

<comment><USER28> From the abstract:

>selective utilization of different light wavelengths

<comment><USER29> Yes, it says it in the abstract, but isn't really given special attention to in the article itself.

Looking at the graphic it looks like a fairly normal absorption spectrum for a solar panel without it being specifically tailored to this use-case. It seems like there might still be something won by specifically tailoring it to be complementary to the plant absorption spectrum. On the other hand it might also not be economically viable due to lack of scale and varying requirements for wavelengths between plant species and stages of plant development, which makes some optimizations moot.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> There is a LOT of low-hanging fruit when it comes to where to install plain old regular solar.

We could probably spend the next 50-100 years installing as many (regular) solar panels as possible and still have plenty of places left to put more of them.

Obviously it's not bad to develop these technologies, but I think they'll only be useful in niche applications.

</comment><comment><USER31> I'm imagining a green-greenhouse which covers all of it's energy usage with these panels.

Edit: heck, what about auto-glass?

</comment><comment><USER32> This is fascinating but you have to wonder how it would work with current harvesting techniques. New harvesting machines would have to be invented to work around the support infrastructure for the panels if they were to be deployed at scale.

</comment><comment><USER33> "Maximizing the generation of electricity is a desirable goal, but might be at the expense of biomass production. For example, for lettuce, the total biomass yield under agrivoltaic installation in Montpellier (France) was 15–30% less than the control conditions (i.e., full‐sun conditions).[28, 29] When growth of tomato was tested in Japan, the yield in an agrivoltaic regime was about 10% lower than for conventional agriculture."

</comment><comment><USER34> I always wondered why you could not just place the panels a bit higher. So that the sun can pass on certain times etc.

<comment> kube-system Yeah, people are treating this solar panel like a hammer and finding any use- case that looks like a nail.

Instead of a entire roof of panels that pass 50% of the light, it's is more simple to make a roof of half covered in panels that pass 0% of light... like a pergola.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Alternatively, dust build up on the solar panels can prevent production of both.

<comment><USER36> automated panel cleaning is probably solved by now

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Besides: nuclear power plants take up very little space. I really can't seriously people pushing solar, wind, and so on while they eschew nuclear power (and increasingly hydropower too).

Fake environmentalists: "We have an existential crisis! We must change our energy strategy to save humanity!"

Engineers: "That's quite a problem. Here's a way to solve it. It's called fission. Here are some power plant designs."

Fake environmentalists: "Nooo! Not _that_ plan! This existential problem can be solved using only those technologies that agree with my aesthetics!"

It gets old after a while. If carbon-induced anthropogenic climate is a problem --- and I think _it is_ \--- then we shouldn't disparage good solutions on weak grounds in favor of solutions with serious problems. We don't need to devote swaths of land to solar and wind if we just build nice compact nuclear power stations.

<comment><USER37> The tone of your post (being simultaneously dismissive and insulting to those who have a different view than you) is very trollish. The problem many people have with nuclear power are things like accidents making areas uninhabitable, radiation making people sick, disposal of waste rods is difficult, some materials can be used to make weapons, and the cost to make a safe plant are staggering and leading to cancellation of projects.

Renewable sources don't have these downsides. Are they ugly? Not any uglier than a concrete dome and cooling systems of a nuclear power plant. You can bet wine country does not want a nuclear plant in their valley either. I think it's perfectly reasonable to zone land usage appropriately.

<comment><USER38> Agree.

Compared to renewables - nuclear is a big risk (financial and operational). Also nuclear needs a lot of water, which is getting to be a serious problem. Compared to coal/gas/biomass they look great though in our current terraforming predicament.

There is no way we could build enough of them in the near term to matter, so that makes this discussion moot anyway. There is simply not enough expertise and production capacity left. Very few nuclear plants have been completed recently and the institutional knowlege is fading. It takes a lot of time and effort to reinvigorate that, especially since the nuclear industry is so extremely conservative.

Also the conversation is not being done on technical merits - but political inertia, an unwillingness to change and special interests by established energy companies (coal, gas).

As you say, renewables are still winning (slowly) because of the low risk profile and generally being price competitive.

Not that it matters much, we are mostly over the point of no return. It's just a matter of time before this ball is getting very unpleasant, sadly. We are just playing with the dial on how quickly that happens.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I was just thinking farmers had it to easy harvesting their crops.

If we take the solar panels off the 1% of roof space they are on and move them far away from the place we use the actual power, we could do this.

The attention span of the environmental movement is quite amazing at times.</comment>


Roll your own computer science masters - <AUTHOR> http://philcrissman.com/2010/05/01/roll-your-own-computer-science-masters-program

<comment><USER3> There is a little more than just knowledge acquisition in grad school. your advisor, research partners and other researchers from other schools/industry are vital to learning your domain, how to (not) approach problems. Of course, some will say that I am talking about a PhD, but I think this applies as well to a Masters program (to a lesser degree of course).

<comment><USER4> I think with a little preparation you can address all these concerns. It is possible to find a mentor online to act as an advisor, and if you (for example) found a start-up in the field you want to study, then you can partner with other 'researchers' (co-founders) and industry(customers) partners. If you are diligent enough to create a well rounded learning track for yourself, it shouldn't be a problem to also include the valuable things you mention.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm doing my M.Sc in Software right now. I want to do a startup right after this is finished (August cannot come soon enough). The one glaring omission from your post is that there is no thesis!

My thesis is in something I am genuinely interested in, I'm doing "proper academic" research in a field that I can see myself working in full time after this is complete.

My classes are all just preparation for the thesis and using what I have learned in them to research & write something which can be given back to the academic and professional community.

<comment><USER4> Up-voted even though I don't think you are 100% correct. Its not so much a thesis that is needed, but something similar.

For example, I am embarking on an intensive self-study course, in a lot of different subjects. Instead of a thesis, I have given myself a bunch of _objective, observable outcomes_. These are 'things' that can be observed and/or measured objectively.

Due to the fact that I have a lot of varied subjects I want to learn/understand more about, I decided the best way to make my learning more efficient is to combine subjects as much as possible into these OO outcomes. Here are a couple of the outcomes I am working on, with the subjects that relate to them.

Herb Garden: Biology, chemistry(making own fertilisers etc) agriculture history, hydrology, genetics, molecular gastronomy, design and geometry

Risk-like game of different time eras: Military history, python, databases, data visualizations, dashboard design, social network design, math- probability and statistics, cartography skills, 2D artificial intelligence(bots), application of a few books on mil strategy: Art of War, Book of 5 Rings, Warfighting, and On War.

I am hoping that by having concrete things to build, it will force me not only to learn the subjects needed, but to really get a proper understanding of them.

I have taking this path because I realized recently that I have been starting to become a "Cargo-Cult Programmer". I can build software and get results, but not _really_ understand why the results are what they are. I would like to change that.

Edit: typo

<comment><USER6> At least in my master's program, I was advised that an MS without a thesis was essentially a terminal degree. If you want a research job at Google, you need the PhD, and if you want the PhD, you must do the thesis.

<comment><USER4> I was talking about 'rolling your own' degree. Of course if you are in university then you should do what is required. But if you are studying for knowledge sake, then the 'thesis' can take a very different form.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is a great benefit of being a software developer. With a decent amount of motivation it's possible to increase our knowledge and skills by a huge amount.

The internet puts so much information at our fingertips. Especially in recent years there are so many new languages, databases, libraries, etc. that if you want to learn something you can just do it. You don't need to go through a masters program, or even through a training course for that matter.

<comment><USER8> This is true of languages and libraries, but learning entirely new concepts is harder. First of all, one has to figure out _what_ to learn, and then actually learn it.

<comment><USER9> If you just start reading some of the code-bases you use (libraries, compilers, operating systems, etc) to find out how they do the things they do, you'll quickly figure out _what_ you need to learn—it'll feel like having absolutely no idea how the code you're looking at works.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I wish there was something like MIT OpenCourseWare but better (or that it itself was better).

<comment><USER4> What do you find is the problem with the MIT OCW? Personally I find it is a bit of a pain to work through their different tracks and to try to compile a complete list of materials, and put together a study program. I am also trying a logic course at <https://oli.web.cmu.edu/> Not as many subjects there, but I like their approach so far.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I wish this method were more applicable outside of CS. Applied computer fields (meaning mostly programming, IT, DBA, networking, and the like) have more of an "it's what you know, not the letters after your name that matters" culture than just about any other field requiring any sort of specialized education that I know of. Unless it's for your own personal knowledge, going this route in a field like chemistry or biology will get you nowhere professionally (and may not even be possible in fields like experimental physics).

</comment><comment><USER12> (Aside: the possible exception to this is Calculus and other advanced math classes, unless you are one of those people who absorb that with a minimum of effort; you either understand Calculus (et. al.), or you don't, you can't really just push your way through those one. YMMV.)

First day of my Calculus class: "This is a proof-based Calculus class! This means you must memorize these proofs for the test...".

Actually understanding Calculus is _hard_ work. If you don't believe me, pick up Michael Spivak's Calculus book sometime. Regurgitating the exact formula for integration by parts or the difference quotient will get you nowhere in solving real mathematics problems, which assume that knowledge as a base-step and require you to apply critical thinking and creativity to actually get somewhere. But universities are run like a business: the more money, the better. Students who become frustrated and quit because they're too lazy and/or stupid to actually _think_ do not give them money, so it's easier just to make the tests easy for idiots who spend all their time memorizing things without analyzing their meaning or worth.

Feh.

<comment><USER13> Calculus and other math courses, and languages both computer and human, are skills - you must _practice_ them to actually be able to use them. Memorizing proofs, or equations, or words, will not teach you the subject - at most they will teach you _about_ the subject.

<comment><USER12> I agree. The special skill you need to really do mathematics - <USER2> problem solving - is a very hard skill to develop in anyone. It seems like schools are taking the easy way out by not requiring you to use it that much.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> tl;dr. This didn't need to go on beyond, "I'm not interested in jobs where a CS masters is useful." This was just a primer on being a decent software engineer.

<comment><USER4> He actually said he is not interested in jobs which just require you to have the piece of paper saying you have a CS masters, but more interested in jobs which require you have the _knowledge_ a CS masters gives you. From this conclusion he then comes to the idea of just gaining that knowledge doesn't require you go to a university.

This was more on a primer on really thinking about why you want to go to university. Do you need the piece of paper? Or do you just need the knowledge?

<comment><USER15> Exactly. And honestly, it's basically a first draft vomited up onto the web. It's not as if it's a manifesto on education/college/etc, just some thoughts on the topic.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Its more of a Software Engineering Masters rather than computer science.

<comment><USER17> I would even hesitate calling it a master's degree. I did a bachelor in software engineering, and this is exactly the kind of stuff we had to learn.

<comment><USER15> Of course it's not a "degree"... and yes, I have a bachelors degree, and this is what we learned also. That said, I just used an existing course list from _one_ graduate program in (yes) software engineering as a base.

The whole idea is that if you wanted to do this, you could make your own list of topics to cover. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> If anyone is interested in a comprehensive course in video or website format, you should definitely check out the National Program on Technology Enhanced Learning (nptel.iitm.ac.in). It is an combined initiative by all the IITs, IISERs and IISc,Banglore staff. There are around 40 lectures in each course. This is not restricted to only CS, they have ECE, Mechanical, Civil, Mining, Ocean tech, Electrical and what not.

(You all may face some problem understanding the accent).</comment>


Ask HN: Legal problems when discontinuing side businesses - <AUTHOR> I'm now at a point in bootstrapping a SaaS idea where I'm thinking about legal stuff.
How would I go about making sure that there is no legal problem when I have to stop the service (for whatever reason) and drop my paying customers? Is a simple sentence in a Terms of Service page enough and does it depend on my country of residence (I'm from Germany)?
I was thinking about only offering monthly subscriptions, so that nobody would have to pay too far in advance in case I have to quit the business. Is that a good idea? <comment><USER2> Suggestion: instead of covering your ass when you bolt; how about planning for a more orderly exit and spelling that out in your contract? Without any idea what service you propose to offer; the way you phrase this question makes me want to hunt for a different provider of that service immediately.

</comment><comment><USER3> Most terms-of-service include a phrase the service can cancel for reasonable (sometimes for any) reason. Paying customers back is the easiest approach. For a new bootstrapped service that would be manageable (won't bankrupt you). As you said annual pre-payment is great but best to not spend it all immediately.

Setting up a help page pointing to similar services would be nice. Example [https://www.mapzen.com/blog/migration/](https://www.mapzen.com/blog/migration/) And with GDPR in mind a way to export data. Also privacy related make clear who now controls the existing data (you personally is fine, deleting all is fine, some users worry it gets sold).

If you registered a company (UG, GmbH) then for tax purposes you might need to proper shutdown the company. There's processes and form for that and you might need to submit annual accounts for several years even if both income and expenses are zero. With German UG you're still personal liable should any customer demand money, let's say they sue for damaged and however unjustified you then have legal costs more than the company has on their bank account. GmbH costs 25000 Euro to setup so I assume with bootstrapping you don't go that route.

When we were still bootstrapped companies flat out asked us how long we existed (e.g. 3 months) and what guarantee there is we still exist in 6 months. It's a stigma but people have been burned with startups in the past.</comment>


Ask HN: Is there a(n) HN API or a way to submit remotely?  - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> There is the bookmarklet.

(See bottom of page). Any other mechanisms to automate submissions would most surely lead to being banned and having the domains submitted banned as well.</comment>


How to Build Deep Focus Into Your Organizational Culture - <AUTHOR> https://www.getflow.com/blog/deep-focus-organizational-culture <comment><USER3> I'm going to ignore the high levels of content marketing here and share my favorite trick: minimize work-in-process.

At my last startup, we limited WIP (that is, the number of open tasks) to be smaller than the number of developers. You can see a picture of our task board here:

[http://williampietri.com/writing/2015/the-big- board/#toc4](http://williampietri.com/writing/2015/the-big-board/#toc4)

This was great. It really forced us to focus and collaborate. It helped management to accept the true capacity of the team, preventing them from flooding us with requests. It also let us get things done at a lively pace, creating a continuous sense of progress that built trust.

I've visited so many teams that have a dozen things going on at once, which leaves everybody scattered. Especially when people then sneak in another dozen "unofficial" requests because they have learned not to trust the main work queue. And then another dozen urgent bugs, most of which happened because of the chaotic work environment, because nobody has enough time to focus and do something right.

In some: if you want to get more done, do fewer things. And then fewer things still. It seems crazy, but it works.

<comment><USER4> Someone is from an industrial environment. Work in process, in the form of partially complete goods, is a curse of badly organized factories. It's more visible in a factory environment; you have to walk around the stuff on the shop floor. It also costs real money - you've bought the parts, but can't sell the product yet.

One form of limiting work in progress is this: if you want reliable software, insist that no new features go in until all the reported bugs have been fixed. A weaker form of this is to have a master branch, which gets bug fixes only, and a development branch, into which new features go. Merging can happen only when there are no open issues in the master branch.

This is the opposite of "shit early, shit often" development.

<comment><USER5> "If you want reliable software, insist that no new features go in until all the reported bugs have been fixed."

That is a massive oversimplification. In fact, a key job of a product manager is differentiating between critical bugs that must be fixed, bugs that should be fixed but can wait and bugs that don't need fixing in the near term. Otherwise, for any mature piece of software (particular enterprise software), you will be fixing almost an infinite number of bugs that add little value at the expense of critical features that make the needle move.

This is one of the biggest lessons I got when working on a decade old enterprise software. At first, I was shocked that our VP of Product put certain bugs in the "won't fix any time soon" category. But now, I see how much more value we'be been able to drive _because_ we decided to ignore certain category of bugs for new feature or other feature improvements.

Insisting on blindly prioritizing bug fixes over any thing else does nothing more than satisfy our engineering ego. Don't assume it automatically making the product more useful for the user or driving more value to the company or its customers

<comment><USER3> You ignore how there got to be an infinite number of bugs in the first place. It's people following exactly the rule you suggest: chase the sugar high of metrics bumps while leaving maintenance for "later".

What this misses is that a buggy code base with a lot of technical debt makes it very hard to get anything new done. Worse, because you've spent years teaching people that being sloppy is the way to go, even when they rewrite something or build something new, it won't be very good and will still have a high maintenance cost.

Whereas if you follow a quality-first approach from the beginning, you never build up those mountains of technical debt. You can have a sustained pace of innovation that's much higher because you aren't working on top of a garbage heap. And you have people with excellent habits and a good working environment, meaning high productivity and low turnover.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It is hard to take an article about "focus" seriously on a site that pops up an email subscription request as soon as you start to read it.

</comment><comment> brian-armstrong They forgot another step: uninstall Slack ;)

</comment><comment><USER7> I apologize if this is too far off-topic, but all this talk of "focus" lately keeps reminding me of A Deepness in the Sky, by Vernor Vinge, where a much more sinister (and more sci-fi) version of it is called exactly that - <USER2> forcibly "Focus" a group of people into the office equivalent of slave labor.

Great read.

</comment><comment><USER8> Anyone had a chance to read their book? Do they back their practice by research? Tired of pseudo sciency stuff...

<comment><USER9> Haven't read it, but would highly recommend Cal Newport's book on the same subject. Made me really think about how I spend down time and it's affect on my ability to focus when I really need to.

[https://www.amazon.com/Deep-Work-Focused-Success- Distracted/...](https://www.amazon.com/Deep-Work-Focused-Success- Distracted/dp/1455586692)

<comment><USER10> I'd second the recommendation, it made me reschedule my day to ensure I consistently have 'deep work' time.

I took some rough notes if you don't have time to read the whole book right now:

[http://jamesstuber.com/deepwork](http://jamesstuber.com/deepwork)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> just put everyone in a big bullpen, and make sure everyone sits as close together as possible for maximum collaboration -- that's basically what deep focus is, right? bonus points if you're right next to a heavily traffricked walkway, which will foster 'drive-by testing', or something. another CTO was telling me about drive-by whatever-it-was at the CTO conference in Hawaii that I attended last week. good stuff.

<comment><USER12> Add status reports twice a day and you are on your way to eternal greatness!</comment></comment>


Actionable Books Weekly - <AUTHOR> http://www.actionablebooks.com/en-ca/ <comment><AUTHOR> I also want to call to attention Derek Sievers book notes which are on a similar vein : [https://sivers.org/book](https://sivers.org/book)

</comment><comment><USER2> I've used this site before to quickly absorb the main ideas of productivity books. There are so many published, it's difficult to find what is worth spending time and money on.</comment>


Arsenate-based DNA: a big idea with big holes - <AUTHOR> http://scienceblogs.com/webeasties/2010/12/guest_post_arsenate-based_dna.php

<comment><AUTHOR> given the recent (valid) criticisms of this work, I find it amazing that NASA and the lead author (Felisa Wolfe-Simon) keep feeding the general media by pushing this result as a major scientific breakthrough... without publicly addressing any of these concerns

here's another piece that was submitted to HN earlier today: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1972124>

</comment><comment><USER2> It won't be long until we get some lab that tries to replicate the findings to publish, I would guess that at least several of them are in the race right now to be #2 to either conclusively prove that it is real (which I doubt) or to be the one to solidly nail the mistakes.

</comment><comment><USER3> Perhaps claims of arsenate-based DNA will go the way of "cold fusion" when some control experiments (as described in the blog post) show the bacteria had phosphate-based DNA after all.</comment>