Show HN: Find Eco-friendly alternatives to Products You Use Everyday - <AUTHOR> https://ecoalternatives.to/ <comment><USER2> I also see you use this website to promote Amazon products, with an Amazon Associate tag. First, your website does not comply with Amazon Associate rules (see the point "5\. Identifying Yourself as an Associate"). Second, it may seem like this website, aiming to offer eco-friendly solutions, only try to sell more to people. A poor mix of eco-friendliness and consumerism in this case.

<comment><USER3> Re your second case: When economic incentives line up with environmental goals, progress is made. OP should have been transparent, but if someone makes a profit while improving other people's eco-footprints, it's a win-win.

<comment><USER4> Replacing disposable plates with slightly more "eco friendly" disposable plates isn't really improving anyone's eco-footprint. It's reinforcing the idea that disposable anything is eco-friendly.

<comment><USER5> Good is not the enemy of perfect. There are cases where disposable plates are more or less required. Food trucks/carts for example. One I frequent recently moved to using compostable plates.

<comment><USER6> The eco solution would be to use actual plates that customers return, and are then washed and reused.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> Eco-friendly alternatives to plates are "Compostable Plates", followed by "Bamboo Plates"? This makes little sense. What about reusing plates, second hand market, or donations?

The sustainability and "eco-friendliness" of products is a complex question, and there is often no such thing as a simple list. See for instance the extensive study by DTU on plastic vs. paper vs. cotton bags: [https://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publications/2018/02/978-87-93614-...](https://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publications/2018/02/978-87-93614-73-4.pdf) The study shows, e.g., that paper bags need to be used at least 50 times to achieve the same ecological impact as the thin plastic bags (LDPE).

<comment><USER7> This seems a user-contributed, user-voted site. So blame the users I guess. The most eco-friendly plate is a Banana leaf widely used in East Asia. Second is clay.

<comment><USER2> I didn't see any option to contribute to the website. Did I miss something?

</comment></comment></comment><comment> V-2 It reminds me of the old, tongue-in-cheek piece by Joel Spolsky [https://www.joelonsoftware.com/whattimeisit/](https://www.joelonsoftware.com/whattimeisit/)

The described use scenario was as follows:

 _"...visitors are very upset if Mike has previously promised to meet with them at a certain time, but when that time comes around, Mike is nowhere to be found. This happens because Mike doesn't know what time it is. At his secretary's recommendation, Mike signs up for a WhatTimeIsIt.com account. Now, whenever Mike is wondering about the time, he simply logs onto WhatTimeIsIt.com, enters his username and password, and finds out the current time."_

Years have passed and now, if Mike can't think of an eco-friendly alternative to a paper coffee cup, he can go to the ecoalternatives website to find out he could get a stainless steel coffee mug with autoseal and thermalock instead. Eureka! ;)

(I'm honestly not sure if that's really the equivalent of a paper cup - personally I'd think a regular ceramic cup, 10 times cheaper, would be more accurate in reproducing the same functionality, but let's assume Mike is capable of figuring this one out without a website).

<comment><USER8> But chances are you already have a ceramic cup, so that suggestion wouldn't generate any sales.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> It would be useful if the alternatives had an explanation on how they are more eco-friendly. As it is now, it's a starting point for research, without any guarantees.

<comment><USER10> One of the things listed is ice trays. I was unaware ice trays were a problem big enough to deserve alternatives? Food packaging is probably a bigger issue (disposable lunch containers could be replaced with glass or steel).

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> > Steel ice trays are a more sustainable option than the typical plastic ice > trays.

Citation needed. I've never seen anyone not using their plastic ice trays for a decade. Sometimes more like 3 decades.

<comment><USER12> Some plastic ice trays can be pretty crappy though. Source: mine broke. I've got a silicon one now, not sure if it'll last longer though.

<comment><USER13> Steel, even stainless steel, can rust. So they don't have to last longer, it also depends on the quality

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Should probably include how many plastic cups need to be avoided to payback investment into metal cup. Metal has a lot more energy poured into its construction and molding, plastic for its all longevity as trash is at least cheap to make. Without this contrast, hard for readers to analyze payback period.

</comment><comment><USER15> No about page, no privacy page, no additional pages...

Yet somehow Google Analytics made its way into the source code...........

</comment><comment><USER16> Really? An alternative made in China with cheap plastic? These green washers are everywhere.

</comment><comment><USER17> Can recommend to add reusable diapers. If you buy gender neutral and get 2 children, you will save money on it guaranteed making it win-win for environment.

</comment><comment><USER18> Congratulations on shipping something meant to do good for the planet!

I think you should add more context to each item. I'd like to see specifically why an item is bad and how the replacement is better.

The toothbrush is a good start but it would be more impactful if credible studies were linked. I have a hard time imagining that my toothbrushes end up in the sea.

</comment><comment><USER19> Are paper actually better than plastic if the plastic ones are disposed of properly?

</comment><comment><USER20> There's no alternative for toothpaste and no way to suggest one.

<comment><USER21> well, miswak replaces toothbrush AND toothpaste

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Miscellaneous is mispelled, it's missing an l.

</comment><comment><USER23> There are some stupid ideas on there..

</comment><comment><USER24> Great job! I have two suggestions:

New category: deodorant, [https://nuudcare.com/](https://nuudcare.com/)

New "product": shampoo, [https://www.nopoomethod.com/](https://www.nopoomethod.com/)

<comment><USER4> why is this a great job? Can you elaborate? Are you a bot for this amazon affiliate website?

<comment><USER24> No. I'm not a bot. Very real person who is enthusiastic about the mentioned product and use of no shampoo at all.

<comment><USER25> It's literally just a list of referral links for greenwashed consumer products. Even if you're enthusiastic about "the mentioned product" (whatever one that is) doesn't mean such a low effort blatant spam site deserves a "great job," much less a "good job."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I'm relatively (I think?) well-informed on feminine products for a guy, but I didn't know menstrual cups were a thing. Women deal with more discomfort than we give them credit for.

Some of the items I'm confused about — are plastic ice trays so bad for the environment? I thought the "bad" plastic products were bad because they're typically not reusable (bags, straws, etc). Ice trays aren't single use.

In any case, great website!

<comment><USER27> Don't try to use logic against hardcore environmentalists. Plastic == bad.

This is a bad website to be honest, as ordering consumables off Amazon least environmentally friendly ways to distribute them. Far better to ship via pallet to a local supermarket.

Or... Eliminate the need entirely. We need to change our entire way of thinking from 'buy and throw away', to 'invest and re-use'.

I had an environmentalist complain about a leather guitar strap I've had for 10 years, and that I should throw it away and get one made from an eco- material, such as recycled denim.

The leather guitar strap was ...

* More durable than any other guitars strap I've ever had

* A by-product of the huge meat industry (I'm a veggie myself)

* In my possession and functional

A lot of the buzz around small changes to help the environment, but the real change needs to happen to the consumer lifestyle we all seem to have. There is no quick fix.

<comment><USER26> Sadly, I think you're right. The Penn & Teller: Bullshit! episode on recycling showed some pretty good examples.

I'm an environmentalist, but only with a little e.</comment></comment></comment>


The MD6 hash function (rough notes) - <AUTHOR> http://email@example.com/msg09690.html <comment><USER2> As said in the comments over there; [http://people.csail.mit.edu/rivest/Rivest- TheMD6HashFunction...](http://people.csail.mit.edu/rivest/Rivest- TheMD6HashFunction.ppt)

<comment><USER3> Thanks! That Powerpoint helped a lot.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Given it only just got published, I imagine there's no public reference implementation yet? A quick search turned up empty, but I'd love to play with this. In particular, the conclusion drawn from slide 37 is important to me.

<comment><USER5> I'm pretty sure the algorithm has not been wholly (publicly) specified yet. Much of the hash tree structure is, as are parts of the compression function, but not the whole thing. Probably it will not be fully described until later this fall, closer to the NIST deadline.</comment></comment>


Winding down the war on drugs - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/news/international/21572184-experiments-legalisation-are-showing-what-post-war-approach-drug-control-could-look

<comment><USER2> Excellent summary of the situation in Colorado. The A-64 task force members are very well aware that framework they are drafting will become a model for other US states - and perhaps for other countries as well.

A-64 clearly states that marijuana is to be regulated like alcohol. It is wonderfully ironic that the task force consists mainly of bureaucrats, who as individuals, probably voted against A-64, but as public servants, are recommending very practical regulations.

Just one example ... Law enforcement task force members are wrestling with whether to return personal cannabis to prisoners when they are released from county jails. The precedent set by alcohol is to return it, but would that make jailers into drug distributors according to US federal law? And would that situation also hurt the federal grants received by Colorado law enforcement?

It's those sort of difficult details that will be worked very soon by Colorado.

I am so very proud to live there much of the year.</comment>


Ask HN: is it fair to reject a designer for a job without an online portfolio? - <AUTHOR>

Similar to rejecting developers because of bad writing http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2245228, I think designers (for web/mobile) have to have an online portfolio. If they don't, I reject them out of hand. I just think there's no excuse. Designers who send me .rar files to extract on my harddrive are designers who make me work harder than I should to review their skills.<p>Fair/efficient/right thing to do? <comment><USER2> I don't think it's totally unreasonable to expect a web designer to find a way to show their work off online.

Note, however, that in doing so you might end up overlooking some really great designers who don't have the time or expertise to show everything they've done online.

Depending on your needs, it might end up being better to go with a designer who has a lot of experience working on non webby things (i.e. print). Not that there aren't a lot of amazing web designers, but I've noticed that there tends to be a lot of groupthink in web design. Certain things become trendy, and many web designers end up just following these trends. Perhaps one of these less web savvy desginers have a more diverse background that would help you come up with something that really stands out.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm not sure I would reject anyone out of hand for something like this unless I had an excessive number of applicants to review and needed cheap ways to cut that number down.

This is certainly a good way to filter applicants out, but, you may miss a good opportunity as well. I hired an ex-architect with no web design experience at all (and no online portfolio) because she was cheap and had a great attitude. It worked out great for everyone involved. Can't say I'd recommend that for everyone, but it's amazing what can be accomplished by someone with the right attitude in the right environment.

<comment><AUTHOR> Fair enough. But if you're looking for an experienced web designer?

<comment><USER3> Sure, it's pretty unlikely that an experienced web designer won't have a web presence. Experience is a tricky thing, though. It obviously has it's benefits, but it can also be expensive, and, depending on the situation, may not be worthwhile. That said, an experienced designer who can come in and kick ass right away may be just what you need...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> 100% fair.

Linking a portfolio on your CV/resume should be standard practice for a designer.

As for efficiency, it depends on how you define it. You will probably find your candidate pool is now relatively limited and it may take you a bit longer to find the right designer but it will certainly filter out those that just aren't destined to be the right fit anyway.

There is only one person that knows what the absolute perfect candidate for the job looks like and thats you. If that picture of perfection involves having an accessible online portfolio then so be it.

</comment><comment><USER5> I think you should have a stock response that outlines alternatives. Say that with the number of applicants you expect, each one should provide a simple way to view examples of their work, and extracting a .rar file doesn't qualify.

Say that a single attached example of best work might qualify, but an online portfolio would be better. You might like also to suggest a free hosting service for them to use to showcase their work.

Be polite, be constructive, but be definite.

Just my $0.02

<comment><AUTHOR> A web designer should know where they can showcase their work, right? Suggesting a free hosting service is making the hirer do all the work. Just saying.

I'm just posting these to share my frustration with the applications I get. The majority of them are so incredibly lazy. Spell check. If you're a designer, have an online portfolio. Etc.

<comment><USER5> I would be unsurprised to find a talented designer had only ever designed for someone else, and that someone else had always done the web stuff. Just saying.

And I share your frustration - I get equivalent things constantly. I have several form letters that can be sent with minimal effort to maximal effect. Depends how much you care.

<comment><AUTHOR> Trying to parse this, how do you mean "designed for someone else"? I'm just looking for screenshots, surely a designer must have some screenshots. Even of work that never went live, was rejected etc?

<comment><USER5> Sorry - very little time. E.g. for an intranet with a customer who is paranoid about designs getting out, or someone who insists on the work being sole- licensed. I've met some right 'nanas in my time.

But I agree that any decent designer _should_ have stuff they can show you, it's just that I can imagine ways for it not to be completely cut'n'dried.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I wouldn't have strict rules when finding talent. If the person is wonderfully talented, a strong worker, professional, and nice, but w/o online portfolio VS less talented person with portfolio?

</comment><comment><USER7> Fair? Absolutely.

As has been mentioned though, you may miss out on some real gems.

I'm working hard to change it of late, but almost everything that I am most proud of has been done for intranet-work. I've built a number of quite impressive applications, all of which are shrouded in secrecy behind a firewall -- happily (and ably) servicing the requests of the customer. This means, of course, that none of that work is 'showable'.

I often ask permission of my customers to keep screenshots (with details obscured), and except for my government customers, most of them are pretty amicable, but of them, many won't allow it to be online where their competitors can see them.

Does this make me a sub-par developer? I don't think that it does. It does imply other things, of course, in that I might have trouble building to internet scale, for example, but I'm happy to SHOW you my work, it just might have to be in a zip file, or behind a password-protected website.

<comment><AUTHOR> And you can't even take a 100px x 100px cut out of some of those excellent screens to put in a portfolio? A widget? Obscuring actual client information?

Somehow, that just doesn't sound right. You have to put yourself in the shoes of someone hiring. Make an effort to show me your work.

Password protected is ok, by the way, just send me the password in your application.

<comment><USER7> I personally have never had a hard time finding work, so don't consider it a complaint from my end, but I've also always been able to work with the hirer to get them that information.

To put it into perspective though, most of my clients are federal government agencies, and yeah, to them, even a 100x100 pixel screenshot is tantamount to treason.

<comment><AUTHOR> Don't want to encourage treason either :)

I just want to be able to discard really bad designers (and there are a lot of them) with a 30-second glance at their work. Similar to the supersimple coding test to weed out the developers who can't actually code.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Cannabis could stop dementia in its tracks - <AUTHOR> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1087544/Cannabis-stop-dementia-tracks.html

<comment><USER2> don't trust the daily mail for news.</comment>


The Stew: Health Department destroys thousands of dollars of local fruit - <AUTHOR> http://leisureblogs.chicagotribune.com/thestew/2010/02/health-department-destroys-thousands-of-dollars-of-local-fruit.html <comment><USER2> "February 05, 2010"</comment>


Ask HN: How to survive/fight mafia states? - <AUTHOR> Throwaway for obvious reasons.
Apologies, some parts are not core to HN, but I'm a "startup" "founder" (read: struggling micro company with bootstrapping), and I'm looking for complex suggestions that also involve IT systems.
I'm living in a ex-Soviet-occupied country, where courts, media/propaganda, oligarchs and most aspect of everyday life is under control of the powerful prime minister and its mafia connections. When they want your business, they modify the laws, suffocate your market position, you are forced to sell, then restore the law or make it even more uneven towards their side.
I've lived in the free West for a few years, but for family reasons, I am now stranded where I am now. I have an independent income source: working remotely for Western companies. I have a small but growing local business interest, which, if grows and becomes profitable, will be certainly in the focus of the oligarchs.
What are your advice on how to (figuratively and literally) survive in such hostile environments?
I'd look for way of life and advice inside/under mafia organizations, e.g. triads, yakuza or drug mafia. As far as I know about these, the organizational logic is very similar to what we see here among politicians.
I'm also interested in how should the suppressed people organize themselves, how to communicate? Is there a good tech/method for it? How to protect against adverse agents?
I'm also looking for ways to accept the situation and reach inner peace. My mind always races against the daily injustices that are common here, but the "locals" are too tired to fight them, they keep their heads low, in the hope that they will not be picked as next targets.
I'd also look for inspiration and stories where persons go against all odds.
Thank you! <comment><USER2> 1\. If your market is outside the country with mafia issues, hire every workers remotely and have get together meetings once a week or a month to sync on stuff

You can simply store the cash in a foreign firm and contract out the labor to your local company.

You can use a few offshore companies, so it appears as if you've bunch of portfolio clients who are giving you the work.

Keep local company margin at average for your industry at your size.

Usually, the corrupt Governments lack international support, so they fail to crack down on your offshore activity.

They go after easy targets surfacing in the country.

My friend lost his Steel Rolling Mill in Belarus after 5 years of struggle producing 10 million Euros net profit per year.

2\. If your company does local stuff. Hire ex army chiefs/policemen/security guards and given them equity in your company and show them how you've ideas to grow the pie, in turn increasing their size of pie.

</comment><comment><USER3> _I 'd also look for inspiration_

Reading Lolita in Tehran

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persepolis_(comics)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persepolis_\(comics\))

 _What are your advice on how to (figuratively and literally) survive in such hostile environments?_

Focus on food security for yourself and others. Consider growing some of your own veggies, etc.

There are a lot of important things rooted in food security and good nutrition, and it tends to not draw a lot of attention. It isn't a showy form of wealth.

</comment><comment><USER4> >> I have an independent income source: working remotely for Western companies.

Grow your income to levels which affords you to move into friendlier surroundings.

Also - your post is too involved into being pissed off by things you cannot control.

Build upon things you can control and evolve from there.

</comment><comment><USER5> By "ex-Soviet-occupied country" you mean a country of the former Eastern Bloc or something like Transnistria?</comment>


Lake Agassiz - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Agassiz <comment><USER2> Lake Agassiz and Lake Missoula were glacier-dammed lakes that periodically overflowed the lowest sill of their basins to cause massive floods. Lake Agassiz is thought to be responsible for the deeply incised Minnesota River valley.

The shifting of glaciers and the ice sheet altered the effective relief of the basins over time, so simulating these lakes today takes a lot of work.

In the Great Basin, away from glaciers, Lake Bonneville and Lake Lahontan were the largest lakes that formed during a colder, wetter time, as endorheic valleys filled with water and repeatedly overflowed the lowest sill of their basins. Lake Bonneville is thought to have overflowed the outer edge of Great Basin itself at Red Rock Pass near Downey, Idaho; eroding the gap and releasing a huge flood into the Snake River basin.

Because a moving ice sheet wasn't a factor in their case, DEM shading can be used to approximate their overflows. This doesn't account for isostatic rebound or tilt in terrain, but gives a visually enlightening approximation, and lets one interactively explore how these outflows may have worked.

One can shade a topo map of the Great Basin at 4785 feet -- today's elevation of Red Rock Pass -- to approximate how Lake Bonneville's floods may have worked. Or, shade at these key sill elevations, in feet, to see how Lake Lahontan may have outgrown one valley after another: 3878, 3933, 3976, 4154, 4180, 4301, 4386.

Example with Caltopo at 3976 feet: [https://caltopo.com/map.html#ll=40.28729,-118.02612&z=8&b=t&...](https://caltopo.com/map.html#ll=40.28729,-118.02612&z=8&b=t&o=r&n=0.25&a=sc_e0-3976fcFF0000-0000FF&cl=%7B%22cfglayers%22%3A%5B%7B%22id%22%3A%22179ac9d4-1494-4e74-ad1a-6b78626556cd%22%2C%22geometry%22%3Anull%2C%22properties%22%3A%7B%22title%22%3A%22%22%2C%22alias%22%3A%22sc_e0-3976fcFF0000-0000FF%22%2C%22class%22%3A%22ConfiguredLayer%22%7D%7D%5D%7D)

<comment><USER3> That reminds me (on a much smaller scale) of the Parallel Roads of Glen Roy:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glen_Roy#The_Parallel_Roads_of...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glen_Roy#The_Parallel_Roads_of_Glen_Roy)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > The last major shift in drainage occurred around 8,200 years ago. The > melting of remaining Hudson Bay ice caused Lake Agassiz to drain nearly > completely. This final drainage of Lake Agassiz has been associated with an > estimated 0.8 to 2.8 m (2.6 to 9.2 ft) rise in global sea levels. [...] A > recent study by Turney and Brown links the 8,500-years ago drainage to the > expansion of agriculture from east to west across Europe; they suggest that > this may also account for various flood myths of prehistoric cultures, > including the Biblical flood narrative.

Reading things like this is very humbling. Humankind has been good at keeping records of things for the last, what? 300 years? Nearly by accident, we have successfully retained some accounts from the ancient Greeks, which were produced not even 3000 years ago. So 3000 years is a long-ass time, and really stretches our capabilities of preserving records. And this was after we invented some forms of writing, as far as I understand it.

Yet historians have reason to believe that in the 5000 something years before that, humans told stories about actual great floods, passing them down one generation at a time, to a point where they still form part of our cultural heritage today? That is absolutely mind-boggling to me. Obviously, I can't tell whether or not that is actually the case, but that there's even a possibility that it is the case is just beyond me.

Of course, for the generations living around 8,500 years ago, even just a 3 ft flood must have really been something if it happened all over the world at once – even if it takes multiple generations for it to reach peak levels. That I can sort of get my head around. Obviously, you talk about that with your contemporaries. But that it would have been significant enough that it would somehow make it into folklore that two hundred generations later, they still talk about it, that just... no words.

<comment><USER5> You know what's really mind-boggling: the fact that Australian Aborigines have successfully kept an accurate record of multiple Geological events for 40,000 years - _by way of oral tradition_.

I think the fact this is unrecognised in educated circles is also staggering...

<comment><USER6> Accurate, but maybe not precise.

<comment><USER7> Precision is bounded by the channel capacity. The advance was an intellectual one - that there is value in maintaining an accurate record.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Agassiz fell and rose multiple times over thousands of years as the ice sheet retreated and regrew. During that time it found many paths to escape its confinement, and left behind several beach-lines.

One of the most clearly-written and illustrated professional Agassiz stories is Wright's lightly-technical 1990 geology paper, available in PDF [0]. A lot more has been learned in the past 30 years, but by that time its effects in Minnesota were quite well known.

[0] [https://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/57272](https://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/57272) Wright, H.E. Jr (Minnesota Geological Survey, 1990)

</comment><comment><USER9> Lake Missoula wasn't as big, but it's floods were more spectacular.

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

"After Pardee studied the canyon of the Flathead River, he estimated that flood waters in excess of 45 miles per hour (72 km/h) would be required to roll the largest of the boulders moved by the flood. He estimated the water flow was 9 cubic miles per hour (38 km3/h), more than the combined flow of every river in the world. Estimates place the flow rate at ten times the flow of all current rivers combined."

</comment><comment><USER10> There was a similar lake in Siberia: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Siberian_Glacial_Lake](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Siberian_Glacial_Lake)

It likely was so dammed up it overflowed back down to the south, through the Aral, Caspian, and Black Seas, to the Mediterranean: [https://folk.uib.no/ngljm/PDF_files/Mangerud_et_al_2004,_QSR...](https://folk.uib.no/ngljm/PDF_files/Mangerud_et_al_2004,_QSR_.pdf)

I'm sure I remember reading a good article about it in National Geographic or Scientific American or something, but I can't find it.

</comment><comment><USER11> Fascinating! Also worth a look is Lake Lahontan, which covered much of northern CA and southern OR about 12,000 years ago: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Lahontan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Lahontan)

<comment><USER12> you don't have to go that far back. A little more than a century ago the California central valley looked very different. Tulare Lake was the largest fresh water lake west of the great lakes, bigger than Tahoe[1]. Of course there's also Hetch Hetchy, which supplies San Francisco's water[2]. Countless other engineering projects have vastly changed the flow of water in the state.

1 - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulare_Lake](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulare_Lake) 2 -[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetch_Hetchy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetch_Hetchy)

<comment><USER13> It's always seemed so bonkers to me that Yosemite National Park was made in 1890 and yet Hetch Hetchy, which was part of the park, was dammed in the early 1920s. I get that it was a different time and all, but come on, you can't go around destroying part of a NP like that.

<comment><USER14> Consistent sources of water for cities are really important, and people were historically more willing to make pragmatic tradeoffs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Interesting reading. As a lifelong alpine climber with intimate knowledge of glaciers, I always get weirdly sad at the thought of receding ice sheets (no matter the reason or epoch.)</comment>


Why Is Bootstrapping Important? - <AUTHOR> http://mattamyers.tumblr.com/post/23287367788/bootstrapping

<comment><USER3> ...hmmm. Somehow I expected a blog entry about statistics. :-(

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootstrapping_(statistics)>

<comment><USER4> And here I was expecting an article about compilers.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootstrapping_%28compilers%29>

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Bootstrapping isn't a new idea. Or way out there.

It's how small businesses around the world have, and continue to start their businesses.

Web startups, ironically are one of the fields that enable bootstrapping a lot more with the low overheads, and how much one or two people, or a small team can get done.

<comment><AUTHOR> Of course. You're right. It's really about announcing the time, energy, sweat, effort, etc. you've put into it - and by announcing it I feel people in a way are celebrating it, that they are proud of it - which they should be.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Here is the central reason for bootstrapping: nobody will lend you a dime on an idea, nor can you sell any percentage of an idea for anything.

To see this clearly, take one of the most successful recent tech startups you can think of, say one of those hot items going for a billion, rewind it 10 years, and, placing yourself in the point of view of the founder (but knowing how things actually _are_ to unfold), write down this knowledge: write down every single thing that will lead to this becoming a billion-dollar company.

Now, I'm telling you that even with the wisdom of 20/20 hindsight vision, no one here can write anything that would have convinced anyone, had they had that document ten years ago, to invest $100,000 into 7% of that _idea_ , of that business _plan_ , with no steps performed nor any revenue or anything else.

In other words, looking at an investment that -- due to perfect hindsight -- we know results in guaranteed 70000% return in 5-10 years (the quotient of the 1B current valuation and the valuation of $1428571 that 100k for 7% implies) -- we can't get a dime.

 _that_ my friends is the true reason for bootstrapping. To turn the ten thousand dollar idea - to say nothing of the million or billion dollar idea - into something that is, well, worth a dime.

( _Of course, there's another point, that's hard to remember in the current climate of investor ferver. Not only do bubbles pop, but investor sentiment can sour for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with you. If you've bootstrapped, but can't raise money, then all you're left with is -- cold, hard cash streaming in every month until sentiment changes, or you change, and you finally can. Overall, that is not such a bad place to be..._ )

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree that you have to have something that people can invest in - <USER2> that has value - before it will get any money.

chmike's question of how does YC do it then? It's based on talent, as he said. The people / founders with domain expertise / knowledge do have a certain value to them - and that is really what they're investing in.

If you're an engineer, then your value to tech startups and investors is seen even more valuable.

<comment><USER7> I wonder, in the most recent batches, how many YC accepted companies went in with just the idea vs how many had already started building something/had a demo.

pg, can you tell us something about this?</comment></comment></comment>


One Woman's Dangerous War Against the Most Hated Man on the Internet - <AUTHOR> http://jezebel.com/one-womans-dangerous-war-against-the-most-hated-man-on-1469240835 <comment><USER2> A somewhat related note is that America's culture of sex-negativity, shame and general hysteria around nudity is a required prerequisite for this type of bullying and abuse. Look at the following paragraph:

> Jill became hysterical, repeating, "Oh, my God. No. Oh, my God. No."

This is, obviously, the reaction of someone who fears repercussions from others. And this is for completely harmless acts (taking nude photos), which almost everyone does these days. And with good reason. Society in the US clamps down hard on people (women to a greater degree, but also men) who have the audacity to express their sexuality. That this expression was in no way intended for the public, makes no difference. Once it becomes publicly known, you are a slut (or a pervert) and harshly punished. Perverts are no good, and sluts are worse. This cultural norm is the only reason this type of shaming has any effect.

But really, we are all sluts and perverts. A good first step would be to go after the psychopaths who run campaigns like these. A good second step would be to abolish the cultural norms that allow sexuality and nudity to be used as a weapon.

If you look at "alternative" sexual societies like swingers' clubs or BDSM communities, you will often hear the word "pervert" or "slut" used in a positive sense, the way homosexuals are reclaiming literally every derogatory term used about their sexual identity. Most people in these communities are very aware and careful regarding the reactions of outside society if it became known what they do in their bedrooms, but the capability to make them feel bad about themselves for acts of nudity or sex is often completely absent.

<comment><USER3> So would you say that Hunter Moore is really a hero? Helping us all get over our hang ups wether we like it or not?

<comment><USER4> I think that's a stretch - it would be like saying war is really a good thing because of the (possibly good) ending side effects.

If I may recall the relevant operetta on HN:

CANDIDE:

 _Objection! What about war?_

PANGLOSS:

 _War!_

 _Though war may seem a bloody curse_

 _It is a blessing in reverse_

 _When canon roar -- Both rich and poor_

 _By danger are united!_

 _(Till every wrong is righted!)_

 _Philosophers make evident_

 _The point that I have cited_

 _' Tis war makes equal -- as it were --_

 _The noble and the commoner_

 _Thus war improves relations!_

(Pangloss tries to justify the apparent imperfections of the world by claiming that it is optimal among all possible worlds. It must be the best possible world, because it was created by an all powerful/knowing God, who would not choose to create an imperfect world if a better world could be known to him.) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candide](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candide)

<comment><USER5> "it would be like saying war is really a good thing because of the (possibly good) ending side effects."

>it would be like saying war is really a good thing because of the (possibly good) ending side effects.

War can be a good thing for that very reason. It can be a form of politics that is used to avoid further and larger loss of life. However, this only works if the war is not drawn out.

Art of War (and relevant analyses) are good references on this topic. Art of War specifically talks about avoiding long and drawn out campaigns, and let's just say that a few recent examples come to mind.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The story kind of jumps around and I read it in parts, but I'm confused about the outcome. He basically went into hiding and suffered no consequences?

What worries me more deeply is how society provides people like Moore with the ammunition they need to terrorize women. One victim complained that she would lose her children over the nude pictures. Even if they _were_ actually of her, why does someone have to fear the government taking away their kids simply because they chose to appear naked in front of a camera? That doesn't make someone a bad parent. It doesn't really make them anything.

Why do we make people fear the govenrment AND their exes AND crazy people on the Internet? As society, we're doing a piss-poor job providing protection to people that need it.

<comment><USER7> Well, I agree the narrative s a bit hard to follow. I doubt anyone will lose ther kids because of that ... That is a very hard thing to do in the US. You essentially need categorical evidence if being a crackhead and even then ...

<comment><USER8> I've read some totally crazy stories about people losing their kids in the US. Photos of breastfeeding or bathing (child porn!), playing outside (irresponsible!), and who knows what else. And that was without existing divorce and custody issues.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> "My computer had been bombarded with viruses, and a technician had advised me to buy all new equipment because the malware was tough to remove."

I assume the technician was coincidentally also a salesman. ;-) "Tough to remove"? What a load of crap.

<comment><USER10> Rootkits exist that survive OS reinstalls. I don't know how prevalent they are, but if you expect a target to try to reinstall their operating system to attempt to purge an infection it is possible to counter this.

<comment><USER11> Then replace the hard drive? I don't know of any viruses that could hide itself in your case fans so I'm inclined to think that buying a whole new computer is an overreaction.

<comment><USER12> Proof of concept of rootkit that can survive disk replacement by installing itself to the bios.

[http://www.geek.com/news/researchers-demonstrate- persistent-...](http://www.geek.com/news/researchers-demonstrate-persistent- rootkit-that-survives-hard-disk-wipe-726351/)

> _Researchers at Core Security Technologies demonstrated the techniques at > CanSecWest security conference in Vancouver earlier this month, compromising > one virtual machine running Windows and another running OpenBSD. The attack > relies on modifying the BIOS of the target machine; startup firmware that is > booted from a chip on the motherboard. Anybody wishing to use this kind of > exploit in the wild would need to already have low-level access to the > machine in order to make such a change. As the BIOS code is executed every > time the system starts up, even if disks are wiped or replaced, this > presents an attractive proposition for hackers._

I agree that it's unlikely, but it's nice to see someone actually saying "nuke it"(although "Nuke it" should probably be just "wipe the drive and re- install"), rather than fiddling around with combofix and malwarebytes.

Don't forget that some people don't have OS discs, they have a "Host Protected Area" partition. Maybe rootkits and malware can infect that?

<comment><USER13> >Maybe rootkits and malware can infect that?

If you can infect the BIOS, it seems pretty likely. On the other hand, if you can infect the BIOS, why bother?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Just a thought: if every American here railing against the ridiculously prudish American culture could pretty please keep in mind that if they offer a service that for instance bans people from posting pictures or distributing apps because "boobies", _you_ are part of the problem.

This is often so easily dismissed on HN as "my product, my rules", when it is actually a political statement of support for, or at least surrender to, the notion that nudity is something wrong and shameful, especially for women.

You wanna solve the problem, start by cleaning up your own act, and take the anti-"porn" provisions out of your TOS, and stop crucifying your users for posting ordinary holiday snapshots because, "boobies".

<comment><USER2> This _should_ be blatantly obvious, but thank you for pointing it out. I think that many people are blind to social expectations, taboos and their social context.

I think Paul Graham's essay about mental fashions is a great summary of this type of mental stretching, but most people fall far from the philosophic ideal of being able to see society's unwritten rules from a distance.

[http://paulgraham.com/say.html](http://paulgraham.com/say.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> At some point can't she say "so there's a picture of my left tit on the net, and?"

Also I don't understand why people like Moore haven't been sued into the ground for profiting from copyright violation.

(edit: I mean other than the whole upfront cost aspect, but given how frickin' insane copyright penalties are, you would think some or other lawyer would take it on a no-win no-fee basis.)

<comment><USER12> Sure, she can say that. Some professions don't welcome people who have nude photographs of themselves on the Internet - teachers, for example.

It seems baffling to me that her partner would consider leaving her, but the article says it was a concern.

Or sometimes people at vulnerable points in their lives are outed. Or not even outed, just plain blackmailed.

It's very easy to say "just shrug it off", but the numbers of people completing suicide (I've found 3 names in a very quick web search) shows that it's not something that people can just get over.

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/23724703](http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/23724703)

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24428437](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk- scotland-24428437)

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24163284](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24163284)

<comment><USER15> Those links are about very different cases of children being blackmailed. What's at issue in the link is leaked pictures of grown women.

Clearly the behaviour of the people involved in this is abhorrent (for multiple reasons) but there has to be a point where you stop caring. Moore is not the only asshole in the story by a long stretch. He might not even be the worst.

I mean, if the boyfriend thought about leaving her for a second then he's not worth worrying about, he's an asshole. Whoever fired the kindergarten teacher likewise. The real story is not the 'revenge porn', it's the morons that are so upset by it that they fire someone, or that anyone would take kids away from their mother over it, or really any of the societal bullshit about nudity.

edit: And seriously, some professions don't like taking people who have been naked on the internet? Those professions need to grow the f*ck up.

<comment><USER12> Well, yes, his revenge porn only works because other people are arseholes. But it's because all those other people are arseholes that the victims can't just shrug it off.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The case against Hunter Moore makes me uncomfortable.

Consider a very similar hypothetical site, is-anyone-up-for-busting- corruption.com. Much like isanyoneup.com, this site also posts media of people engaging in actions they do not wish to be seen engaged in. When media is posted, it is accompanied by contact information for the employers of the people involved, and the desire is expressed for those people to be fired and their lives ruined.

I can't say I like the precedent the attacks on Hunter Moore are setting, even if he is a great big jerk.

<comment><USER17> Any country that claims to operate based on the rule of law would recognise that a site like the one you describe would be seeking to deny natural justice to those depicted.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I have one weird reservation - her daughter is/was 24, but doesn't seem to have been involved a whole lot? Or maybe it's just written that way on purpose?

Maybe it's just me, but leaving someone to mope seems a little like you're treating them as more a child than an adult.

<comment><USER19> Do you have kids? Perhaps you don't understand the righteous anger that a parent would feel in this scenario.

If this happened to my kid, I would also completely take over, and want them involved as little as possible. Yes, even if they were 24.

<comment><USER18> Of course I'd want to on some level, but I'd also want to make sure that even if I helped I'd also be imparting the skills for them to accomplish things on their own.

I think I view enabling a child's independence as a parent's most important job, particularly in light of the often random and occasionally capricious nature of death.

<comment><USER20> That's a nice sentiment, but when your child's life is being systematically destroyed by pathologically perverted harassers then you just deal with the situation.

Your argument is a little like saying that the best time to teach first aid is when your kid has a gaping chest wound.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> >People claimed to be afraid of him. He had no fear oflawsuits; he knew a victim would be unlikely to sue because a civil suit would cost $60,000 (according to attorney Marc Randazza)

Why do we allow that kind if situation to persist? What can be done about it?

<comment><USER22> It's tough to do anything because what if the suit was false?

You can't just assume the suer is correct and deserves protection.

There is a right for someone to face their accuser, and you can't make them pay just because they were accused.

For the money issue there are charities that do help. Regarding the name part perhaps a judge can seal or redact the record?

<comment><USER21> I was asking about the $60k issue. Why is it so expensve even in the most clear-cut case?

And it looks like charity really can't fill the void in this case.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I am surprised that someone didn't injure the man, or worse.

<comment><USER23> In all seriousness, I look forward to a world with assassination markets every time I read a story like this.

<comment><USER24> Yes, murder is the correct solution to situations that make you mad. This cannot fail to go well for absolutely everyone.

<comment><USER23> If you trust in the feasibility of anonymous currency and anonymous internet hosting/browsing (we are close to both already via Tor and Bitcoin/blind mixes), then get ready for a world with assassination markets. It really doesn't matter what you think about it.

I see a number of advantages to de facto anarchy, Hunter Moore getting offed is only one.

<comment><USER25> You're so cyberpunk! You think the world wouldn't react to an assassination market? You think the internet wouldn't be changed to disallow such a thing? Think again.

<comment><USER23> No, I don't think anyone will be able to stop the proliferation of anonymous networks and currencies.

I think there will be negatives in that world too. The whole thing is too big for me to even reflect on. I'm not a cyberpunk.

<comment><USER7> Certainly not that fact that they are unstable and large institutions with real money would not back them?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> How was Gary Jones hacking those e-mail accounts?

How was Black Lotus blocking assets (pages, images) on Moore's website? And why was a security company he hired(?) working against him?

<comment><USER10> I'd assume he's just a botmaster that happens to automate creepy scanning of compromised email accounts for such images, but the fact that 2 of the victims knew each other suggests that he could be doing targeted phishing on new targets that he identifies while browsing accounts.

I'm not familiar with Black Lotus, but looking at their page for [http://www.blacklotus.net/protect/protection-for- gear](http://www.blacklotus.net/protect/protection-for-gear) suggests that they basically act as a proxy for a customer's service, preventing malicious traffic from burdening the server. Because whatever goes in or out must pass through them first, they can decide not to allow certain things out if they are not comfortable with it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> > Fear entered my life. I received verbal attacks on Twitter, computer viruses > and death threats. ... This prompted me to make Moore's home address public > on Twitter.

And people wonder why death threats on the internet is not taken serious by the police. If the victims of death threat do not care, then the police won't. The result is that death threats then become normal on online forums, and real death threats gets ignored.

</comment><comment><USER28> sorry for being off topic, but twitters pic flagging algorithms are crap in my experience.

I searched for huntermoore in twitter and I came across a nsfw picture of a man trying to cut his testicles. [https://twitter.com/search?q=huntermoore&src=typd](https://twitter.com/search?q=huntermoore&src=typd)

twitter's safe picture algorithm is a fail in my experience, it fails to tag these gross gore and nsfw pictures but it tags all the pictures uploaded by fernando alonso formula 1 racer as nsfw by default, I never understood that.

[https://twitter.com/alo_oficial](https://twitter.com/alo_oficial) click on any twitpicture and you will get a warning. make sure you have your profile set to not view tagged pictures by default, "tweet media settings"

I always found this annoying being a fernando alonso fan.

</comment><comment><USER29> _I emailed the site owner, Hunter Moore, and asked him to take down the photo in accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. He refused._

Would it be to much trouble for these people to learn how to use the DMCA properly? Obviously he is not going to turn his own web site off.

<comment><USER30> Since we're obviously talking about a very determined scumbag, it'd be too easy to just host outside the US. Copyright law often does apply in this kind of situation, but it's still not a great solution. Need more attention to privacy rights.

<comment><USER20> Then he won't be covered under the safe harbour provisions of the DMCA.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Well it looks like he got owned, I couldn't help but smile at the end :)

</comment><comment><USER32> What's really sick is the personality cult around this creep, even after the end of IAU. I had originally assumed that the "I love Hunter" posts that appear on the Internet on the topic were him-- he's a troll; trolls do that-- but apparently he has real-life fans.

It's basically the Shawn Parker story. No real accomplishments, but active participation in the party scene leads to high status. If this current incarnation of the VC-funded bubble hasn't crashed, in 3 years he'll be part of the "tech" in-crowd and people here will be discussing his new venture capital fund.

I, for one, will never take investment from any VC firm that employs Hunter Moore as a Managing Partner.

<comment><USER33> > What's really sick is the personality cult around this creep

Yeah, I just had a look at his Twitter, there's a lot of girls sending him naked pictures and telling him how much they love him, and a bunch of sycophants avidly defending him (in a highly misogynistic manner, natürlich).

<comment><USER34> > there's a lot of girls sending him naked pictures and telling him how much > they love him

Some women just have really broken status filters. They're attracted to guys with high status, and ignore the fact that he achieved that through evil means. It's the same thing that causes women to fall in love with convicted murderers serving life sentences.

From his vice interview:

A lot of people send the naked pictures to get jobs in the adult industry, too. But the one thing they have in common is they're fucking retarded. That's the similarity. They're just stupid people. All I really do is take advantage of them; it's just them being fucking retarded.

[http://www.vice.com/read/hunter-moores-new-site-will-make- ge...](http://www.vice.com/read/hunter-moores-new-site-will-make-getting-a- blowjob-as-easy-as-ordering-pizza)</comment></comment></comment>


What I Learned from Quitting Coffee After 15 Years of Daily Consumption - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/better-humans/coffee-time-out-34eafb198c73 <comment><USER2> > I may just have been lucky or it might have helped that I still drink tea > with caffeine

He was surprised that you don't get caffeine cravings if you continue to take in caffeine.

> Maybe I expected it to be much more difficult based on my own experience > with giving up smoking about nine years ago.

Maybe its because he didn't take up smokeless nicotine products, like snuff or chewing tobacco!

The author talks of feeling like an addict for drinking coffee, but now that he gets caffeine from tea, he can truly conquer the world.

That's not unlike a wino taking up beer for a couple weeks... eventually it sinks in that all that changed is the flavour.

From me, this article hears the sound of no hands clapping.

</comment><comment><USER3> It is seriously irrational to quit coffee since it is associated with a significant reduction in mortality. This has been valifated by multiple meta- analyses. Of course you don't want to drink so much that it harms your sleep.

<comment><USER2> He also considers drinking less milk to be a plus, even though, by his own words, he's still taking in the same amount of milk. His math doesn't check out, unless "splash" and "little splash" consist of radically different volumes.

> ...huge mugs of coffee with a splash of milk.

> I still have milk in my breakfast muesli and a little splash in my teas, but > that's it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> (and a whopping 2 weeks in)</comment>


Perfect Audience (YC S11) outperforms Adroll in Retargeting Test - <AUTHOR> http://www.pearanalytics.com/blog/2012/perfect-audience-outperforms-adroll-in-retargeting-test/

<comment><USER2> I work for AdRoll. I left a comment on this blog post but it hasn't been approved yet.

We'd really appreciate the opportunity to do a real comparison. In this post, they are comparing a campaign without Facebook Exchange (AdRoll) to a campaign with Facebook Exchange access and using two different definitions for conversions.

It's a little odd that FBX wasn't included with the AdRoll campaign since unlike PerfectAudience, AdRoll is actually is one of few PMDs that have a seat on FBX ( <http://www.facebook-pmdcenter.com/fbx> ) and has the most clients running FBX campaigns of any FBX PMD.

PerfectAudience's CPCs and CPMs are likely lower because Facebook retargeting is cheaper in this regard, and if they ran an AdRoll FBX would likely be comparable.

Also looking at your charts, they never setup conversion tracking in AdRoll. Without this they are comparing (PerfectAudience) view through conversion CPA to last touch Google analytics click through conversion CPA. To analytics and online marketing expert, it should be obvious this is not a fair comparison.

A lot of the UI callouts are valid and AdRoll is working on new features and launching a new dashboard very shortly. If anyone wants to setup a real test and do real analysis of performance, we'd be happy to help.

-Tom

<comment><USER3> Can you go into a bit more detail on the difference between these two types of conversion?

I suppose view-through conversion might be clicking on ad, user goes to site, completes purchase and then some kind of callback gets fired. On the other hand, Google analytics one would be user completes purchase, GA looks at which referrer came last and registers that as the source of conversion?

<comment><USER2> View through conversions are conversions that take place after a visitor has just viewed an ad and not necessarily clicked on the ad. In the case of traditional display, the ad may not have even been visible on the screen it was just served somewhere on the page.

Google Analytics conversions are last touch click through conversions, where all marketing touches compete and the last that occured gets 100% of the credit.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yep. And just going by Google analytics tracking is a rough way to assess marketing channels, agreed.

The ubiquity of Google Analytics and thus, ubiquity of "last touch" conversion tracking, has really helped Google make the case for Adwords. If someone sees an ad from a display advertising company, retarteted or otherwise, it's not uncommon for them to head to Google to look up more information about that product or service. If they then sign up or convert, the advertiser will see Google analytics listed as the sole source of the conversion. This is great for Google and less great for everyone else higher up in the funnel.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This article is so specious. I am actually _shocked_ that something this bad would come out of a company that purports to understand internet marketing and analytics.

First, its comparing two completely different types of retargeting. It compares one campaign where Facebook retargeting makes up 3/4 of the impressions to one that is just general retargeting on the ad exchanges. These perform completely differently.

Second, the timeframes are different. This makes a big difference especially if they have been running the same ads over a long period of time as ads (especially retargeted ads) tend to get ignored after a while so the falloff in performance can be quite rapid.

Third, comparing post-click conversion across retargeting partners doesn't really make much sense. You're targeting the audience to begin with, you should probably care mostly what percentage of your audience they are reaching and what the CPM is more than the CPA. Unless these guys are doing fancy stuff (e.g. more aggressively retargeting people who have clicked but then did not convert) it actually does not make any sense that CPA would be any different at scale.

Fourth, if you're running two different retargeting platforms on the same audience its possible that you're bidding up your own retargeting cost as the two platforms are bidding against each other. e.g. this shows a CTR of around 0.13% which is actually pretty good for FB retargeting, but they're paying ~$1 CPC which is really bad for FB retargeting.

</comment><comment><USER5> They got 18% conversion on their clicks from Perfect Audience? Seems dubious.

With such a small sample of data 109 sessions vs 68 sessions... I wouldn't call this a clear winner.

This could actually just be a case of misattribution of sales.

For example, if the customer clicks on a Perfect Audience ad, they could be tagging that customer as "theirs" for the next 30 days, or forever. So imagine someone clicks on this ad, browses the site again, and leaves. Then they come back 5 days later of their own accord and make a purchase. Perfect Audience may be (incorrectly) attributing that sale as their own.

I'd like to see the Ecommerce breakdown that GA is reporting. (this data: [http://www.pearanalytics.com/wp- content/uploads/2012/12/2012...](http://www.pearanalytics.com/wp- content/uploads/2012/12/2012-12-13_1513.png))

</comment><comment><USER6> Hi Tom, Ryan from Pear here. AdRoll did not have the Facebook Exchange option when it was available, and we saw Perfect Audience had it first. Also, I do have the same conversion goals set up in AdRoll as I do in PA. (/checkout_thankyou.asp), and they are not firing properly, even though in Analytics I do see some conversions.

I'm happy to devise a better experiment with you and run our next customer on both platforms with the exact same criteria. Email me if you're interested ryan at pearanalytics dot com.

<comment><USER2> Hey Ryan. We're happy to help you get setup and use the AdRoll platform with all of its features. I'll email you and have someone on our account and support team follow up with you.</comment></comment>


Rebuilding History's Biggest Dot-Com Bust - <AUTHOR> http://www.wsj.com/articles/rebuilding-historys-biggest-dot-come-bust-1421111794

<comment><USER2> Behind the paywall?

<comment><USER3> google the article headline..</comment></comment>


Reading Go for Study - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/developer-learning/reading-go <comment><AUTHOR> Daily Reading Go and Night Reading Go - Go source reading and offline technical or another articles or discussion on every night.</comment>


No Need to Change It - <AUTHOR> http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/No_Need_to_Change_It!_.aspx

<comment><USER2> This is an extreme example - so it somewhat hides the fact that stable, debugged code is really valuable.

That's why your bank still uses a Mainframe (er, that and the huge cost of transition to another platform, which is part and parcel of the same effect).

It's also why Lines of Code is such a terrible metric. 100 lines of code that I just blasted out != 100 lines of code that has been debugged/tested/used/abused. (ok, one of the reasons)

<comment><USER3> You have a good point, and in some cases holding onto old code actually makes sense.

I was not there when these decisions were made, but in this case it does not seem to. As you add in emulators and new compilers you are adding to your code bases in ways that can introduce bugs and unexpected behavior into the system as a whole, just as surely as changes to the application logic itself.

This chance may be small if the code for the emulator and compiler has been debugged/tested/used/abused extensively, but if you are the sole users and it was custom written for you then the chance is nontrivial. It adds to the complexity and problem points of the overall system.

This not to mention the cost of developing those specialized and complicated emulators/compilers. Depending on how complex the algorithms are there is a good chance it would have been cheaper to rewrite it.

One other thing with the banks. You made some good points about why they still use very old software, but the other one is that in addition to being debugged/tested/used/abused their software has passed regulators. I do not know if that is an issue with this car software producing company, but I doubt it, at least I doubt it is to the same degree.

<comment><USER4> _it would have been cheaper to rewrite it._

Not necessarily. You need to think outside the cubicle.

Suppose your company has 100 customers. Each of the customers has 10 employees who are trained to use the old system, and 1 tech support guru who knows how to write handy time-saving macros using the old macro language.

If you, the programmer, rewrite the code instead of spending hours painstakingly constructing an emulation environment for it, you might save several _years_ of your time. But your company will save the cost of:

\-- Conducting retraining classes for 1000 customer employees, who may not have any interest in learning your new software. (Though you may imagine that the speed and efficiency of _your_ software is the primary concern of your customers, this is not necessarily the case. It's just as likely that they only notice your software when it stops working the way it always did, forcing them to adapt.)

\-- Conducting a more extensive set of retraining classes for the 100 tech support gurus who will need to learn an entirely new way of doing their jobs.

\-- Staffing a help desk to lead people through the new software.

\-- Hiring and training the _trainers_ and the help desk employees.

\-- Finding a way to convince your existing customers to pay for all this -- the training time (for which their employees will want to be paid), the temporary loss of efficiency due to the learning curve, and (of course) the fee that you're charging for the upgrade. You may need to beg and plead. You may need bribes and threats. Incidentally, all that begging, bribing, and threatening can't be automated: It needs to be done by _your_ company's sales and support team, one phone call at a time, and those folks have to be paid too.

\-- Fending off competition. A discontinuous change in a company's product line is a scary time. Because what you're asking your clients to give up (experience with your old codebase) may be exactly what has been preventing them from fleeing to your competitors. And because the moment of shipping the upgrade is not only the moment when dreams meet reality, but is also the moment when the customer gets to decide whether to spend another _N_ years stuck with your product. An unfortunate coincidence of timing which has often led to disaster.

All of this could easily be more costly than hiring a handful of "computer- science whizzes" for a year or two of emulation-layer development. And it's why, if you _are_ a computer-science whiz, you should raise your consulting rates. ;)

<comment><USER3> Everything you said is true, and you have some good points.

But you are making an assumption that is not necessarily true. You are assuming that the interface, the part the customers see and use, changes so much that they require retraining.

It would be entirely possible to re-implement the entire thing in another language with no discernible changes to the end user. The end user need not necessarily know that anything changed other than it is now moving faster since it does not have to go through an emulation layer and can take full advantage of the speed of modern hardware.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm not sure why there are scare quotes around the "compiler" in this. A high- level to high-level compiler is still a compiler.

</comment><comment><USER6> We laugh, but if the company is profitable, well... That's higher praise than one could give most software projects.

</comment><comment><USER7> Heh, cute example, but even being a technologist, I see the business reasoning here. If the logic of a program was described once, why does it need to be re- done when the next fancy language comes out? Why can't all languages/systems be backwards compatible?

</comment><comment><USER8> I posit that they made the right business decision. At any one of the points where they could have embraced new technology, they were at high risk of getting into a no-win dev cycle and destroying their business.

</comment><comment><USER9> I love these guys.

COBOL is much maligned, but it does what it was designed to do, and does it well. Business rules generally don't need anything fancier, and the data transfer model (IIRC) matches up well with the paper-based systems that it replaced - so it is straightforward to reason about.

Though I think they were lucky to employ whizzes that were actually whizzes. Compiling COBOL to C would be pretty straightforward, but making a debugging for the original language less so. Though, I guess if you just kept a copy of the original source line and line-number, and your execution model was isomorphic to the original, stepping through, and debugging messages could be pretty straightforward, too.

One last point: the article says the resulting code was slow; but Moore's Law will have fixed this, so they didn't have to.

</comment><comment><USER10> The truth on the software industry is: 1) Nobody makes software with a plan on when to replace it. They just assume the time will come and they'll know in the future. 2) Rewriting software is _usually_ a bad idea, although there are some success cases of rewritten software.

This might not seem too relevant on people working on the startup scene, but for people working in companies (like I used to too) this has a huge impact. If you don't replace your technology stack in 5 years, it will then have 10, 15, 20 years. What do you do now with 20 years * # programmers effort in code which is stuck in a technology 20 years old?

This is actually a hard problem to solve.

</comment><comment><USER7> Heh, cute example, but even being a technologist, I see the business reasoning here. If the logic of a program was described once, why does it need to be re- done when the next fancy language comes out? Why can't all languages/systems be backwards compatible?

<comment><USER11> "If the logic of a program was described once, why does it need to be re-done when the next fancy language comes out? Why can't all languages/systems be backwards compatible?"

The way out of it is via a state machine.

The task of capturing logic in a state machine that is independent of user interface considerations is a very difficult problem.

People will say "Oh use REST" or CORBA or any number of other things, but actually they're all poor, they don't achieve the claimed independence even nearly if the path tree gets complicated.

This is a very important problem to solve for the future of computing. I keep coming back to it - most recently watching Iron Man. I thought "Imagine there was a world where one man could construct so much software" - you'd need some sort of logic state machine like this to do it in.

Hypercard is the closest I've seen to a solution (it's headed in the right direction), but it's tied to user interface. The system needs to allow developers to declare "text box" or "read only text" or "single select" or "multiple select" to allow different interfaces to wrap themselves to it. And the different interfaces could be web, rich, console, unit test, or even a braile system.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I refuse to re-code my python program in objective-c. Thank you pyobjc...I didn't need to change it.</comment>


Booting Up Tanzania With Help From Google - <AUTHOR> http://www.fastcompany.com/1721712/booting-up-tanzania?partner=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+fastcompany/headlines+(Fast+Company+Headlines) <comment><USER2> "I'll often get a better cell phone connection out in the middle of [East Africa] than in San Francisco" My experience too.</comment>


Biodiversity falls below 'safe levels' globally - <AUTHOR> http://sciencebulletin.org/archives/3219.html <comment><USER2> This is indeed very depressing. A very excellent book about the scope of this problem is "The Sixth Extinction" [1]. One crazy anecdote from the book: the author explains how rare it should be to witness _any_ extinction of a species within one's lifetime. The average "background" rate of extinction is something like one per one thousand years. During the course of writing the book, the author _personally_ witnessed something like five species go extinct. It some ways this is an incredible time to be alive, but in many it's the most depressing time one could imagine... ever?

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sixth_Extinction:_An_Unnat...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sixth_Extinction:_An_Unnatural_History)

<comment><USER3> While I completely agree we are in unprecedented times of our own[1] making...

I will call into question the idea of a 'background extinction rate of 1 species /1000 years'.

We currently have a deeper understanding of our planet's ecosystem compared to any time in our recorded history. If someone from 1000 years ago observed an extinction, it does not mean there were not many other species coming to a natural end.

[1] We are a product of nature, the current imbalance of primary predator over the food chain is a product of both our intelligence and growth. It's a well understood predator/prey cycle. You cannot have who were are without what we cause, as much as we'd like to think otherwise.

The issue, fundamentally, is 7 billion humans on the planet. Doing something about that number would no longer make us human.

Fasten your seatbelts, there's some turbulence ahead, putting your trays in the upright position will have little effect on the outcome.

<comment><USER4> > Doing something about that number would no longer make us human.

I really struggle with this. Apart from "evil" countries like China we do very little to try to steer the reproductive outcome / health of our own species. We aggressively breed domesticated animals and plants but apart from class stratification we do almost nothing to ensure a positive genetic future for ourselves.

Why not? I'm not suggesting we prevent certain people from having kids (who? who decides?) but awareness of really basic concepts like "kids are expensive, have fewer or none if you're poor" simply aren't out there or are ineffective.

My wife and I (I'm an entrepreneur and a software engineer, my wife is GM of a company in architectural design) very deliberately decided to have one child. Our nanny on the other hand has three (grown) children. They're all in the same income bracket as she is and all having children of their own.

It's pretty well known that smarter / better educated people have fewer kids. That means that our current 7 billion is mostly those least equipped to raise the next generation and also those most likely to increase its size.

Again, I'm not suggesting we have the government try to regulate reproductive rights. (Governments rapidly accumulating power via technology is another problem we have to deal with as a species.) But what about global awareness? Or what about incentivizing the poorest people to have fewer children via social programs, education, etc.

And, just in case: No, you can't compare what I'm suggesting to Nazi Germany. This has nothing to do with race. I don't think race is even a meaningful concept when discussing humans. This is about us taking responsibly for our future and the health of the only planet we'll be able to call home for the foreseeable future -- by raising awareness of our collective responsibility to future generations, our strengths and weaknesses as custodians of.

[Edit]

Was really hoping to spark a meaningful discussion here. I think this is the elephant in the room wrt our future as a species -- as important as curbing CO2 emissions or detecting / destroying the next killer asteroid.

1\. Just for the record, no, I did not call China evil. I thought that was self evident. I guess not. If I thought Chinese people were evil my son wouldn't be half Chinese.

2\. Yes, there are a number of reasons poor people have more children than they should. None of those negate what I am saying. I'm suggesting we need to educate the poor on choices that will benefit themselves, their children and the human race as a whole.

<comment><USER5> _Apart from "evil" countries like China_

I know you put 'evil' in quotes but I still find this trivializes the governance of a country of over billion people and three millenia of continuous government (yes, the communist party may not be called a dynasty but if you look at it from historical perspective it's a direct continuation of the bureaucratic autocratic system that's dominated the area before Plato and Aristotle ).

 _Or what about incentivizing the poorest people to have fewer children via social programs, education, etc._

IMO, there are two main reasons for high birth rates: 1. lots of children are a form of capital in capital poor areas 2. there is very little else to do than breed in the evenings. 3. these two create a behaviour pattern in society where having lots of children is the social proven option.

If one does not want to go the china way then one needs to affect these causes directly. For 2. I suppose giving entertainment would lower birth rates. For 1 - well, I have no idea what to do with that apart from supporting economic growth.

<comment><USER6> I dont trust you to hold back on the lottery tickets and not start a civil war - so to secure my future, i got to put lots of lottery tickets into the pot.

Gametheory makes us do it.

<comment><USER6> Imagine a civ where this scenario ran away- for thousands of years. Behaviour optimized towards this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's an scary thought: It may not be that intelligent life is so rare in this universe, but rather that it is very rare for intelligent life to _sustain itself_ for long enough to colonize the galaxy..

For all that we've learned and have built, we still don't have a Plan B. No foreseeable alternative to this planet if it goes belly up, one way or the other.

What's worse, we're still not over our politics and economics and artificial borders; all the things that keep us rooted here and actually headed backwards into primitivity.

Even if Elon Musk or some other zillionaire launches a successful extraterrestrial habitation program, sooner or later it will fall prey to the same old national interests from back home.

<comment><USER8> > For all that we've learned and have built, we still don't have a Plan B. No > foreseeable alternative to this planet if it goes belly up, one way or the > other.

It's not like it's easy either. Sending massive amounts of stuff in space requires a lot of energy, and terraforming would require even more massive investments if we were to settle on any other planet even close to us.

<comment><USER9> Which is exactly one of the most compelling reasons to speed up fusion research. Near unlimited power changes everything.

<comment><USER10> The fact that fusion is not ready yet might be a good thing. We still don't realize how precious our remaining fossil fuel reserves are, and we'd probably squander the energy that fusion provides.

I've always said that fusion won't save us from the coming global energy crisis, because it's coming too soon. Maybe that's good; we'll learn to appreciate it when we have it.

<comment><USER7> Maybe we can look into exotic sources like lightning, even if it may not be as conventionally usable according to our current understanding.

Say, send up baskets of some materials in a balloon into storm clouds, have the immense burst of power in lighting strikes fuse them together into some form of fuel that we can then tap for energy.

<comment><USER11> I think you are being downvoted because lightning has very high power but very low total energy, and is way too unpredictable (apart from a few special places) even if it did have enough energy to be useful.

<comment><USER7> Yes, that's why I offered that maybe we could think out of the box to harness it in an indirect manner. Considering how it forms fulgurite [1], what if we used to form something that can be "burned" for energy?

I find it hard to believe that this awesome force cannot have any applications for man.

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

<comment><USER11> So the awesomeness comes from the _power_ [0], measured in watts. We like _power_ , as evidenced by our (humanity's) building ever-larger power plants, but what we really need is lots of bulk _energy_ [1]. _Energy_ is the integral of _power_ over time, measured in joules. Think of _power_ as how concentrated _energy_ is into a small amount of time.

Lightning bolts may deliver up to 10GW of _power_ , but the total energy is still only ~1GJ (based on a bit of searching[2][3]; I'll note that some "napkin math" estimates by some bloggers drastically overestimate the duration of an average lightning strike). According to [3], "all the lightning in the entire world could only power 8% of US households. At best." You also have to consider how incredibly expensive it would be to build a lightning rod and capacitor bank at every single possible lightning strike site.

So even if lightning's awesome _power_ can melt a few rocks, it still can't run our cars or heat our homes, because there's not enough _energy_.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(physics)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_\(physics\))

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

[2] [http://hyperphysics.phy- astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/lightnin...](http://hyperphysics.phy- astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/lightning2.html)

[3] [http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2012/05/could-we- harnes...](http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2012/05/could-we-harness- lightning-as-an-energy-source.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Numerous reports over the past several years have elluded to the 'sixth' extinction. We with this paper, and others there seems to be a lot of evidence that many species are rapidly reaching extinction.

There is a well known species interaction principle, which basically summarizes to - the growth of species A is negatively correlated with the growth of species B. This is especially well defined in predator/prey relationships. But let's just take a simple growth pattern (logistic growth) - which is continous population growth in an environment where resources are limited:

dN/dt = rN[k-N/k]

r - rate of increase N - population size k - carrying capacity

'k' is my favority ecological parameter. It's the theoretical limit an environment can hold a certain population of a species. The idea is, when a species surpasses k, population growth will decrease and/or even become negative until resoures are abundant again (sort of like an asymptote).

I always felt that Humans are the only species that alter their environment's 'k' through technology. For example, houses, heating, energy, etc.. all allow us to live in environments that we might not have been able to. This allows us to expand our population size much higher.

So are we going to surpass 'k' so high, that when we finally run out of resources we drive ourselves and other species into mass extinction? And will the environment be able to recover quick enough for our species population to stablize and recover?

<comment><USER13> We should tweak 'k' by drastically reducing our ecological footprints - through next-gen (internet) technology:

\- less travel needed because of worldwide VR/AR presence

\- less food transports because of local/home-grown/urban farming (think permaculture/machine-learning inspired farmbots)

And much more good stuff like that! :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm skeptical. Biodiversity, like cute animals, seems like one of those things that's emotionally appealing but may not be important beyond that. That's why scientists use terms like "ecological roulette" and ambiguous statements about how biodiversity actually affects the world and us.

If people genuinely cared about the welfare of animals, they'd have to accept uncomfortable truths like the fact that wild animals suffer immensely, and that nature itself is cruel. In many cases it may actually be beneficial from an utilitarian perspective to have some species die off. Being infested with painful or mind-controlling parasites, and being slowly gnawed to death are ordinary events for wild animals. They suffer some of the worst fates on this planet.

In some cases, like mosquitoes and malaria, killing off species might be the most heroic and useful action in the history of Earth.

<comment><USER15> A few things immediately come to mind on why at least some biodiversity may be important beyond cute animals:

A) We still lean on natural processes for agriculture (for instance, pollination plays a huge role in the production of certain fruits, and some species act as natural deterrents to crop pests). Biodiversity ensures that some of these natural processes we rely on are still functional and resilent to disease and other "cruelties of nature".

(The same concern could also be said for biodiversity of cultivated crops, although that's a bit different of an issue than what is highlighted in the paper.)

B) Biota oriented drug discovery still is pretty big even now. Less biodiversity means that we will have to lean more heavily on synthetic chemistry.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> The paper

[http://science.sciencemag.org/content/353/6296/288](http://science.sciencemag.org/content/353/6296/288)

says "Across 65% of the terrestrial surface, land use and related pressures have caused biotic intactness to decline beyond 10%, the proposed "safe" planetary boundary."

How is "biotic intactness" defined?

<comment><USER17> That is from the abstract. From the paper:

 _We asked how much of the Earth's land surface is already "biotically compromised" (exceeds the boundaries of 10% loss of abundance or 20% loss of species)._

This measure (10% abundance or 20% species) is used throughout the full paper and the 23-page supplementary material.

The general area of quantitative biodiversity study is in its infancy. It is not as well-developed as other study areas within Earth system science. For example, there are no universally-agreed-upon variables that must be monitored, like temperature, sea level, etc., that exist for other areas. So biodiversity-related measurements tend to be side-effects of other measurements for other purposes. For instance, habitat loss could be indirectly measured by classifiers run on satellite-produced ground imagery.

Here's some information on NASA's biodiversity research program: [http://cce.nasa.gov/cce/biodiversity.htm](http://cce.nasa.gov/cce/biodiversity.htm)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> _" We know biodiversity loss affects ecosystem function"_

This statement is so weak it's almost a tautology. What do we really know about the effects of biodiversity loss? How sound is the "safe limit" and what do we expect to happen when biodiversity falls below it?

<comment><USER19> If we eliminate at random some parts of a machine, the machine could work for a while but wouldn't be a surprise if a cascade of malfunctions appear. Is the same with ecosystems. When they run smoothly people often do not notice the advantages and that this is the work of thousands of years.

> What do we expect...?

Short answer: Nothing good. Maybe a few golden years and then less water, less food, worst climate and war.

Long answer: Some people do not see any problem because the ecosystem is quickly replaced for another ecosystem. This new scenery can have even more diversity if the disturbance is mild, like if we change a young forest by a meadow, so yes, we can breed cows in the rain forest or turn a coastal eucaliptus forest in a weat field... but only for a few years. There is a prize attached. Such ecosystems can be also easily disturbed and turn into a oligoculture of the most tougher species, than are often poisonous or unedible.

Therefore humans suffer also with the change. Sometimes entire civilizations dissapear, like in the case of the Mayan empire; in other cases all humans can ever be entirely eradicated, like in the Easter Island case. We have historical registers of deserted cities all aroung the world by a greedy management of natural resources. Desertification, deforestation or a bad harvest by new plagues, lead typically in our species to war for the resources. We are not much unlike lemmings in this sense. The concept of war today is totally different to "a few people trowing spears and arrows".

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> If one is interested in a take on this problem by an anthropologist/archaeologist turned epic fantasy writer, touching upon some of the thoughts in the comments here, see: [http://www.steven- erikson.com/index.php/commentary-endgame-v...](http://www.steven- erikson.com/index.php/commentary-endgame-vol-1-and-2-by-derrick-jensen/).

On the downside this is a rather long essay, on the plus side it does not require familiarity with the author's work.

</comment><comment><USER21> I wonder if experiential diversity has increased. Surely the decrease of biodiversity is painful for mother earth, but perhaps there is greater variation in the the experiences of all living organisms.

EDIT: Just a runaway thought: why is biodiversity important? If we are optimizing for the general well-being of humans and living beings on earth (which is the frame of reference I am using), then extinction of a species while increasing experiential diversity seems worthwhile.

In addition, the extinction of a species is only sad to those who remember. Many cultures have merged in history to become nations we see today, but nobody misses the oh-so-glory days of a specific Northern German tribe in BC 500.

As to the beauty we experience from diversity of species (seeing them, interacting with them), I would much rather enjoy technological experiences over that natural experience.

Perhaps this makes it sound all too all-or-nothing-esque, but it seems that there is a general assumption that increased biodiversity is good beyond measure.

<comment><USER22> > why is biodiversity important?

Healthy ecosystems can better withstand and recover from a variety of disasters.

> Many cultures have merged in history to become nations we see today, but > nobody misses the oh-so-glory days of a specific Northern German tribe in BC > 500.

I assume certain indigenous people don't appreciate being conquered.

> I wonder if experiential diversity has increased.

Why do you suppose experiential diversity has increased?

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Well that is depressing.

<comment><USER24> Here is some light in your tunnel: biodiversity falls because the fitness landscape has suddenly and dramatically changed. Humans have put new and startling pressures on each and every ecosystem on this planet, especially, recently, through the changes associated with global warming.

Some fitness gradients are impossible to climb: genetic diversity is currency, and you need a lot of it to overcome more difficult shifts in the evolutionary landscape. As the world changes, species spend down this genetic currency (through death and selection). Now the world is impoverished.

But there is a solution: we, humans, can take our boots off the throats of the rest of God's creatures. We have the capability to be good ecological citizens of this planet, perhaps more than any other species. We can create our own energy sources; we can refine and recycle our material inputs, producing a tight, closed loop of biomass and energy around ourselves.

With this light touch on the world, the negative pressure we place on the downtrodden masses of creatures by disturbing their ecological spaces will vanish. And the denizens of Earth will then reacquire the wealth of diversity that is the natural reward of merely living.

<comment><USER25> I want you to name one time in the history of humanity, that we sustained a "Light Touch".

<comment><USER26> The reign of Good King Asoka.

Also, all of human history (millions of years) before the invention of agriculture.

In any event, today it is clearly do or die.

<comment><USER25> We're going to die.

<comment><USER27> Well, that was always true.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Isn't this "extinction" just natural selection? "Winner takes all" is a feature, not a bug of natural selection.

<comment><USER29> It's not much of a feature if we destroy parts of a beautiful ecosystem as part of "winning"

Even if you don't think it's a crime to destroy an ecosystem, it's extremely foolish given that we depend heavily on it for our survival. If we damage or destroy it, what will happen to us?

<comment><USER28> The word "destroy" is pretty subjective and loaded. Sure, some nations have less than spectacular track records when it comes to being a good citizen of our planet, but nobody is intentionally "nuking" large swaths of land and resources for the sheer thrill of destruction either.

Instead, we're building skyscrapers and reaping the benefits of modernization through technological progress.

I'm sure one can find "beauty" in the paleolithic era as well, but if you were suddenly stuck living there, you'd find that free wifi is one of the last creature comforts you'd end up missing.

<comment><USER22> > Sure, some nations have less than spectacular track records when it comes to > being a good citizen of our planet

Does anyone have a good track record? Isn't utilizing natural resources to the detriment of the ecosystem as a whole a feature of human civilization?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Is it possible to use a form of AI to add the required diversity to genes? for example make multiple versions of the Banana plant. I'm sure it's possible but just very far into the future. Can someone with better knowledge confirm?

<comment><USER31> You can pretend that recombinant reproduction is a sort of statistical optimization process. Variations are created and then placed in the environment to see which are more successful.

Bananas are an interesting example. The species is quite diverse, it's just that there's only a few cultivars that are commercially interesting. Many of them are full of big hard seeds or fibrous or not very sweet or whatever.

Lack of pollinators is one of the explanations I'm considering for my Zucchini not setting any fruit. Not fun to consider that in this context.

<comment><USER19> Start hand pollinating your zucchini plants and you will have fruits again.

This should be enough if you have only a few plants. If is not the case, either buy some bumblebees or try with some of the parthenocarpic varieties of zucchini that do not need pollinators. Feed well your plants, Zucchini and pumpkins love having generous amounts of old manure

<comment><USER31> Yeah, I've already been experimenting with hand pollination. The plants seem to be super healthy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Remove the apex predator and biodiversity will quickly recover.

<comment><USER19> Is just the opposite. Apex predators generate biodiversity and even entirely new types of ephemeral ecosystems.

<comment><USER32> But does this still hold true when the Apex predator is Humans?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Site splashed popup in my face after a few seconds. Closed tab. Annoying begging behavior.

<comment><USER34> use uBlock Origin dude

<comment><USER35> That's a plaster over a wound. It would be better not to have sustained the injury in the first place - and the reader didn't create the pop-up.

My present interpretation of pop-ups is that the author or their publisher holds their advertisers or their subscriber list as more important than their content: in these circumstances it's reasonable to assume the content isn't worth reading. There are exceptions.

<comment><USER34> Yeah totally. Don't mean to do victim-blaming. But we still live in a bullshit world full of obnoxiousness where you _should_ do things to protect yourself even if that's not fair to expect ideally.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I read this article while listening to

Where Do The Children Play? - Cat Stevens [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a4DCxAi020](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a4DCxAi020)

As a young adult, what can I do to help?</comment>