End of Obama's silicon honeymoon - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/node/17361426

<comment><USER2> "When a good manager meets a bad business, it's the business's reputation that stays intact." -- Warren Buffett

I think a lot of Obama's difficulties stem from having to steer a massive federal bureaucracy. There're lots of power centers in government besides the president - the American system is designed that way, so that any given bad president can't do too much damage. (Though that didn't seem to stop Dubya...maybe it's easier to blow things up than it is to build them.) I'm disappointed at Obama's inaction on net neutrality, but he's been distracted by other major initiatives. And the health care bill is _huge_ for potential entrepreneurs; one of the major disincentives to quitting your job is the lack of health insurance.

<comment><USER3> "And the health care bill is huge for potential entrepreneurs; one of the major disincentives to quitting your job is the lack of health insurance."

After all the debate last year, I still find claims like this so strange. As far as I have ever been able to tell, the Health Care reform merely assesses a tax on being uninsured. So, if you quit your job to start a company, you no longer have the option to forgo insurance without now paying a penalty on your taxes. How an additional penalty would either a) provide more/better health care or b) spur entrepreneurship I have never been able to understand.

<comment><USER4> One big change that's in effect now for young entrepreneurs is that they can stay on their parent's health plan until 26. I'm not sure if this will actually encourage any more young people to try their hand at entrepreneurship because most consider themselves invincible and don't give a lot of thought to health care, but it'll certainly help prevent the experience from becoming a horror story.

<comment><USER5> > One big change that's in effect now for young entrepreneurs is that they can > stay on their parent's health plan until 26.

Since young people's coverage is very inexpensive, that's not a huge benefit. However, it is being paid for by other people.

Of course, there's no guarantee that such cost shifting will continue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I don't feel like people here are down on Obama at all. They're down on things the government has done and not done, which is now (to some extent) Obama's fault since he's (to some extent) in charge of it. But I don't hear any grumbling about him personally.

<comment><USER7> A number of people I've talked to that voted for him in the last election have been saying that they're unhappy with the president and Democratically led congress. There is a good chance that many on HN are unhappy also. They might not be vocal about it, because just stating that unhappiness doesn't accomplish much, and it really isn't an appropriate forum for politics. I personally will be supporting fiscally conservative candidates in the future that have supported small business and that I think would be good leaders. I hope that the days of judging candidates by charisma are over, and instead we look at track record. A track record of being a professor and community organizer is inappropriate for the leader of the free world during a time when support of business is imperative.

<comment><USER8> Shouldn't they be angry about the system that polarizes the two sides into waring factions that cannot get anything done in a reasonable timeframe? Look at right now, the right will not vote anything controversial in that may or may not be good for the economy because they are too worried about conceding to the left. The same thing happens when the right is in power. midterm elections make the window of possible change so small that nothing really gets done.

<comment><USER9> The less congress does the better - every time congress starts to act they increase the amount of uncertainty about the future which makes it hard to predict what the appropriate investments are.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > Many of its 2,000 members, he adds, are unwilling to invest in new > initiatives while there is so much uncertainty about future policy.

What is this 'uncertainty' Obama is supposed to be responsible for? I don't think Obama has been particularly unclear about his intentions, and when he's compromised it's almost always been toward more conservative positions. His opponents have fallen in love with this term lately, but to me they feel like weasel words used because complaining about a Democrat in the White House sounds too, well, _partisan_.

<comment><USER11> What taxes are going to be raised to pay for the radical increase in spending? What's the next industry to be demonized and have punitive penalties, taxation, or nationalization applied to it? Is somebody else going to be shaken down the way BP Oil was even when there was no legal authority to do it [1]? What other radical changes to the economy are going to be proposed if the recovery continues to be anemic, and how many dollars are going to be vacuumed out of the private economy to accomplish these changes? How much more loan disasters have been hidden, and how will the administration react, and how many dollars will be vacuumed out of the private economy to implement the reactions? How will the government react to the oncoming pension crises, and how many dollars will be vacuumed out of the private economy to do it? By what order of magnitude will the Obama health care bill's costs be underestimated[2]?

It doesn't even matter whether these are true; I'm not really trying to argue these points or I'd back them up better, I'm just answering your question. (So, for instance, replying to me to argue about the legal authority for the BP Oil escrow account would be missing the point.) It only matters that enough people in business think they are true. It doesn't matter whether they are _entirely_ correct, it only matters that the concerns are _correct enough_. Somewhat loaded terms were chosen deliberately to give a more accurate impression of how these people are thinking.

[1]: [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/16/politics/main65881...](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/16/politics/main6588178.shtml) , if you don't remember this

[2]: I don't even mean this as an attack _specifically_ on that bill; observing that governments almost without exception underestimate costs is merely _realism_ , not politics, and when you're talking about something the size of the health care bill, being 50% off is a _big deal_.

<comment><USER12> >What taxes are going to be raised to pay for the radical increase in spending?

That's an unanswerable question. In order to determine how much taxes will have to be increased to pay for current expenditures, you would need to be able to predict what the economy will be like in a year. If the administration's economic initiatives were successful, there's a possibility taxes will not have to be raised at all. So you're getting angry at Obama because he can't predict what your company's revenues will be in a year, which is totally unreasonable.

I think that applies more generally to most of the points you raised. The Obama administration didn't make the world unpredictable, it has always been that way. I don't even think another failure in the economy makes anything the administration has done categorically bad decisions. I don't think we're in a worse position now than a year ago, and I don't think the fall can be any harder now than it could have been. (Because it could have been atrocious.)

In general I think it's reflective more of business leaders' politics, and those on the left will say that times are hard, and those on the right will say that Obama and the Democrats are making times hard, which again, is totally unreasonable.

<comment><USER11> >>What taxes are going to be raised to pay for the radical increase in spending?

> That's an unanswerable question.

Which is pretty much the point, in a nutshell. Businesses seek confidence on what their costs are going to be, and the fact that such confidence has _always_ been impossible doesn't really affect that. Which business in New Orleans correctly planned for Hurricane Katrina?

<comment><USER13> _Businesses seek confidence on what their costs are going to be, and the fact that such confidence has always been impossible doesn't really affect that._

This raises the question of what changed when Obama took office that caused the complaints of uncertainty to start. Then again, at this point, I don't expect the people I generally see complaining about uncertainty to acknowledge that it has always been there (and that they were just giving Bush a free pass).

<comment><USER14> That's an easy question to answer. Obama came in promising radical change, and then followed through in some areas. This increased uncertainty in all areas, since it was made clear that radical change was in fact in the works.

After this week's election, uncertainty should drop, since we will then know that nothing much can get done for the next two years.

<comment><USER12> If the Republicans continue to stonewall, I'd expect the filibuster to be abolished. The inaction is getting poisonous.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Three, concrete steps Obama should to take to redeem himself with the tech crowd and revive the economy:

1) _Immigration reform._ If smart engineers from abroad want to study here or work here we need to let them, and let them stay as long as they want.

2) _Better science and math education._ It might be a long slog to catch up with some other countries, but we need to start. One suggestion: A national "learn to program" initiative in low-income elementary schools.

3) _Focus financial industry reforms on making life easier for small businesses (i.e. startups)._ We create the most jobs and account for the most innovation, and yet the bulk of Obama's economic policy has helped big incumbents. Easier access to credit, federal startup grants, and small business tax reform would all go a long way.

<comment> old-gregg I probably want to disagree on all 3 accounts. While they do sound good in principle they are not, in my opinion, major hurdles for anyone, lets see:

1) It is borderline trivial to come to US on an H1b visa and has always been so: as a former H1b holder I can hardly see how can government do anything here except to be more efficient (more streamlined procedures).

2) What is government supposed to do here exactly? If science and math graduates had comparable earning power prospects to law, finance and medical grads we wouldn't be discussing it. Besides, on a university level US schools are top notch.

3) Like what? I own a small business and haven't encountered any obstacles caused by the government. Getting customers, press and funding are by far my biggest headaches. And keeping in mind how notoriously inefficient governments are I'd hate to see them decide which powerpoint gets my tax dollars and which doesn't - leave that to VCs.

I'd ask Mr. Obama to invest into fundamental research, the kind of expensive, risky and long-term stuff VCs don't invest into. They built Internet to fight Russians and look how much mileage we've gotten out of it. Startups aren't building "new internet", they're in the business of making products on top of the existing one. Mr. President, give us some new shiny tech out of NASA/CIA/whatever and we'll get busy building next generations of googles and facebooks.

<comment><USER15> I completely agree with a the need for more fundamental research. What about another generational project akin to the space race or the Manhattan project? These efforts did an amazing job of mobilizing both students and professionals around big, hairy goals, and the work that ensued sparked an untold number of innovations and new technologies.

Also,

1) Only larger companies can sponsor H1b's, not startups. The so-called "startup visa" would be a small step forward, but it sets a pretty high bar.

2) We rank towards the bottom of developed countries in math and science, and by college it's too late; by then you either got a good education in these areas, or you didn't.

3) I agree that government is super inefficient, and in some ways it may appear incompatible with the near-opposite agility of the startup world. That said, small businesses of all kinds need capital, and often credit, and the short-term effects of banking reform was to tighten capital markets even more.

<comment><USER16> Nonsense. We sponsor H1b's. I'd be surprised to hear that we were more than a stddev larger than the mean 2-year-old YC startup.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> _tech leaders have been outraged by Mr Obama's willingness to demonise employers for outsourcing work to foreign countries, which is especially popular within the IT industry_

This is popular with _management_ not really with employees.

</comment><comment><USER18> They've forgotten a few things like the current administration stance on copyrights. Things like ACTA. Also patent reforms aren't really being talked about much by this administration.

</comment><comment><USER19> > _their backers were betting that Mr Obama would push through an energy bill > that would force America to embrace alternative sources of energy more > aggressively._

Give him a break, getting healthcare reform passed already involved flame- baiting half of congress to the extreme. There's a thing called filibustering that massively slows down all legislature once anyone bill becomes flame- baitable enough. There is no way any president could have halted the greatest financial collapse since the great depression, passed education reform, passed healthcare reform, AND also gotten to a new energy\immigration policy in 18 months, while filibustering exists, without assuming dictatorial power.

</comment><comment><USER20> The president might need to be careful when dealing with the tech industry. Sure, they may not have as much power as the "media" now, but with the declining foothold of traditional news outlets and media sources it will be interesting to see how this dynamic changes in coming years.

Also, when it comes to wasteful spending see: [http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/20/fbi-computer-system- years-...](http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/20/fbi-computer-system-years-late- and-way-over-budget/) I mean come on. There needs to be some serious thought as to how to somehow apply startup principals to government endeavors.

</comment><comment><USER21> -Another source of friction is the reluctance in Washington to reduce hefty taxes on foreign earnings repatriated to America. As many American tech firms make a large share of their revenue and profit outside the country, they are particularly exercised by the government's reluctance to lighten this burden.-

I agree with the Obama administration on this one. Corporations should not be allowed to move their operations overseas. If there is not a skilled labor force in this country from which to hire, corporations should call on our schools and our government to create the kind of educational system and incentives that will produce skilled Americans who can meet the demand.

-To make matters worse, tech leaders have been outraged by Mr Obama's willingness to demonise employers for outsourcing work to foreign countries, which is especially popular within the IT industry, and by his grating sermons on the evils of corporate greed. "We're praised for creating jobs, while being spanked at the same time," complains Mark Heesen...-

Yes. You should spanked for your corporate greed. It is perfectly reasonable to expect entrepreneurs to pay back into the system that allowed them to create such success. Our current system reeks of thirty-odd years of corporations creeping into government and manipulating the rules, and bending, breaking or destroying regulations so as to maximize profit at the expense of the American people. It is even more reasonable to expect that to undo the damage, we will have to return to a system of tighter controls and the closing of loopholes that allow companies to get away with paying at or near 0% in taxes.

-Tech firms and venture capitalists welcome these initiatives, but are deeply frustrated by a lack of action in other areas. For instance, many cleantech start-ups and their backers were betting that Mr Obama would push through an energy bill that would force America to embrace alternative sources of energy more aggressively. But that came a cropper in the Senate.-

Right, because instead of strong-arming everything through the Senate, like the Republicans did for six years under Bush, Obama wanted to play the "reach across the aisle" game, to which nearly every single Republican spat back in his face. As a result, in two years, all we got was a mangled health care reform bill that, while a big step in the right direction, still allows huge insurance companies and pharmaceuticals to continue capitalizing on human suffering.

-In a speech in Silicon Valley, Mr Obama reiterated that he wants to create the conditions in America that would give rise to the next Google and the next Hewlett-Packard. But he will have to do much more to convince the tech industry that he really means it.-

Well, if the tech industry thinks that the path to doing that is to bringing in skilled labor from other countries, outsourcing jobs, and paying at or near 0% in net taxes, then the industry is delusional and needs a reality check. Discouraging immigration of skilled labor encourages the development of those skills in this country. Taxes generate the revenue that the government can use to create an educational system that trains people in those skills and provides incentives for people to leave colleges and universities with degrees in those field. Our current system is far too broken in this regard. Educational spending is far too low, the result of thirty years of Republicans blowing up the taxes on corporations and the richest 1%.

It seems to me that too many entrepreneurs have tunnel vision, asking "Why do I have to pay all these taxes?" and "Why can't I bring in the skilled labor I need from other countries?" The frame for these questions is self-centered. If the entrepreneur expands his frame of reference beyond himself to ask, "Who's paying to support society at this point in history?" and "Why can't I find the skilled labor I need in this country?" then the solutions to these problems become clear, and they require a progressive push even stronger than what Obama's achieved thus far.

<comment><USER22> _Discouraging immigration of skilled labor encourages the development of those skills in this country._

In a vacuum, you might be right, but companies in the US increasingly compete on a global scale, and since other countries are more friendly to immigration of skilled professionals, we risk losing our global competitive edge. It's a nice idea to think that artificial barriers will result in us ramping up education, but that's a process that will take decades. You can't just start teaching advanced computer science to high school seniors who can barely read and struggle with basic math. So what's more likely is that the lack of skilled professionals in this country will gradually reduce our pace of innovation relative to other countries and cause a relative decline in our wealth, causing us to fall further and further behind.

It's far faster and more efficient to let the hoards of skilled professionals in other countries come here, especially since many of them are willing to risk almost anything to move their families here and would stay forever if we let them. Instead we severely restrict them and then we compound the problem by letting people come here to go to school and then make them leave if they can't find a job. It's the exact opposite of what we should be doing.

<comment><USER21> I feel you have misframed the issue as well.

-In a vacuum, you might be right, but companies in the US increasingly compete on a global scale, and since other countries are more friendly to immigration of skilled professionals, we risk losing our global competitive edge.-

That there is a "global economy" and that this is somehow a new thing is a myth perpetuated by Milton Friedman's view of the "flat earth." What is a new thing is the USA relaxing tariffs and trade restrictions so that American companies can outsource work to other countries and not pay taxes on their goods if they manufacture them abroad. Besides that, there has been a "global economy" for many hundreds of years. It's at least as old as the British empire. What the US has been doing over the last thirty years has not so much been "opening markets", as it has been destroying our country's internal regulations that protect American workers from competing with the workers of foreign countries. In my opinion, such regulations were a good thing, and they built the strongest economic power the world had ever seen.

In brief, we don't have to compete on global scale if we choose not to. Your statement assumes that we do.

-It's a nice idea to think that artificial barriers will result in us ramping up education, but that's a process that will take decades.-

USA, 1945: "It's nice to think that if we eliminate artificial barriers to education, we'll have a skilled workforce that will build America into an industrial and economic superpower, but it would be easier to keep all the money in the hands of a few wealthy people. It would take decades to accomplish being an economic superpower, so it's really not worth the effort." I'm glad this wasn't the prevailing attitude then. I'm sure the country I live in would look a lot different.

-You can't just start teaching advanced computer science to high school seniors who can barely read and struggle with basic math.-

Again, reframing. The correct question is, "Why are so many American high school seniors barely able to read and struggle with basic math?" There are many facets to this problem, I'm sure, but I think a large chunk of the problem is that for many American families, there is a culture of anti- intellectualism. School, teachers and education are derided, and with this derision comes an unspoken message that being educated is not that important. And it's not just families. Our culture as a whole doesn't value education. Even in the tech industry, we have superstars Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg as the problem's biggest contributors -- they are both college drop outs, yet they are both ridiculously rich and famous.

I think that we could undercut this whole sociocultural phenomenon by having our government step in and do something really drastic, like waive the student loans of anyone who gets a tech degree and holds a job in the industry for some number of years. The more ridiculous the price of an education becomes, the more American teenagers you're going to have who feel that the path of least resistance to a good life doesn't lead through a university.

-So what's more likely is that the lack of skilled professionals in this country will gradually reduce our pace of innovation relative to other countries and cause a relative decline in our wealth, causing us to fall further and further behind.-

-It's far faster and more efficient to let the hoards of skilled professionals in other countries come here, especially since many of them are willing to risk almost anything to move their families here and would stay forever if we let them.-

The assumption made here is that we simply don't have enough skilled labor in this country to meet our demand, and that the only way meet it is to import that skilled labor. I disagree with you. I think we can easily create a social and economic environment conducive to creating the demand we need. Is importing it easier and cheaper? Yes. But it doesn't pay out in the long term.

Here's an example situation. Let's stay Startup X has one American engineer, but it needs fifteen more of him. For the sake of argument, let's say his skill set is utterly unique in the US. No one knows what he knows but him. So, Startup X needs fourteen more of him, but they don't exist in this country now. There do exist internationals with the skill set, and it would be really cheap to get the internationals to come over, and Startup X would have all the labor it needs within a matter of weeks. Cheap labor, lots of profit. The CEO is seeing dollar signs. But, his partner points out something else. They've got the one American engineer. The government just recently instituted a bunch of economic incentives for students who get tech degrees. Under the same bill, Startup X could also get money to pay the salaries of interns learning a skilled technology trade. Bingo! Their one American engineer could train the new engineers. Each of them might further innovate, have new ideas, form his own startup one day, and they'd be American startups. Yeah, it'll take longer. And, you might not be able to pay them the same as internationals. Since they're American, they're likely to have higher standards for pay. Oh, but right, I forgot. Using international labor is cheaper and faster, our country be damned.

Again, this kind of tunnel vision is really damaging to our industry, because all of the negative societal consequences of conservative economics come back around to bite us in the ass. If we keep addressing our problems with the same kind of thinking that caused the problems in the first place (lower taxes, fewer trade restrictions, etc.), we'll be perpetuating a vicious and dangerous downward spiral.

<comment><USER22> _Here's an example situation. Let's stay Startup X has one American engineer, but it needs fifteen more of him. For the sake of argument, let's say his skill set is utterly unique in the US. No one knows what he knows but him. So, Startup X needs fourteen more of him, but they don't exist in this country now. There do exist internationals with the skill set, and it would be really cheap to get the internationals to come over, and Startup X would have all the labor it needs within a matter of weeks. Cheap labor, lots of profit. The CEO is seeing dollar signs. But, his partner points out something else. They've got the one American engineer. The government just recently instituted a bunch of economic incentives for students who get tech degrees. Under the same bill, Startup X could also get money to pay the salaries of interns learning a skilled technology trade. Bingo! Their one American engineer could train the new engineers. Each of them might further innovate, have new ideas, form his own startup one day, and they'd be American startups. Yeah, it'll take longer. And, you might not be able to pay them the same as internationals. Since they're American, they're likely to have higher standards for pay. Oh, but right, I forgot. Using international labor is cheaper and faster, our country be damned._

Your example would be a lot more compelling if it took into account a few factors:

1\. For a large percentage of those internationals, making it easier to come here will mean that they will come here and _stay_ , which means that all those potential benefits you say will accrue from the use of the hypothetical interns will also accrue from the internationals, only faster. I don't really understand this line in the sand you've drawn between "us" and "them", because what we're talking about is letting "them" become one of "us". Where is the harm in that, exactly?

2\. Training interns is hard, hard work, doesn't scale as well as you seem to think, and often isn't feasible at all. Even if it is, it'll take forever, and Startup X very likely won't be around by the time those interns are competent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> The President controls the military, can veto bills that congress/the senate passes, and appoints supreme court justices.

Anything else the media claims Obama is responsible for is a disingenuous attempt to garner views by name dropping the President and is actually doing a disservice to all it's readers by misrepresenting how the American political system works.

</comment><comment><USER24> I don't know which is more relevant for the HN audience - a) the discussion of how to balance and deliver promises and priorities in the government or...

b) the fact that the comments section of The Econimist is apparently completely vulnerable to spam bots.

On (a) I'm inclined to take a long view on this presidency and say that the real rubber will meet the road after the midterms. As for (b) maybe the folks over at TE would like to take advantage of the recent "Offer HN" meme.

</comment><comment><USER25> The author(s) of the piece may be right. Or not.

It's an unsigned/unattributed essay that is long on weasel words (as wikipedia would put it, e.g., "Many of its 2,000 members..."), short on evidence (a few quotes attributed to identified individuals) and devoid of quantification ("tech leaders have been outraged by..." what proportion? did some take a poll?)

Economics tries to be a quantitative behavioral science. This piece, however...

</comment><comment><USER26> Thought this sentence was interesting: "An enigmatic politician with strong convictions, Mr Obama in many ways resembled the driven young spirits that venture capitalists love to take a punt on."

I bet in British-English it comes out right, but in reference to American Football, 'taking a punt on' would mean passing on these driven young spirits and not backing them. Ahh linguistics

</comment><comment><USER27> When the economy improves, the president's approval will start climbing as well.

</comment><comment><USER28> What problem Silicon Valley really was solving?</comment>


Torrents hidden in PNG images - <AUTHOR> http://www.hid.im/ <comment><USER3> One interesting idea: make a png compressor that _doesn't change the image at all_ ; instead, it encodes the torrent's data in the decisions made by the DEFLATE compressor, so a stenographic image merely looks like it was encoded with a slightly suboptimal DEFLATE implementation.

Simple example: you're coding a match against a previous block and can choose one of two previous blocks to match against. If the bit of the torrent file to be encoded is "0", you use the closer of the two blocks, if it's "1" you use the farther.

All you have to do decoder-side to emulate this is to decode the whole PNG, then go "encode" it again and see what decisions were made in the original PNG file and one by one decode the bits to an output torrent file.

You'd probably need a pretty big PNG file (at least a few hundred kilobytes, if not a meg).

<comment><USER4> I think a better solution is to adjust the color slightly. You can easily get 3 or 4 bits of encoded data for every pixel in the image. Just take the least significant bit of the red, green and blue colors. You go from 16.7 million to 2 million colors, but that shouldn't be a problem. The human eye cannot see the difference anyway. Only in perfect gradients that kind of difference can maybe be noticed, so then the solution is to pick grainy pictures.

Photos (especially of poorly lit environments) should be perfect. They're very grainy by nature, so it will be especially difficult to trace where the data resides. Because you can hide so much data in the image, you can get very creative with where and how you do the encoding.

<comment><USER5> So it will be difficult to detect visually, but isn't this rather trivial to find algorithmically? Not that I know much about cryptoanalysis, but it seems to me that this is a very weak form of steganography.

<comment><USER6> It's reasonably hard to detect if just the least significant bit is random, but if you do the last three significant bits you don't even need an algorithm --you can see the jagged, broken histogram.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> As other posters have mentioned, this is advertising more than it sells. It's merely encoding a torrent in a PNG in an obvious way. The idea that it "can't be searched for" is true only on the assumption that search engines will index on content of a page. Obviously a popular hid.im format will attract search engine specialization.

This is not steganography, it's merely an obscure variant of the .torrent file format.

<comment><USER8> I believe the claim that hidim is steganography comes from the title of hackernews link. The site itself claims to represent torrents as .png, but not to disguise them.

The claim that this will frustrate search engines is true, in the sense that no one is looking for this format at the moment; obfuscating with an awkward format is a short term dodge.

<comment><USER9> It seems to me that the likelihood of a real search engine adding special image analysis on crawl, just for this, is vanishingly small.

Not to mention you can also insert these PNGs into other images, too - <USER2> sig images, as the page suggests.

People can pick away at it all they want, but the fact remains that it's a huge innovation in distributing torrents without running the risk of coming up in search when Interested Parties google the torrent name. And it works great now for this purpose.

Nothing on this earth is guaranteed to work forever, so that's hardly a damning flaw.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Everyone complaining about the fact that the torrent info is not well hidden and suggesting steganography seems to be missing the point. Stego is not suitable for what is effectively an attempt to broadcast information; if you hide the torrent info too well then the only people who can find it are those who know the key, which is begs the question* of why you don't just create a private tracker. By encoding the info using a well-known scheme you get a bit of security by obscurity, which is probably good enough for most use-cases, while maintaining the useful property of getting the info easily dispersed. Until google images, flickr, and other sites start filtering this info you can create a parasitic tracker just by picking a couple of popular tags and handing out a script that will crawl the sites and decode images to get torrent seeds.

*yes, I know this is the improper vulgar usage of the phrase, sue me.

<comment><USER11> Just never use BTQ -- 'raises the question' is perfect for your use, and 'is a circular argument' or 'assumes what it purports to prove' both work for the rare times when you actually need to say that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> That's not very well hidden. The PNG file format is a tagged file format, which has several "ancillary chunks" which a torrent file could easily be stuffed into (since torrents are a glorified text format).

There's no need to jam it into the image channel itself and produce this thing that's _obviously_ a hidden message.

</comment><comment><USER13> Interesting take; it'd be a little bit more interesting if you could supply a source image and steganographically hide the torrent within it, so it didn't look so suspicious..

</comment><comment><USER14> This is interesting, because every image host suddenly becomes a place to host torrent files.

<comment><USER15> But this format is so easy to decode, that existing search engines could crawl for such torrents very easily. In order for this to be really useful, there needs to be some steganography involved.

<comment><USER16> The way to decode would still be public, so there's no difference.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> <http://hid.im/about/format>

Wow, way to completely blow the opportunity for any kind of subterfuge -- they even use a magic number!

The torrents aren't hidden at all, and could be crawled, reversed, and identified with no more effort than if they were just plain torrent files.

</comment><comment><USER17> As someone who has actually done this before, it's pretty easy. PNG has R,G,B, and A. So you can effectively get 4 bits per pixel on Least Significant Bit Substitution.

You can fit a lot of data into image, whether plain text or binary, depends solely how you encode the data. If you use a complex picture its basically impossible to detect visually, even if you enhance the lsb's.

What works pretty well for detection is doing chi square analysis, but even then, if you fill the rest of the bits with random data, that method fall short.

I don't really see how this is an effective means of transferring and/or sending torrents. The .torrent isn't illegal or something to worry about, its downloading the files it points to that "sometimes" is.

Cool project, but serves no real purpose.

</comment><comment><USER18> I don't understand the point of this. The torrent file is just a tiny stub - you can hide it in any sort of data file. If you want to send the torrent to a few people securely, encrypt and email it. The huge amount of P2P traffic on your network is still going to give you away.</comment>


Every recorded meteorite strike on Earth since 2,300 BCE mapped - <AUTHOR> http://osm2.cartodb.com/tables/2320/public#/map <comment><USER2> This map is a great example of how Google Mercator is not always the right projection for a visualization. Antarctica is an important source for meteorite research; black specs are easy to pick off the white ice. But this map projection completely distorts Antarctica so you can't really read that part of the data. Cool map, but sometimes the off-the-shelf map tool isn't the right choice.

<comment><USER3> It's not google. This one is based on <http://cartodb.com/>, however the argument is still valid

<comment><USER4> This reply from Google explains why they use Mercator. [http://productforums.google.com/d/msg/maps/A2ygEJ5eG-o/KbZr_...](http://productforums.google.com/d/msg/maps/A2ygEJ5eG-o/KbZr_B0h2hkJ) Not sure if it's really satisfactory, but at least there's a reason.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Nice.

Some kind of explanation would be helpful, though. Apparently the size of the circle is related to the mass of the meteorite, and color is density of circles. But it took me a while to figure that out.

Also, what happened in Oman?

EDIT: Wikipedia says, "The central desert of Oman is an important source of meteorites for scientific analysis." Possibly meteorites are just easier to find there, due to properties of the terrain. Perhaps meteorite hunting is a popular sport/business, too?

<comment><USER6> Apparently Oman is a destination for meteorite explorers. That explains the difference between Oman and Saudi Arabia on the map. [http://www.livescience.com/3613-searching-meteorites- deserts...](http://www.livescience.com/3613-searching-meteorites-deserts- oman.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> More accurately described as "where people were located since 2,300 BCE that were capable of recording meteor strikes and recorded them in a form that survived until present day and made its way into a database of meteor strikes." Latitudinal variations in the density of meteor strikes wouldn't surprise me; longitudinal ones should be entirely explained by the observational effect. Hence we see a ton of meteor strikes in the continental US and virtually none in rural China, though both are on similar latitudes.

<comment><USER8> What's the data source? If it's the US meteorical society database, then it probably includes "finds" in additional to witnessed "falls".

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Interesting. The relatively high number in India compared to surrounding locations says to me that there is a strong component of culture (determines if things are recorded) and population density. On the other hand, flyover country in the US seems to get more than the coasts, despite population density, so perhaps light pollution on the coasts is skewing the results?

</comment><comment><USER3> sorry, but this is another population density map

<comment><USER10> Not really.

Note the large number of strikes in the Sahara desert (and Antarctica, as someone else noted).

There are _at least_ two things going on here, probably more:

1) Population density 2) Ease of finding the meteorite or crater (this is easier in barren areas with relatively homogeneous terrain, like the desert and Antartica).

<comment><USER3> You right, but I still see this map as a catalogue of found meteors, rather than an informative visualisation. To make your observations clear, you need to normalise this heatmap by the population density.

<comment><USER10> It depends on what you're after. What you're suggesting would would also distort the data, but in a different way -- it'd make it look like Antarctica was far more likely to get hit than it actually is.

One would expect the true distribution to be extremely uniform, right?

<comment><USER11> Overall, yes. I wonder, though, could the spin of the Earth have any effect on the distribution?

<comment><USER12> Improbable.

However, there could be a favoured plane of arrival, like the solar system plane, and with a circular cross section of the Earth I'd expect less debris/area near the poles. (I don't _know_ this, I'm just extrapolating from what I actually know.)

<comment><USER13> > ... with a circular cross section of the Earth I'd expect less debris/area > near the poles.

As it turns out, Antarctica is a very productive place to look for meteorites, first because there isn't really a preferred geographical zone for meteorite impacts, and second because of the large, empty ice fields, against which newly fallen meteorites stand out.

One of the most famous meteorite finds of all time, ALH84001, was located by simply driving across the Antarctica landscape and watching for dark objects.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Hills_84001>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Are the patterns I see here artifacts of the data collection method, or do meteors really prefer the northern hemisphere?

<comment><USER15> Almost exclusively due to the data collection method. Specifically, only _recorded_ strikes are shown -- someone had to find the meteorite and publish its existence. Hence the dense jungles of Congo are relatively empty compared to the well trodden plains of Kenya.

Also notice: the only plotted strikes in Antarctica are right near the scientific stations -- but the intensity is _very_ high at those points.

If you plotted theoretical meteorite distributions, there would be more strikes at the poles than the equator (due to the Earth's rotation, the poles receive many more meteorites) but at a given latitude the distribution would be even.

<comment><USER16> _Also notice: the only plotted strikes in Antarctica are right near the scientific stations -- but the intensity is very high at those points.

If you plotted theoretical meteorite distributions, there would be more strikes at the poles than the equator (due to the Earth's rotation, the poles receive many more meteorites) but at a given latitude the distribution would be even._

Could someone who understands this really well explain why the rotation of earth would change the number of meteorite strikes near the equator?

(It seems to me that strikes should be completely randomly distributed across the earth's surface and if a meteorite was headed for one area of the equator and the earth was spinning, the meteorite would simply hit another area of the equator.) I'm probably missing something here, but I can't figure out what.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I wonder what data source was used. I've confirmed a few strikes several miles from where they actually hit. (A Kendall County, TX strike appeared south of San Antonio, and a Louisville, KY strike appeared downtown while the actual strike occurred several miles from downtown.

<comment><USER11> The table gives a source for every data item. They all look to be from here: <http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php>

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Some of these comments raised a lot of questions about meteor distribution due to orbital/rotational effects.

Found some answers here: <http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=746>

</comment><comment><USER19> Logically oceans get hit at the same rate. Also land that is now under water. Are there any recorded oceanic meteor strikes in this map?

Oh! The one that killed the dinosaurs. It was pretty big. Maybe only the big ones leave a mark on the ocean floor.

</comment><comment><USER20> Some explanation over the map is here [http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/18/4001936/map-every- recorded...](http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/18/4001936/map-every-recorded- meteorite-strike-earth-2300-BCE)

</comment><comment><USER21> They seem to concentrate in areas with the means to record them

</comment><comment><USER22> it would be interesting to overlay geography and population maps on top of this data. It seems as if the most density comes in areas with flat, unobstructed land, but also with relatively high populations. Assuming random strikes, mere desserts or population centers do not seem enough to generate density, it must be a combination of prairie/desert and people such as Kansas or Northern Texas

</comment><comment><USER20> If you are interested on how it was made, checkout <https://vimeo.com/59791629>

</comment><comment><USER23> Interesting - there is a perception, I think, that Russia gets hit by more than their share, but actually opposite seems true</comment>


Ask HN: How Many Users Are Still Using "Shared Hosting"? - <AUTHOR> A hosting forum I know used to talked about shared hosting, but now all they are talking about is cloud hosting or vps. I'm curious, how many and what kind of users are still using shared hosting like Godaddy, Hostgator, Bluehost, etc.. <comment><USER2> Many. To the average person, Shell is ancient alien technology.

If you look up 'Web hosting' all the review sites recommend shared plans. It sells faster.

</comment><comment><USER3> I've used shared hosting for about 15 years for hosting WordPress and Piwigo sites. It's a good midway point between maintaining a server and using a hosted platform like WordPress.com or Flickr.com.

</comment><comment><USER4> I use shared hosting for "client" websites, as I neither have to guarantee uptime nor I do have to guarantee "security" of the hosting system.</comment>


Thousands of women and girls disappear in Mexico every year - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34172733 <comment><USER2> 80-90% of murder victims in Mexico are male. That number is similar to the worldwide rate, maybe even a bit higher. It seems like Mexico doesn't have any special problem with murder of women, they just have a huge problem with murder, period.

<comment><USER3> But how many of the 80-90% male murders are related to drugs, gangs etc? Vs these girls and women, who don't seem to be associated with any criminal activity? Not saying those men don't matter, just that drugs/gang violence and murder of innocents are two different problems

<comment><USER4> Why do you assume women aren't associated with criminal activity? It's not uncommon for women to get busted running drugs.

<comment><USER3> Maybe, but this article talks about those women who aren't associated with drugs or gangs

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Judging from what you read and hear about Mexico it seems to be trapped in a downward spiral degenerating every aspect about its society and government. It's absolutely disgusting and revealing to watch documentaries like "Narco Cultura" and about their eating disorders [[http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/news/america-fattest-obese- un-14...](http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/news/america-fattest-obese- un-144341236.html)].

You want to grab that country by the shoulders and shake it to its senses. But then again you (or whatever is left of your body) don't want to end up hanging upside down from a bridge somewhere ...

<comment><USER6> "You want to grab that country by the shoulders and shake it to its senses."

You mean the USA, right? The "Narco Cultura" would not exist if it were not the United States "War on Drugs".

<comment><USER7> Those people who are capable of those things and that level of corruption to make a few bucks on illicit drugs would still exist.

I just don't get this line of reasoning. If you take marijuana out of the equation, 80-90% of Americans think drugs should be illegal. They don't want drugs in their communities and in their society. And they're the bad guys for exercising their democratic right to regulate their own society, because some opportunists in Mexico are deranged enough to kill a bunch of people to circumvent those rules?

<comment><USER8> I don't buy it. American people _do_ want drugs in their community and in their society or else the US wouldn't be the biggest market for illicit drugs in the world.

<comment><USER7> Only about 10% of Americans over 12 use any sort of illicit drugs, and most of that is marijuana. The vast majority of Americans don't use illicit drugs and don't want drug use in their communities.

<comment><USER9> The most recent two sitting US presidents used cocaine. They certainly wanted illicit drugs and drug use -- and harder drugs than marijuana, which an overwhelming majority of Americans have tried -- in their communities at some point in their lives though they may or may not want that now. I think your statement is very, very far from correct (even if you don't include the enormous proportion of Americans who illegally abuse prescription drugs which are generally much 'harder' than the drugs you get on the street) and just the wishful thinking of a small number of social conservatives for whom drugs have been turned into a convenient bogeyman to blame when anything in society goes wrong.

<comment><USER7> As I said, I'm not talking about marijuana. The vast majority (75-85%) of Mexican drug cartel revenues come from other sources: [http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/05/22/how-can- mari...](http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/05/22/how-can-marijuana-be- sold-safely/why-marijuana-legalization-wouldnt-end-drug-crime).

And I think you're delusional about the "small number of social conservatives" who think drugs are a problem. Support for keeping drugs like cocaine and heroin illegal ranges from 80-90%: [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/17/drug- legalization-p...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/17/drug-legalization- poll_n_5162357.html). Marijuana is the only one that a slim majority think shouldn't be legal.

Also, most people do not try drugs harder than marijuana at any point: [http://archive.samhsa.gov/data/NSDUH/2012SummNatFindDetTable...](http://archive.samhsa.gov/data/NSDUH/2012SummNatFindDetTables/DetTabs/NSDUH- DetTabsSect1peTabs1to46-2012.htm#Tab1.1B). 70% of people never try an illicit drug other than marijuana, and only 7.5% report using an illicit drug other than marijuana in the past year.

And even if a substantial minority of people do try an illicit drug other than marijuana at some point, what does that mean? 13% of surveyed Americans reported driving drunk _in the past year_ (double the percentage that report doing any non-marijuana illicit drug in the past year): [http://www.fairwarning.org/2010/12/more-than-30-million- amer...](http://www.fairwarning.org/2010/12/more-than-30-million-americans- have-driven-while-drunk-survey-finds). How many of them do you think nonetheless believe drunk driving should be illegal? Does the fact that a minority of people engage in conduct that may be hypocritical negate the sentiments of the majority?

<comment><USER9> I think you're excluding the abuse of prescription drugs (and for that matter alcohol) in your assessment with the 70% and 7.5% numbers, which are very important -- they are the drugs which haven't been the victims of a concerted and well-funded aggressive propaganda campaign by social conservatives spanning many years to demonize the drugs.

I think your point about drinking and driving isn't quite accurate: I think if you refine your definition of drinking and driving in both survey results about actions and survey results about laws you may find different results: many people have drank a couple of beers before driving home; fewer have driven blackout drunk. Most agree the latter should be illegal, but the first? A more appropriate analogy would be, instead of suggesting we ban drunk driving (a universally laudable goal to ban not a substance but a particular misuse of it), how many Americans do you think would say alcohol should be illegal? I'd say on the order of zero.

You need to understand survey results in the context of the previously mentioned propaganda campaign: people don't quite exactly say what they really believe in the face of this, they say what they have been conditioned to believe in some sense. We need to look at their actual actions and provide context for the responses from them in terms of what they do. If someone really believes marijuana should be illegal, they won't try it or use it. Similarly with the harder drugs. We are slowly undoing the damage that has been done to this country with the anti-drug campaigns but it takes time; marijuana is the beginning. It's not really fair to say Americans are actually anti-drug after such an effective brainwashing session.

Also all of your points are based on survey results: and when it comes to drugs what people say they do or want and what they actually do or want are quite distinct. I don't think relying on them is reasonable: instead to get some accurate proportion we'd need to look at the drugs coming in and do some calculus based on how they are distributed among the population.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Pace4000 hidden testing modes - <AUTHOR> http://www.sodnpoo.com/posts.xml/pace4000_testing_modes.xml

<comment><USER2> The front panel counter you describe as "AP" is actually (due to the limited LCD display) "RP" \- it's checking the return path, trying to verify it has two-way communication - I.e. that it can send a signal back to the cable company.

The counter will get to 53 if it sees suitable conditions, or give up at 52 if not.

<comment><AUTHOR> Excellent - thank you :)</comment></comment>


Climate Change is real and you can prevent it. Be the change - <AUTHOR> https://dev.to/sendilkumarn/let-us-re-build-a-better-world-together-1dlk <comment><USER3> For HN, there's an extremely important item missing from this list:

* Get a job in cleantech.

I got into the climate-change fighting industry 6 years ago when I became a project engineer for a commercial solar company, then eventually I started my own cleantech software company. By working in the industry, I have had orders of magnitude more impact on fighting climate change than adjusting my lifestyle to be more carbon neutral.

Luckily for the HN crowd, there's a huge need for software and other tech skills (data science, sysadmin, etc.) needed for the energy transition. With the deployment of so much "intermittent" generation like solar and wind, we need tons of software and communications infrastructure to run a new "flexible" grid.

So if you're thinking what can you to help fight climate change, the best thing you can do is get a job in the climate change fighting industry. Start googling around for jobs with climate change keywords ("solar", "wind", "clean energy", etc.). Start showing up to clean energy events (if you live in the bay area, check out my bayareaenergyevents.com). There's so many people in this space who came from other sectors, and it's incredibly easy to move up or start your own company doing some specific thing you think is needed for the fight.

<comment><AUTHOR> Lucky for you. But not everyone has that luxury or option.

<comment><USER3> I'm curious why you think it's not an option? And what makes you think it's a luxury? A cleantech job is just like any other job.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I believe climate change poses an existential threat to us right now but I don't see things like this list helping.

The best thing for anyone to do is to support/organise direct political action to change our actions at a global scale. Personal initiatives can only go so far.

We have a limited time left (I apologise for not backing this with a citation but this is a rushed reply) to act, and personal sacrifices here and there won't help. Our carbon emissions are still growing overall and we need to reduce them somehow.

Also some of these points aren't entirely correct. Reusing plastic bags will probably have a lower carbon footprint than using cotton (I owe you a citation for this but it's out there). Also, there's a conflation between climate change and plastic pollution throughout - let's be precise in addressing these topics.

<comment><USER5> The excuses that people and politicians use to avoid action have been addressed. "But China / other countries", "But jobs". William Nordhaus won a Nobel prize in economics with this paper:

[https://issues.org/climate-clubs-to-overcome-free- riding/](https://issues.org/climate-clubs-to-overcome-free-riding/) ; [https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.15000001](https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.15000001)

<comment><USER6> Seconded.

For governments to do anything, individuals need to do at least one seemingly ineffectual thing: vote. But voting is a poor signal. You vote in most cases for representatives and these representatives stand for many things. To improve the signal you need to show this is _why_ you voted, and that you will do it again. By doing the small, seemingly ineffectual things you can do as an individual you are signaling your preferences to people who can do more.

And more than this, by doing something, anything, you are in effect voting for the behavior you think is acceptable in your society. You yourself are more likely to do another small thing. Your neighbors will be a little less enthusiastic to be seen doing nothing. People, everyone, is looking for an excuse to pamper their present selves at the cost of other people and their future selves, but few people are so thoughtless and selfish that they will do this in all circumstances. By making this choice a little less comfortable for yourself and others, you shift the ratio: how much burden you and others will take on now versus how much you put off on others.

The truth of the matter is that if everyone would just do the little, seemingly ineffectual things we wouldn't need the government to compel us or engineer our incentives. The fix we find ourselves in is the cumulative result of many individuals doing small, seemingly ineffectual things that made things worse.

<comment><USER4> To turn your point on its head, I'd say the trick is to come up with a stronger political signal than just voting.

Fridays for Future and Extinction Rebellion are examples of such things - <USER2> think there's scope for much more across various politicals affiliations and leanings.

<comment><USER6> I don't think that's turning it on its head but reinforcing it.

<comment><USER4> Yeah, perhaps I should have phrased it as "in other words"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> These are great ways to live in line with your values. Kudos to anyone who does their best to minimize their GHG footprint.

But no this will not prevent climate change and it's best people don't get the idea that they are "fighting climate" change by any of these measures.

There is one thing that matters: organized political action. That's it. If the worlds political establishment doesn't prioritize this, we are cooked.

Here is what you can do:

* Learn about climate change * Talk to your friends and family about it * Make it your top voting issue

Most people don't understand the danger we are in

<comment><USER8> Ofc, but what better way to make the masses conscious than making them part of it. Also, why do you need the government to limit you before you do something?

\- Do you need the government to start issuing flight hour quotas before you start flying less? \- Do you need the government to ban short flights before you start using alternative transport methods more? \- Do you need the government to impose a high meat tax before you start consuming less?

You can do both, you can start doing your part AND push for political action. Saying "this is meaningless" is just a justification to not do anything yourself and put the blame on someone else. An excuse for inactivity.

<comment><USER7> No, that's clearly not what I'm saying. I'm not arguing that people shouldn't do these things, I'm arguing that we should be clear about what they actually accomplish. I do all of these things, but I don't kid myself that it's making a lick of difference, because it's not.

The individual action idea is dangerous because it:

\- Blames the victims. This problem is being caused by fossil-fuel companies and the policies that support them. We must stop them from emitting and from poisoning the public dialog on these issues

\- It's classist and priveledged. Only rich people have these kinds of choices - poor people can't always make these kinds of choices in their lives.

The only solution is massive collective action that drives us towards a net- negative world.

I'd rather have somebody drive a Yukon and vote for people who will put in a Green New Deal than someone who eats vegan and votes for Jill Stein.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I would also add to avoid many 'smart' devices, and stick to well-built, dependable, maintainable/fixable devices and appliances.

It's been a trend for some time to build-in obsolescence (not to mention, cut corners), but adding 'smart' to things seems to me to greatly worsen the situation, even if the smart controls claim to save energy etc.

The smarts, particularly the UI elements, will certainly become obsolete, and are often the most likely part to fail (often simply the tact or bubble switches, etc). Well, after built-in batteries, perhaps.

Having some smart, and exposing a simple and standardized/open lower-level interface would be much better, and have the UI, except the absolute basics, like on/off, on external devices of your choice.

</comment><comment><USER10> Well, if I take 1 intercontinental flight every year, then my savings on some other stuff are pretty negligible.

Same thing if I eat water intensive crops or meat. I can keep the tap open as long as I live and I would not waste the water spent on all those cotton clothes, rice and burgers.

Solution to climate change can't be individual responsibility. Climate change is driven by huge corporations, I'm pretty sure that 50% of the population halved their CO2 footprint it would still be a drop in the bucket compared to corporation spending.

<comment><USER11> But people still have influence by making informed decision when voting and choosing products if they have the money. The first one is obvious, the second one requires more research but it's still doable. When there's a choice between a product from a company that usually higher CO2 footprints, it makes sense to choose an alternative product.

Moreover the corporations are also just collections of people that might not be able to make big decisions but make a difference with tiny decisions, if that makes any sense :)

<comment><AUTHOR> But the point of this article is that we can initiate the change. If we collectively decide and eliminate plastic bags in our town / place or whatever subdivision then for sure we can make an impact. There is nothing bigger than people power.

<comment><USER12> I wish it were that simple.

While you're correct that individual actions will ultimately decide our fate, what you're not accounting for is this: The economics are stacked against anyone trying to do the right thing.

It's actually cheaper, less time consuming, and more convenient to kill our planet.

To properly recycle I would have to spend 15 to 30 minutes a day.

If wanted to recycle food (compost), add another 15 to 30 minutes.

So per week, that's about 4 to 7 hours. Time that could be spent working or sleeping.

With regards to plastic shopping bags: Yes, I can avoid it. But then I need to buy plastic waste bags anyway, because I'm required to package my waste.

With regards to meat: I don't go crazy with meat, but in terms of cost most Western societies have masked the cost. Fresh produce is more expensive per calorie than a slab of beef per calorie.

Or how about electronics? It's insane that it's generally cheaper to buy new consumer electronics, rather than have someone fix it.

Or packaging: There is zero economic reason for businesses to minimize the amount of plastic packaging. Plastic has the advantages of low weight and tensile strength, so any company that tries to change would be at an immediate disadvantage.

To fix these imbalances we need social policies (with teeth) that force a new, market-driven optimum for both companies and individuals.

For that to happen we need leadership that have the courage to undertake a long, hard battle against vested interests.

<comment><AUTHOR> I know odds are against us. If you really care about nature spend that 4 to 7 hours. Talk to your company and make it a policy, might be a fraction of your colleagues will do it.

Meat, plastic and electronics are the problems I agree completely.

We can change the packaging slightly. I already heard a lot about some vendors in Germany are going PET-less solution, TamilNadu (a state in India) also started banning plastics and packaging.

My core idea is social policies will not change unless people are willing to accept it. When your locality goes zero-plastic bags, you will start seeing the influences that it creates on your local supplier and then it expands. It is how nature works and definitely, it takes time and effort but slowly it will (may) change the world. But in the end, it will remain at least we tried.

<comment><USER12> Anyone who takes up this cause naively will lose out to people and organizations that don't care.

By lose out, I mean they will lose political and economic influence.

If people who care have a significant overhead compared to those who don't, guess who expands and has lobbying money and time?

At a company-level, a 1% overhead can be rather steep cost.

Really, my individual effort isn't enough. Just look at littering. I don't litter, but there are too many people around me that do.

And this is with an action that has almost zero cost to individuals!

The way to ensure we don't kill ourselves is by tilting the market to favor sustainable approaches.

Steeper Import taxes. Removal of certain subsidies. Adding other subsidies. Tax breaks to encourage repairs. At-purchase disposal fees. Packaging taxes. Etc.

The scale of the problem involves billions of individuals.

The scale of the solution must match, and must not favor cheaters or don't-care organizations. Or it will fail.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is a pretty good list, although my understating is that dishwashers are generally more energy efficient than washing up by hand - [https://www.comparethemarket.com/energy/information/how- much...](https://www.comparethemarket.com/energy/information/how-much-does-a- dishwasher-use)

<comment> toper-centage They are for sure more water efficient. But I wonder how long do you need to use a dish washer to compensate the energy expenditure of producing the machine.

<comment><AUTHOR> Dishwashers get old and they have their own problems. There are machines that use less water. But manually people are capable of reducing the amount of water that we use to clean the dishes.

I can clean my dishes in 10litres of water. On the other hand dishwashers on an average requires 12-20 litres of water. The tip is do not use running tap water.

<comment><USER14> > _I can clean my dishes in 10litres of water. On the other hand dishwashers > on an average requires 12-20 litres of water. The tip is do not use running > tap water._

What's the correct technique to ensure the dishes end up being clean, and not just thoroughly immersed in a bacterial growth medium that's made of water and dissolved food? Or am I being too paranoid about sanitation here?

<comment><USER15> Wash them quickly. Bacteria growth is not significant on the order of minutes.

<comment><USER14> It's not the growth during washing I'm worried about, but that not rinsing them will leave them covered in a growth medium that will significantly accelerate their growth over the next hours or days.

<comment><AUTHOR> I am pretty sure that the amount of bacteria will be lesser than what we carry.

But yeah at times I have the same thing running on my head.

I was able to reduce my water bills by almost 30% just by manually cleaning the utensils and reducing the washing machine usage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This article/list portrays a good sentiment, but it misses the most important point: VOTE for politicians that support green policies.

It is naive to assume that people everywhere will read articles like this and educate themselves and the problem will disappear. Only the government can force corporations to behave in a way that is sustainable.

<comment><AUTHOR> I am not saying the problem will disappear. But we can extend the timeline. Maybe (stressing on maybe) nature will evolve.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'd like a bigger emphasis on efficiency. Space heating/cooling in particular, your first big win is to increase efficiency before you even start to think about renewable. If you spend money to cool, increase ventilation, shade, find ways to reduce heat buildup in the first place. If you spend money to heat, insulate, wear more clothes, use public spaces more (share heat), shut doors. For both, use good thermostats or smart systems to manage heating and cooling.

In general you see a lot of advise for dealing with symptoms of our over consumption, not the cause. Buy less (toys, food, clothes, cars, travel, whatever). What you own, use it for longer, fix it, do without.

</comment><comment><USER18> The problem is very real, and I am happy that it's reaching more people than ever.

This is a well meant post with some solid advice that I wish more people would follow, but some points are just conflicting, confusing and possibly wrong.

Recommending to replace paperback books with an electronic device that is made up of plastic, while telling the reader to use less electricity and not to use plastic bags and avoid plastic packaging just doesn't add up without providing some extra context.

<comment><AUTHOR> More and more forests are deforested for books. Electricity can be green (it is not at the moment) but eventually we will be there. I think it makes sense to use an electronic device rather than using a paperback book.

Plastics are cruel, but at the very least we can ask the manufacturers to use something else and those devices mostly don't end up in the trash day 1. We definitely need to find a way but papers are even more cruel.

But again that is subjective.

<comment><USER14> > _More and more forests are deforested for books._

[citation needed]

More and more forests are deforested _for agriculture_ \- for both growing plants and pastures for animals. Paper production is a combination of forest- sourced trees, but also recycled paper, wood waste from other industries, and trees planted specifically for paper manufacturing. I get conflicting breakdowns of the proportions, but a random source[0] I'm looking at says something like this:

"However, 39 percent of the fiber used for papermaking comes from recycled paper. Most of the remaining wood is obtained either through forest thinning (removing slow-growing or defective trees) or from lumber milling residues – materials that otherwise would go unused. Only 36 percent of timber harvested in the United States is used directly to make paper and paperboard."

That's not to say we shouldn't reduce our paper use, but I wouldn't sweat it too much when it comes to buying that book (especially if it's print-on- demand), or printing that article or code listing. Paper is a ridiculously powerful cognitive and productivity multiplier, still unmatched by digital solutions. I'd argue that paper use might be essential for humanity figuring their way out of this crisis.

If you want to cut down on wasteful paper use, fight _advertising_. The subsection of the industry dealing with physical advertisements is literally one giant machine for moving cellulose from trees into landfills.

\--

[0] - [https://theconversation.com/is-the-paper-industry-getting- gr...](https://theconversation.com/is-the-paper-industry-getting- greener-5-questions-answered-76274)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This list is the sort of corporation-serving drivel that all of us should have come to expect from people who can't think beyond their own experience to save their life. The majority of climate change comes from _corporations_. This list doesn't address our most grating problem, which is what we've collectively allowed some other people to screw everything up for the rest of us.

</comment><comment><USER20> I think the article misses the point of what people can do politically and what we can as a tech community do using our skills.

For politics, I encourage everyone to look at Climate Citizens' Lobby [1]

For tech, there are now a few communities creating projects like climatechoice.co [2]: [3][4][5]

[1][https://citizensclimatelobby.org/](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/)

[2][https://climatechoice.co/](https://climatechoice.co/)

[3][https://climateaction.tech/](https://climateaction.tech/)

[4][https://techimpactmakers.com/](https://techimpactmakers.com/)

[5][https://www.tmrow.com](https://www.tmrow.com)

</comment><comment><USER21> This is missing the most important action one can take - voting and telling people to vote (Greens in Europe and progressive Democrats in USA)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thats political :)

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Between thanks to everybody that I really get more and more information :) You are all the best.</comment>


Mini-Microsoft: Microsoft Annual Review 2010 - <AUTHOR> http://minimsft.blogspot.com/2010/09/microsoft-annual-review-2010.html <comment><AUTHOR> The post itself isn't very meaty, but the comments are illuminating.

<comment><USER2> I agree. The comments were worth it, just to learn how the Microsoft compensation structure works.</comment></comment>


We Should All Wear Masks - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@Cancerwarrior/covid-19-why-we-should-all-wear-masks-there-is-new-scientific-rationale-280e08ceee71 <comment><USER2> So many lives have been lost because of the obviously flawed guidance, and more lives will be lost because the authorities are reluctant to admit that they were wrong.

There is no reason why we can't have enough face masks for everyone. Masks are not hi-tech items that require special materials and knowledge to make. A country like the US that makes millions of microchips should be able to make them in unlimited quantities.

It's way cheaper to put a mask on every face than to treat the people who would not have gotten sick if they wore masks.

<comment><USER3> Seems about communication gone wrong.

i) Medical masks don't help much for the general population, and don't protect the one wearing them very well. (Masks need to be exchanged, worn properly, …). ii) They create a false sense of safety.

Especially in countries where a mask isn't common, I can absolutely understand. The masks work when everybody wears one. But then, the current scarcity comes into play. Recommending everybody to wear a mask just doesn't work out, then.

Anyway, I agree that it should be possible to supply (shitty) masks to everybody and save the good ones for our health workers. In Germany, many hospitals now sew their own masks…

<comment><USER4> No, even putting a scarf in front of the face offers _some_ protection from people sneezing, coughing, spitting, etc.

And in any case, there is zero downside to putting it up, there is no way it can actually harm.

Instead of saying this, and trusting people that they understand that some protection is better than no protection, authorities are patronising people with "false sense of safety", and "masks are actually harmful".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Why we need #Masks4All, and how to make your own mask[0]

[0][https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVEVve-3QeM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVEVve-3QeM)</comment>


12-yr old expands Einstein's Theory of Relativity, thinks he can prove it wrong - <AUTHOR> http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/03/26/12-year-old-genius-expands-einsteins-theory-of-relativity

<comment><USER2> Seems like a deliberate scam or an unintentional case of an overly kid- promoting parent & a gullible reporter. Check out the video here: <http://www.youtube.com/user/mathboysmom#p/a/u/2/lNypTxvOxxQ>

The kid doesn't actually prove or say anything significant beyond what's stated in basic physics books or in various resources on the web (e.g. wikipedia). Kudos to the kid for being interested in these topics at such an early age but the "genius" label should come with some results.

Also notice how the Princeton professor gently sidesteps the question of kid's genius: "I'm impressed by his interest in physics and the amount that he has learned so far," Institute for Advanced Study Professor Scott Tremaine wrote in an email to the family. "The theory that he's working on involves several of the toughest problems in astrophysics and theoretical physics."

<comment><USER3> He seems like a genius (in the same way that most IMO competitors are math geniuses -- not necessarily Einstein genius though). With that said, bright 12 year olds aren't that uncommon. I mean to his parents or even a given city he might be uncommon. But every year you can probably find a handful of them in the US or China for every age group.

A good movie is Beautiful Young Minds that follows a group of UK high school students who prepare for the IMO. In particular there is a very bright and confident student with Asperger's. While he could probably give a similar talk at a similar age, it is important to note that he doesn't make the UK's IMO team. He's bright enough that the average non-academic probably can't tell when he knows what he's talking about vs when he doesn't.

I suspect the professor at Princeton heard some ambitious, if not naive statements. Wanted to encourage, but not to give validation to the statements.

I don't sense a scam or over promotion. But I can imagine as a parent when you have a child this bright it can almost be overwhelming. You can't really guide the child directly and there's always a bit of fear that you're not properly nurturing the child.

<comment><USER2> Good point about him being uncommon to his peer group...my perspective is skewed since I went to a school focused on math/physics studies and it was common for kids to know basic calculus at his age. Neither teachers nor parents considered them geniuses, just very (Asperger-like) focused on hard sciences.

So I standby my claim, the kid is obviously very bright but not a genius, at least not to the extent where the definition of genius requires some remarkable results.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Longer article, with a lot more detail here: [http://www.indystar.com/article/20110320/LOCAL01/103200369/G...](http://www.indystar.com/article/20110320/LOCAL01/103200369/Genius- work-12-year-old-studying-IUPUI)

This seems to be the original article that the others are either borrowing from or that tipped them to the story.

</comment><comment><USER5> From the moment I saw the article reference the kid's IQ score (which everyone knows is a joke), I knew this was a piece of pulp journalism.

<comment><USER4> How is IQ score a joke? Yes, I know there are reliability problems with IQ tests such as cultural bias. However, isn't the main problem that things like cultural bias cause some groups of people to score lower, so the tests report them as less intelligent than they are? Similarly, it is easy to have a bad day when taking a test, and get a lower score than you "should" have gotten, or you could suck at time management, and so on. There are plenty of ways someone can blow a test.

Thus, when someone takes an IQ test and scores low (especially a test given as part of mass testing of a group) it would be seriously wrong to use the test results to conclude that the person is really at that level of intelligence.

On the other, it is much harder to score way above your level.

<comment><USER6> An IQ score may not be a joke, but as my Psych 101 professor said, "What is IQ? It's a score on a test." What follows is my personal account. Take it or leave it.

When I was 11 years old and in the 7th grade, I was failing most of my classes. I was a big problem for teachers. I talked a lot and was generally distracted; also a distraction for other students. My teachers wanted to put me in the "STAR" program, which was for learning disabled students. My parents protested, demanding that I be thoroughly tested.

I spent a full week being evaluated by psychologists and special-needs specialists. A psychologist administered an IQ test, which came back over 170. If I recall correctly, the first score was 174. They re-administered the test with another psychologist resulting in a score of 169. My teachers smugly denied having thought I was dumb and fell back to the position that being in the STAR program would help solve my "focus" issues; despite any in appropriateness for my learning ability.

I barely made it through my first year of high school. I graduated with a 2.7 GPA. It wasn't because I couldn't solve the problems -- I liked learning the material and passed tests readily -- it was that I wouldn't do the work. Squandering ability is pretty stupid thing to do.

This isn't a "look how smart I am" post. Do I think I'm smart? It'd be disingenuous for me to say no, but if I look at the outcome of my life, I can say without any feeling of self-disrespect that having a "genius" IQ hasn't netted me much. This isn't to say I haven't achieved success. To the contrary, I'm the proud owner of a business that does a couple million dollars a year in revenue and solves some fun problems, but by the measure of the greats, I've done nothing.

So what does my IQ mean? It means I'm well suited to taking IQ tests. I wouldn't want to discourage this 12-yr old from pursuing his dreams, but I would caution against recognizing IQ as a universal predictor of greatness.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > can solve up to 200 numbers of Pi

What does that mean? It must be pretty hard to compute 200 digits... But generally that's computed once and memoized :)

<comment><USER8> I suspect that phrases like that are contributing to some folks feeling dubious about the whole situation. The lad is probably very bright, yet uninformed journalism makes it look like something funky is going on.</comment></comment>