Scientific method: Defend the integrity of physics - <AUTHOR> http://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-defend-the-integrity-of-physics-1.16535 <comment><USER3> Johannes Koelman takes apart that claim in a concisely articulated argument -- [http://www.science20.com/the_hammock_physicist/falsifiabilit...](http://www.science20.com/the_hammock_physicist/falsifiability_and_the_integrity_of_physics-151714)

TL;DR: _" The scientific method is not about testability or falsifiability per se. It is about trying hard to falsify. Nothing more, nothing less. Truth is to be found in those ideas that survive despite the multitude of attempts to falsify them[...]quantum gravity theories needs to reproduce all known low- energy physics, as well as all known classical gravitational phenomena. In other words: if you ensure your favorite theory of quantum gravity in the appropriate limits reduces to the standard model and Einstein's theory of gravity, your theory has survived all falsification attempts ever undertaken in the history of physics. This is a key point that fails to receive attention in 'string theory and falsifiability' debates."_

<comment><USER4> Let me put on my reductionist hat: what use would be such a theory, if it perfectly matches observed reality but offers absolutely nothing new?

String theory has often been called mental mstrbtn (evidently using the real world hellbans such comments); should anyone get paid for pleasuring their minds in this way???

<comment><USER5> "Intellectual onanism" is a more sophisticated way ofsaying the same thing without triggering the bad word police.

<comment><USER4> Without, though, the wonderful alliteration.

Thanks, the modern word isn't part of my working vocabulary.

<comment><USER6> Apparently not a modern word; biblical: [http://biblehub.com/genesis/38-9.htm](http://biblehub.com/genesis/38-9.htm)

<comment><USER4> That's the etymology, but from what I looked up it wasn't used as such until the 16th Century.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "I take the hard view that science involves the creation of testable hypotheses" \- Michael Crichton

Consensus is not science. Computer Models are not science. Elegant equations are not science. Science is science. Science is testable, repeatable, falsifiable.

[http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122603134258207975](http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122603134258207975)

<comment><USER8> So virology is not science? The belief that HIV causes AIDS is based on consensus. (Not everybody agrees even today, but the scientific community has moved on.)

Protein folding is not science? Its modern study is based on computational simulations.

Not all sciences are like physics. It's strange that the author of _Jurassic Park_ would speak up against consensus and models when they're so fundamental to paleontology, for instance. Should we not believe that dinosaurs existed because evidence of their existence is not a falsifiable theory?

<comment><USER9> You can't smear virology because of HIV. Then again, NIH speaks directly to Koch's. See here: [http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/HIVAIDS/Understanding/howHIV...](http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/HIVAIDS/Understanding/howHIVCausesAIDS/Pages/HIVcausesAIDS.aspx)

You can't smear protein folding because of a modern method of study. Are you arguing that you think it's possible that proteins don't fold or that some specific example of a protein might be folded differently than certain simulation experiments postulate?

You can't smear the fossil record because people put feathers on different species all the time. Fossils exist and organisms existed which created them.

There is science in each area. testable, repeatable, falsifiable. In theoretical physics, the argument is far more salient. There is a wack wing doing something that's not science (per the 3 tests definition) and that wing is trying to argue that the 3 tests shouldn't apply so they can continue to get funding.

Most physics in and/or past high school will gladly tell you that the Bohr model for atoms is a klunky model that gets the uninitiated into grasping a modestly functional model.

Stringnuts seem to be raising their klunky model up and trying to say it gets to be a theory in a way which makes science and scientists (3 tests style) seem no better than charlatans and preachers. Part of me thinks this is because most of what seemed should be evident from ST is not panning out and they know that they are too far down a path. If ST gets funding cuts, their CVs atomize and blow away with the wind. They get to teach basic physics for kids meeting core requirements and polish mirrors in someone else's lab.

When they are getting to close to the corner they backed themselves into, they try to argue that Bayesian analysis says it is highly unlikely that the corner exists.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> What is the utility of advancing a theory that is unfalsifiable in the Popperian sense? This category of theory, even if on strong philosophical footing, seems to be quite apart from theories that can be used to build devices that won't work if the theory turns out to be wrong.

In any case, I doubt very seriously that there are more than a few thousand people alive who can have an informed opinion on this.

<comment><USER11> > What is the utility of advancing a theory that is unfalsifiable in the > Popperian sense?

Conceptual clarity in context of our uncanny existence?

<comment><USER4> To quote from the article: " _As we see it, theoretical physics risks becoming a no-man 's-land between mathematics, physics and philosophy that does not truly meet the requirements of any._"

What I think you're suggesting is a philosophical benefit. Which echoing another comment of mine, probably shouldn't get funded by the NSF (the US National Science Foundation, one of the parts of the US Federal government who's remit includes funding theoretical physics).

<comment><USER12> I wouldn't go that far - there's still utility to be had in generating the theories.

What is a practical problem though, is that other less sexy fields of physics are losing funding to the string theorists. Give them their own discipline, their own pot of cash and let them figure out their theories - <USER2> _simultaneously_ maintaining a separate pot of cash for those who work on the falsifiable parts of physics.

In other words, let it be a no-man's land, so long as it's boundaries are delineated and separate from the math, physics and philosophy that it came from. There's nothing wrong with designing a new discipline.

<comment><USER4> Yeah, one of the other big issues that I've noted people in the field complaining about is how string theorists are indeed sucking up a disproportionate share of theoretical physics, but worse than that. Since their's is, from what I read, the US consensus on how to do that area of theoretical physics, in the usual group think fashion of funding organizations, other approaches find difficulty getting _any_ respect, let alone funding.

Anyway, the problem here of course is that they would never accept being relegated to a field that's not "physics", since capital P Physics has so much respectability, pretty much the most of anything. But since they're now openly trying to redefine scientific truth (as the FDA did to come up with its second hand smoke "science"), it's hard to see any option less severe than the one you propose.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> " _The issue of testability has been lurking for a decade._ "

I guess he means it's become too big to ignore, for one of the things I remember about string theory when I first learned of it in the mid-late '80s was that at that time the string theorists couldn't conceive of a way to test it.

</comment><comment><USER13> Relevant quote from the last line of the article: "The imprimatur of science should be awarded only to a theory that is testable. Only then can we defend science from attack."

<comment><USER4> Pity that's entirely negated by the authors' defense of "climate change", for changing the last word from cooling (when I was growing up) to warming, to finally "change", following of course short term temperature patterns, unambiguously signaled that the field of climate "science" had become untestable.

(Evolution, on the other hand, is sort of testable, in for example molecular genetics. Weasel words because the biggest argument is metaphysical, or as I poise it, "Who are we to say how God created the earth?" I'm agnostic, but as someone put it in a discussion I just read, not very good at it. :-)

<comment><USER14> "Cooling", "Warming" and "Change" are one about as vague as the other. You're oversimplifying it, if you want a rigorous overview by what is meant by climate change go read IPCC's reports introduction: the major impacts of rapid man-made disturbances on the global climate. Some word had to be used instead of "Let's discuss Major Impacts of Rapid Man-made Disturbances on The Global Climate". (Ill stop derailing the discussion here)

<comment><USER4> " _We have always been at war with Eastasia._ "

Review my comment, particularly the " _when I was growing up_ " bit. If my account oversimplifies, that's only because I'm repeating what the received wisdom was during each period as the "scientific consensus" changed to match the short term temperature record, and that filtered into the culture.

I was born in 1960, when Eisenhower was still President. It was the Official Truth, e.g. in the science fiction of the period (e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_of_the_Great_Freeze](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_of_the_Great_Freeze)), that man was bringing on a new ice age.

 _I remember_ when the Party Line changed to "global warming". And I of course remember when that became untenable and changed to "climate change". And I read some of the scientific literature for each stage, I knew by the end of 1st grade that my calling was to be a scientist.

You may prefer to get your received wisdom from entities that make full use of modern style versions of _Nineteen Eighty Four_ memory holes, I'll stick with what I personally witnessed and now remember.

<comment><USER15> > And I of course remember when that became untenable and changed to "climate > change".

Really? When did that happen? What year?

<comment><USER4> Why should I be called upon to remember exactly which year ... for that matter, this is not the sort of thing that can generally be pinned down to one year, although it's possible it was that fast. Fashions can change rather rapidly.

But let's focus on the meat of my argument here: do you deny that the big thing use to be "global warming?", in the '80s and '90s? If not, this article is evidence that it's now "climate change".

But to partly answer your question, even the massaged global temperature data stopped showing warming ~15 years ago. For a while, of course, nobody thought much of it, a year or three's pause means nothing. Hmmm, maybe it was around 10 years into that? It did take a while for the short term trend to become evident, then after taking enough flack on that....

<comment><USER15> > Why should I be called upon to remember exactly which year

Your own words were: "I of course remember when that became untenable". I didn't think it would be any effort.

> Hmmm, maybe it was around 10 years into that?

So about 5 years ago then? 2009 or so. Let's say after 2000 just to be safe.

Because the IPCC - you know, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - was formed in 1988. That's "Climate Change". In 1988. I think perhaps your memory is faulty.

Also, "global temperature data stopped showing warming ~15 years ago" is just wrong. I thought you said you were a scientist?

<comment><USER4> As waterlesscloud notes, I'm talking about the popular use. I'll turn around your IPCC argument: anyone with a clue would realize there was a distinct chance another change in the party line like the cooling to warming flip would be required by the short term temperature record, so the IPCC merely future proofed their gravy train.

My _calling_ was science. Finances prevented me from fulfilling that potential, which is why you'll find me here in Hacker News.

Saying "just wrong" is no more convincing than my bald assertion of what I thought was generally accepted, so for example use a search like this one: [https://www.google.com/search?q=global+warming+stopped](https://www.google.com/search?q=global+warming+stopped) to find deniers like the BBC, Wikipedia, _NATURE_ ([http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the- mi...](http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing- heat-1.14525)), National Geographic, and The Economist in the first two pages of my results....

<comment><USER16> Well, let's try with literally the first Google hit for "global temperature graph": [http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/)

The first graph shows that temperature for 1998 (I think) is very high (~0.6C), and indeed temperatures in this century centers around this value. Has global warming stopped since 1998?

But wait, one quickly discovers that the temperature for 1998 was the _highest_ among all years up to 1998. Not only that, it is ~0.2C higher than 1997, which was also higher than all previous years. In fact, 1998 is >0.4C higher than the coolest year in the 1990s.

It doesn't take a lot of statistical expertise to conclude that 1998 was in fact an anomalously hot year, _if one were to look at data only up to that year_.

In this century, we hover around this 1998 temperature, and even routinely exceed them. What was an outlier became the normal.

Soon the same temperature will be considered a cool year. (Of course, the graph doesn't _say_ that, but thousands of very bright people who spent their lifetime studying these graph say that. I have no reason to doubt them, when the best argument thrown against them is "if you compare the hottest year of the last century with today's average, they are the same!")

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> If a theory is _mathematically_ elegant, I would consider that evidence for the theory. For example, the ability to explain the exact gauge groups and representations that comprise the Standard Model, or the masses of the elementary particles. In fact, I would say that a theory that could do this would be "tested" because it is a historical accident that we discovered the gauge groups/masses before the theory.

As far as I understand it, string theory once promised to do precisely this. String theory was considered promising because it had no vertex factors in its Feynman diagram. Because there were only strings, you only needed to know the free space propagator for a patch of string. However, as I understand it, string theory then turned out to be have more possible parameters, and this original promise was lost.

The kind of elegance that the author seems to be talking about is conceptual elegance, and I also reject this as evidence. For example, invoking the anthropic principal plus multiple universes to explain the parameters of the Standard Model. To me this is no more compelling than the Christian "grand unified theory" that unifies ethics, numinous awe, and the existence of the universe.

</comment><comment><USER18> To me, science is the nature of prediction. How well do your predictions match reality? Predictions are made on the basis of some kind of model (a set of equations is an example of one such model). The quality of science then, is predicated upon how closely predictions made via a model match reality.

In this sense, physics is the "best" science currently (12 decimal places of accuracy in predicting the gyromagnetic ratio of an isolated electron), followed probably by chemistry, then biology, then medicine, then psychology, etc. The only thing I mean by this ranking is that it is harder to come up with models that give accurate predictions in some fields relative to others.

A few people on this page have stated "Computer models are not science."

I disagree with this. My work is in molecular dynamics simulations and quantum chemistry.

Consider an experiment: you test nature and try to derive some sort of model that allows you to make future predictions. However, your model is marred by the concept of experimental error and system complexity (for instance, we can't currently observe all the neural activity in the human brain because of how difficult it is to image a brain without being too invasive).

Now consider a simulation: you take pre-existing models and use them to formulate predictions.

Both experiment and simulation allow you to make predictions that can be tested experimentally. But the quality of your predictions depends only on how accurate your model is, not the mere fact that you are running a simulation!

Let me elaborate: quantum mechanics is almost perfectly accurate in describing all phenomena that occur in everyday life (Peter Gill has said this, and I believe Dirac said it as well). It only falls apart with things like quantum gravity.

So we have a _very_ accurate model. If you plug the wavefunction of a particular human brain into the Schrodinger equation, you'll get an almost perfect evolution of the brain through time (as compared experimentally to the real brain). The problem is that despite having a _very_ accurate model of reality, it is not easy at all to turn this model into a testable prediction. We can really only use this model to its fullest capability for a couple of particles.

And this is where computational modeling comes into play. You can take this highly accurate model of reality called quantum mechanics and intentionally introduce error into it in order to speed up the rate at which you can formulate a prediction from it, e.g., you make an approximation to the Schrodinger equation that you can solve quickly, and while you know that this approximation is not an exact solution, you can still develop predictions from it. And when you take these predictions and then test them experimentally, you find that the experimental results match up pretty well. In fact, in some cases the error in your approximation to the Schrodinger equation is small enough that you can do _better_ than experiment, because your numerical error is smaller than the systematic error that an experimentalist must deal with in the lab.

So to me, it doesn't matter where the prediction comes from, or how it was formed. If that prediction can be tested -- and if once tested it is found to match reality to some degree -- then you have some form of science (of varying levels of quality).

String theory does in fact make physical predictions. But those predictions can't be tested _yet_. So it's still a form of science, although maybe not a very useful form since it could be a long time (or never) before we are able to test it somehow. Many-world theory however is NOT a form of science, because it makes NO predictions whatsoever. It's just an interpretation. It says nothing different than any other interpretation of quantum mechanics. It is not science. (In a similar vein, I've always thought people who try to "use" science to argue for or against the existence of God are totally wasting their time since neither side can even come up with a testable prediction.)

</comment><comment><USER19> Why so impatient?

The Earth goes around the Sun, not the other way around. Copernicus realized this for the first time in the early 16th century. By the end of the 17th century, almost every scientist in Europe were convinced that Copernicus was right. Why? It was elegant (no epicycles) [1], it was politically exciting (it went against the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church and was therefore especially attrative to reformers), and some of its followers (ever heard of Isaac Newton?) had come up with really cool ideas.

In other words, heliocentrism in the late 17th century had all the features that a popular programming language today might have [2]. But as a scientific theory, it remained unconfirmed, and its rival (geocentrism) remained unfalsified, even as the world embraced heliocentrism as the One True Theory.

Conclusive falsification of geocentrism, and thus compelling confirmation of heliocentrism, only arrived in 1838 with the first observation of parallax. That was almost 300 years after Copernicus first advocated heliocentrism, and over 100 years after almost everyone accepted it. For all those decades and centuries, people had been believing in heliocentrism without having tested it.

The history of science is rife with examples like this. Some theories are inherently difficult to test, so it can take a few decades, or even centuries, to collect conclusive experimental evidence. Sometimes you have to wait for others to develop the technology you need, just as heliocentrism had to wait for highly accurate telescopes to measure parallax. Because it costs a lot to develop such technologies, a theory without a critical mass of highly motivated followers is at risk of fizzling out before it can ever be tested.

This is an inevitable consequence of the fact that science depends on a bunch of hairless bipedal monkeys for its existence. When falsification takes a long time, humans tend to be influenced by political, philosophical, aesthetic, and even religious factors. And this isn't a Totally Evil Thing™, because if we weren't influenced by such factors, much fewer theories would ever make it to falsification. They would just fizzle out for lack of motivation.

How long has string theory been around? 50 years? And we're already being impatient with it? Remember how long we had to wait for Darwin's theory of evolution to become mainstream and well-supported by evidence? Remember how long it took for "driftists" (those who supported plate tectonics) and "fixists" (those who opposed it) to reach a consensus? 50 years is about as long as it takes to test a theory about the distant history of this planet using recent technology. How much longer do you think it will take to test a theory about the fundamental structure of the universe, when we can't even imagine the kind of technology we'd need in order to start testin'?

Copernicus waited 300 years. String theorists should expect to wait 500-1000 years, if not more. And we, the rest of the society, should strive to support such long-term endeavors to the best of our abilities [3]. It's not as if string theorists are asking us to build expensive underground facilities for them, right?

[1] The lack of epicycles was a particularly attractive feature because of the newly discovered moons of Jupiter. Too many levels of epicycles made the Ptolemaic model look rather inelegant.

[2] Elegant syntax, sexy community, and a cool standard library.

[3] That is, unless there's something so obviously fishy about a theory that the consensus is that it's not even worth trying to falsify. Intelligent design probably falls into this category.

<comment><USER20> _Copernicus realized this for the first time in the early 16th century._

Copernicus came up with the predictive mathematical model, but the idea of heliocentrism goes back almost two millenia before him.

 _The history of science is rife with examples like this._

The collection of ideas now known as 'the scientific method' didn't exist in Copernicus's day, and was still having major modifications over the past 100 years. At this point, we've really nailed down something that was barely a wisp of an idea in Copernicus's time. It took a long time simply because falsifiability wasn't an ingrained scientific process in the age of Copernicus.

 _And we, the rest of the society, should strive to support such long-term endeavors to the best of our abilities_

500-year experiments should be very low on the list, particularly ones to be supported 'to the best of our abilities'. We have more pressing issues and ideas that should get more of our attention. Saying 'trust us, this will be important long, long into the future' isn't too far from founding a new religion.

<comment><USER19> > _At this point, we 've really nailed down_

Have we really nailed it down?

Except within a certain faction of purists who want to purge science of anything that cannot be falsified in the short term, and outside of textbooks influenced by their opinions, I don't see any consensus on what constitutes _the_ scientific method and what falls outside of it. How do we know that there won't be further "major modifications" over the next 100 years?

Modern people often suffer the illusion that they exist at the apex of history, and their proud claims of perfection just as often fail to stand the test of time.

> _It took a long time simply because falsifiability wasn 't an ingrained > scientific process in the age of Copernicus._

No, it took a long time because the technology needed to falsify geocentrism simply did not exist until the mid-19th century. Likewise, we currently do not have the technology to test large parts of contemporary theoretical physics. In fact, it seems to be in the very nature of theoretical physics that its predictions are hard to test. I can't think of a single major advance in modern physics that took less than a decade to test conclusively.

> _500-year experiments should be very low on the list_

I agree. But when it comes to highly abstract theories of cosmology, do we really need to compile a list of priorities at all? It's not as if string theorists and multiverse proponents are asking for funding to send probes to outer space. It's all armchair speculation at this point, and nobody's forcing anyone to believe anything.

If we as a society can afford to throw money at SF films and number-puzzle games with a high "geek factor", surely we can afford to let some professors engage in geeky speculation for a few more centuries? Because that's all I mean by "support to the best of our abilities". Just keep respecting them as fellow scientists whose conjectures unfortunately cannot be tested within their lifetime. Acknowledge that a small fraction of our scientific workforce needs to be engaged in such long-term projects, and take comfort in the fact that this fraction will always remain small.

Or have we become so insecure, narrow-minded, and obsessed with short-term ROI's that we cannot stand the sight of as-yet-unfalsified theories occupying the precious pages of our journals?</comment></comment></comment>


Volvo recalls 59,000 cars over software fault - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35622753 <comment><USER2> Why don't any of the luxury car brands (other than Lexus) focus on reliability? It seems so strange that the market is willing to pay ~$40-$80k for a car totally indifferent to its engineering quality. If I were to own a luxury car, I'd want to know its engineering is rock-solid first and foremost. I'd want to be proud of it _as a machine_ not just a symbol. Maybe that's just a techie thing, though.

Volvo has been notorious for extremely difficult-to-diagnose and expensive-to- repair electrical system problems for at least a decade.

<comment><USER3> Where is Volvo considered a luxury car brand? Here in the UK I don't know anyone who would call it that.

<comment><USER4> In North America Volvo has definitely evolved in to a luxury car brand, if just by the prices of their cars.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I have a theory that software is so hard, that internet startups win simply because they can actually do software, and thereby obtain its benefits.

It's not that the start ups have such disruptive business models; but simply that software is great, and incumbents can't do it.

Web startups are good at software because that's what they focus on, and are selected for. So we're in this strange situation where getting software to do it is more important than doing it. It's the flexibility.

I'm afraid even my anecdatum is scanty: taxi calling is terrible. Uber could only be better.

</comment><comment> k-mcgrady >> ">> The glitch had been reported by drivers of new Volvos who said the engine could cut out without warning, creating a brief absence of steering and braking."

Do they just mean the power steering cuts out and brakes lose hydraulics? Because there's a pretty huge difference between that and 'a brief absence of steering and braking'.

<comment><USER6> My power steering went out once. The car was drivable, but just barely. Likewise if you've ever pumped the brakes while the engine is off, you know that braking power drops to almost nothing.

If that happened suddenly on the road 'loss of steering and brakes' is exactly how I would describe it. Sure it might not be completely accurate, but it is definitely a dangerous situation whatever you call it.

<comment><USER7> Eh, my car has a finicky engine and I've learned that it's perfectly drivable without power steering or brakes. I've lost power while taking tight turns, and while it was a bit surprising the first time or two I had no trouble keeping it under control. Unless the driver has significantly less strength than the average person, or is unwilling to drop whatever might be in their off hand to get it too the wheel, I'd say it's more scary than dangerous.

That being said, I certainly wouldn't be happy if my new volvo did that; they should definitely be held to higher standards than my $500 beater.

<comment><USER8> Newer cars generally have a much lower steering ratio (forgot the actual term for it) so steering without the power assist is a lot more difficult since turning the wheel fully in one direction might be only 1 full rotation of the wheel on a newer car vs 3-4 on an older one. Newer cars are also generally heavier making it even more difficult to steer.

<comment><USER7> How new are you defining newer to be? My car is a '96 mazda 626. I have driven around a '68 volvo, with no power steering and that definitely was much easier than my car when the engine dies. Has typical steering setup changed that much since '96? (Legitimately asking the question here, not trying to be rhetorical) Cars have definitely gotten heavier as you say, and volvos have always been on the heavier side.

<comment><USER8> A 96 626 is on the older side as far as steering goes, and from what I recall driving that generation 626 it has a lower/looser steering ratio than most cars these days, though I can't seem to find any numbers with a quick search.

As far as how much steering systems have changed, many are still more or less the same variable ratio rack and pinion systems, but most have moved to electronic steering assist instead of hydraulic, which allows for a higher steering ratio since you can adjust the strength of the assist on the fly (to have more control/less of an assist at higher speeds and with the wheel centered but a stronger assist when slower and turning the wheel) so low ratios aren't needed to keep the wheel easily turnable at low speeds. On top of that some cars are going full on steer by wire now, though not many due to the understandable reliability issues.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Critical firmware must be open source and public by law. Especially as it continues to take over more control of things like cars.

</comment><comment><USER10> With cars essentially becoming computers that hold your life in there hands, its going to be interesting seeing how software development strategies evolve to build software rapidly but without the fall back of knowing you can simply send out a large firmware update to fix an issue. Cars can't afford to be stuck parked because someone made a small coding issue that got pushed before it was caught.

<comment><USER11> The space industry has been doing this for decades. NASA published 'The Power of Ten' with some guidelines.

[http://pixelscommander.com/wp- content/uploads/2014/12/P10.pd...](http://pixelscommander.com/wp- content/uploads/2014/12/P10.pdf)

This was published _20_ years ago. [http://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they- write-right-stuff](http://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-stuff)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Jeep had a very similar recall. I have a 2007 Jeep Wrangler, the first year of the major redesign. This was the first Wrangler with modern electronics, including stability control. In the first year, there were three recalls for software updates.

The worst one was a tendency for the system to crash while going uphill at slow speed in hot weather. The crash caused the engine to quit and restart, the dashboard would blank, light up for self-test, and reset, the transmission would downshift, and the CD player would stop. However, everything did recover within one second. That sounds very similar to Volvo's problem.

</comment><comment><USER13> I'd double check the emissions readings before and after this "bug fix".

</comment><comment><USER14> I've rented a Volvo V70 for the weekend that sounds like it's just the model that they're recalling. So far, no issues, and given the ice patches on the road today I'd hope it stays that way. It's a pretty cool car otherwise, lots of nifty features to make driving easier and safer, like adaptive cruise control, lane warnings, dead angle warnings, automatic break (at low speeds) when detecting obstacles, like a car suddenly stopping ahead. If this thing would steer by itself I wouldn't have to do anything – if this is the way of the future then sign me up!

<comment><USER14> Update: I'm still alive, and the car returned. Never had an issue, so I guess the model wasn't affected or its not easily reproduced in the kind of casual cross country driving I did.

Regardless – great car, 10/10 would rent again.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> We had a similar issue about half a year ago while driving 2016 XC60 D4 (i.e. 4 cylinders) on a highway. I guess they'll have more cars to recall.

<comment><USER16> The D4 actually have 5 cylinders. All the DX motors on the XC60 has, the difference is in the cc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'm sure the dealers are excited as hell about this (and non-software- updatable-over-the-air cars in general)

<comment><USER18> At least one of the configurations of the 2012 Ford Focus/Fiesta transmission had issues. The mechanic at the dealer agreed it was a problem. Ford never acknowledged their fault as far as I know. A firmware update about a year later seemingly fixed the issue. Why wouldn't they acknowledge the issue and tell people they're working on it? Liability issue?

<comment> nommm-nommm >Ford never acknowledged their fault as far as I know.

Yes they did, they sent letters out and and they extended the warranty on the transmission. Twice.

[http://www.mcall.com/news/local/watchdog/mc-ford-fiesta- tran...](http://www.mcall.com/news/local/watchdog/mc-ford-fiesta-transmission- lemon-law-watchdog-20150506-column.html)

"Ford has acknowledged the potential for transmission problems in letters to owners and dealers. It has extended the warranty but has not recalled the vehicle."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Is there any coding standards like in aviation (DO-178) for cars?

<comment><USER20> Yes. Check out MISRA: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_Industry_Software_Reliab...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_Industry_Software_Reliability_Association)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Buy used. If you have a healthy budget, give it to a shop for an overhaul/rebuild, new upholstery, paint, etc. That'll still cost less than new, and no computer b.s.

<comment><USER22> No computer BS, and none of the safety improvements made in the intervening time.

I don't understand why some people say that they prefer older cars because they're afraid the computers in newer ones will get them killed. Cars are overall much safer. Buy your older car, and sure, the computers won't kill you, but if and when you do crash it may well kill you where you could have walked away from it in a newer car.

<comment><USER21> I'm not afraid the computer will get me killed. I'm also not afraid other drivers are going to get me killed. I agree the cars a much safer than 30 years ago. By older car I'm thinking something 15 years old or newer, so they still have computers in them, they still have most modern safety features, but they don't have full blown OS's with the most craptastic manufacturer proprietary UI's known to man that never get updated and never will be updated.

<comment><USER22> OK, given the context of a safety recall I thought you were making a statement about safety.

<comment><USER21> The safety potential, I recognize. In this case it's an inconvenience. And this transitional period we're in right now where cars can have major bugs like this, but still aren't autonomous (probably a good thing, in the context of this particular flaw) is something I personally don't want to be involved in. I understand the process won't be free of flaws, and good that Volvo isn't downplaying or hiding the issue. When the software is mature enough that it's not needing constant updates, and we're not concerned about needing an SLA for 10 or 20 or 30 years to keep car computers secure... OK fuck, I'm screwed it's going to be a long time before I can get a new car.

<comment><USER22> The inconvenience seems pretty small compared to the inconvenience of maintaining an old car. Required updates at the dealer aren't exactly common, and in day-to-day use you can mostly ignore the systems if you don't want to use them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> How is this possible? How can such a massive car company make a mistake like this ..

</comment><comment><USER24> Surprising that OTA is not gaining adoption in the automative industry.

</comment><comment><USER25> volvo pls

</comment><comment><USER26> >> The glitch had been reported by drivers of new Volvos who said the engine could cut out without warning, creating a brief absence of steering and braking.

Created by Volvo - who wants to be death proof by 2020...

[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3409102/Volvo...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3409102/Volvo- promises-DEATHPROOF-cars-2020-Company-says-s-confident-technology-eradicate- fatal-crashes.html)

<comment><USER27> Yes, that why they are recalling it.</comment></comment>


Visualization of living US presidents over time - <AUTHOR> http://www.ravi.io/living-us-presidents

<comment><USER2> Elegantly presented data (can't wait until this is no longer worth an HN entry because it's become commonplace), but I don't see why the graph needs to move.</comment>


New App That Makes Reading On-Screen Easier - <AUTHOR> http://www.thetakeaway.org/story/eureka-moment-makes-reading-easier/ <comment><AUTHOR> For more info on the science behind the tech, see the recent writeup in The Atlantic, which includes interviews with vision and reading researchers. [http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/05/a-bett...](http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/05/a-better- way-to-read/482127/)</comment>


Ask HN: Have you been too embarrased to post in Show HN? - <AUTHOR> I just finished up a proof of concept I've been working on as my side project. It's a location based mini forum - you make a post and you pick a location for it, and there's tree style comments, simple.
It's a bit cringy because there's no content and I've just crossed the milestone that let me host it. I'll be using it as my personal blog posting about things I wanted to talk about in my area and others can too.
I almost don't want to press submit. Is the UI and concept too cringy?
http://www.zipbash.com/ <comment><USER2> Seems a cool concept. UI is fine. I think you'd get more interest if you could seed it with fake data for the sake of demo'ing it. Like a proof of concept: "this is what it could be". Just my $0.02.

<comment><USER3> I agree that a few more sample questions/answers would be useful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's fine.

I don't think it's about how pretty the thing looks but the concept that you'd be showing.

If something looks super ugly but there are some new/substantial ideas behind it people can look over that and still discuss the idea.

Beyond a certain point if something is too early stage or there's nothing to show it's not very useful to do show HN.</comment>


Fortnite is putting users at risk,to prove point about Google's Android monopoly - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnet.com/news/fortnite-is-putting-users-at-risk-to-prove-a-point-about-googles-android-monopoly/ <comment><USER2> In Android 8.0+, enabling Unknown sources works on a per-app basis. But considering that Android 8+ still has low market share, I assume they will want users to have previous versions of Android to download it, too.

I actually agree with them on this move, but bonsidering the amount of media flack they're getting over this, I think it would be smart to announce they will only make Fortnite available for Android 8+ devices. They plan on making it a Galaxy Note 9 exclusive for 4 months anyway, and then only a handful of devices are supposed to get it.</comment>


Three Simple IFTTT Recipes to Save You Hours of Email Time - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@tonystubblebine/the-top-three-ifttt-recipes-to-save-you-hours-of-email-time-7d21d77ea9c1#.vszxpjizr <comment><USER2> It's funny that this focuses on email, while email itself is being rapidly replaced with other technologies. I'd be more interested if this was focused on Telegram, Slack, etc...

<comment><AUTHOR> I have a pretty long list of IFTTT productivity hacks and just wanted to focus the article. Email's dying and all the more reason to automate it so that you can live in the newer technologies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I want to learn how to do something like this with every platform i'm on. Not just email. It's not just about email anymore. There's FB messenger, whatsapp, Telegram, skype. The list goes on.

The amount of time i lose in managing all this manually is ridiculous.

<comment><AUTHOR> Agree.</comment></comment>


U.S. proposal to collect travelers' passwords alarms privacy experts - <AUTHOR> http://www.computerworld.com/article/3167932/security/us-proposal-to-collect-travelers-passwords-alarms-privacy-experts.html <comment><USER2> I use a password manager which generates a random password for my accounts (and I don't take my computer with me), would they turn me away at the border?

</comment><comment><USER3> Sharing your password most likely violates the TOS and could subject you to felony prosecution under the CFAA.</comment>


Microsoft Losing Against iPod, iPhone, iOS, iMessage, Slack, Dropbox - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/garrytan/status/1117808361901191168 <comment><USER2> Without a doubt, Microsoft failed, and failed expensively in the smartphone/tablet wars. I believe there was a $2b writedown on the Surface RT, as well as $7b + on the botched Nokia acquisition. Those are failures you can attribute actual dollar figures to.

But for the rest, I doubt MS would have succeeded in those markets even under the best of circumstances. The iPod made Apple big again, but without Steve Jobs as the pitchman, it wouldn't have had the massive impact it did. The offerings of MS (the Zune) and others (Creative, Sandisk, Toshiba, Sony, etc.) were more than good enough, and they worked with a variety of online music stores. It's just without the brand cachet of the iPod and Apple's lifestyle marketing, it's hard to get excited about an MP3 player.

Slack and Dropbox are both huge inside startups, but nonexistent in old-school enterprise companies. Nobody at work wants yet another login to have to remember. I know this because I work inside a digital team at a 3000-person company where everyone swears by O365's out of the box capabilities. Skype for Business and OneDrive for Business inside of an O365 plan is "good enough" for a lot of people.

Dropbox has made losses each year since 2015. It's great that it's achieved good market share since it started in 2007, but maybe there's a limited enterprise market for something that's a one-trick pony. And one-trick ponies are the polar opposite of MS' strategy.

<comment><USER3> _The offerings of MS (the Zune) and others (Creative, Sandisk, Toshiba, Sony, etc.) were more than good enough, and they worked with a variety of online music stores._

The Zune came out in November 2006 - less than three months before the iPhone was introduced and a little bit over a year before iPod sales started declining.

<comment><USER4> Zune was a good example of too little too late. It would have had to be extraordinary to have made a big impact that late in the game. Instead, it was perfectly serviceable.

<comment><USER3> It was even worse.

Microsoft introduced a hard drive based player years after the flash based Nanos were already more popular.

Then MS released the flash based non touch screen Zunes after the iPod Touch was becoming popular.

Finally they released the touch screen Zunes after the App Store came out and the Zunes couldn't run third party apps. Even the hard drive based iPods had a few curated third party apps by 2005.

[http://www.appskel.com/ipod-games.html](http://www.appskel.com/ipod- games.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Not that I like Microsoft... And I really did like sticking it to their loyal followers with the iPhone destroying Windows Phone.

Looking back, it's OK Microsoft lost out on a few things. There's now a bit more balance in tech.

Going forward, Microsoft does have some exciting products that could be great. For example, the Surface and HoloLens.

Apple is dragging their feet with the iPad and AR can't get here soon enough. Microsoft hits it big with either of those products and no one will care about not beating Dropbox or iPhone, etc.

<comment><USER6> > with the iPhone destroying Windows Phone.

You don't think it was Android that destroyed Windows Phone?

I guess if you want to get technical, Microsoft did.

<comment><USER5> Yeah, I guess Android took the part of Windows in Apple vs...

Microsoft thought it was competing against the iPhone:

[https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-iphone- funeral-201...](https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-iphone- funeral-2010-9)

<comment><USER6> Even without the funeral story, it was pretty clear they thought Apple was the competition. Another lens through which I saw this at the time: some of their arbitrarily-removed or scoped out features early on [think copy-paste], or dubious restrictions on apps. As if they thought they could copy Apple's limitations without understanding what it was they did well.

<comment><USER7> It seemed as much like they thought they had Apple's timeline and luck to follow. In which case copying Apple's limitations wasn't so much a misunderstanding as a profoundly naïve optimism.

Apple had first mover advantage, so the time it took for them to catch up on features like copy/paste was negligible because "no one else" had it either, because consumers thought of it as a new category [0]. Microsoft didn't have the luxury of first mover advantage (or even second mover because Android).

Apple also had the marketing luck of hitting enough sales power early enough to control their own fate with the big US telecom carriers (AT&T especially from the start, but eventually they all played ball with Apple). Microsoft was expected by the telecoms to follow the old rules that they should have known by heart from Windows Mobile <= 6.5, not Apple's (still) very special rules, and that shouldn't have been a surprise. Android played by the old rules and decided the wild west of fragmentation issues was fine enough.

[0] (That is that they weren't feature comparing the iPhone to say Palm, Blackberry, or even Windows Mobile 6.x.)

<comment><USER6> You have way too much "Apple" in this reply, though. They gave the concept of a smartphone a huge boost, but they are not the market leader. This is another misstatement of the problem Microsoft got caught in, implicit in my posts here.

<comment><USER7> I was agreeing with you on that. Microsoft was following Apple far too much in the early game, and yes, they were ignoring too much of the existential threat of Android, especially from a hardware standpoint.

For instance, I'd argue the point where Windows phone/mobile lost the "bottom" segment of the market (esp. in India and "emerging markets"), when the OS became too hard to run on cheap handsets of the lowest specs, to cheaper Android knockoffs was a key inflection point where the platform lost so much of its momentum.

Whether or not you feel that Microsoft buying Nokia was a cause of that or a symptom of that. It was somewhere between "both" in my mind, in that it was a symptom of software upgrades at first but snowballed because of the Nokia purchase. Certainly there were factors that the OS was maybe too quickly pushing bottom level specs. (As much maligned as the app lifecycles of Windows 8 apps were from a developer standpoint, they did help the platform hit some very low specs. Windows 10 over-correcting from developer complaints did not help mobile.) In addition to not solving the telecom carrier software update problem satisfactorily to OEM needs (as I mentioned), there's also the Android price match question of whether or not Microsoft dropped the OEM price to "free" for Windows on the mobile form factor too late to win new OEMs. (They probably were too late, but there still seemed opportunity at the time they dropped the price. Again, purchasing Nokia confuses the timing of all that and which effects were snowballing.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Don't forget PS4 / Nintendo Switch. The XB1 isn't selling. Unsurprisingly, Microsoft is now porting their games to other platforms with a focus on XBOX Live (service).

</comment><comment><USER9> Microsoft doesn't care about losing against all these new things; they know their cash cows are Windows desktop and server, Office suite, and developer tools.

Nothing is as sticky as Windows desktop and office. Show me anything that competes with that combination? Even with the advent of the smartphone, the combination of those two is still unbeatable in corporate America.

<comment><USER10> There's an entire generation of kids growing up on smartphones and iPads right now, doing all of their schoolwork on school-issued Chromebooks, many without ever touching MS Office.

If they don't happen to get into PC gaming with Windows there are kids aged 5-10 right now that might sit down at a Windows PC for the first time in college or when they start their first job in corporate America. Things could easily follow Blackberry's path very suddenly when new workers are no longer familiar with the tools and there's cheaper, faster, and more productive alternatives that your employees would prefer using and are advocating for.

<comment><USER11> Yeah but they are doing it on microsoft products related to the web like azure, sql server, etc. microsoft is making money without users ever knowing they are touching microsoft products.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Let's say that Microsoft had "won" the mobile phone war and was in the same place that Google is now with Android. What would they have won?

Android has only made Google $21 billion in profit in its entire history....less than Apple makes in one quarter.

[https://www.google.com/search?q=android+oracle+revenue&ie=UT...](https://www.google.com/search?q=android+oracle+revenue&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en- us&client=safari)

<comment><USER7> Efficiencies of scale, for one thing. Microsoft with a strong mobile OS sharing a kernel and a greater software ecosystem with its desktop OS only _has_ to make an app once and flex that across mobile and desktop. Instead, Microsoft today absolutely has to build apps for iOS, Android, and Windows to stay competitive.

This is probably a good thing in the long run for Microsoft as some of its more innovative work has been when it's tried to focus on cross-platform software (its founding era, and the early GUI wars, for instances), but that vision of a single flexible OS across all device form factors is still an attractive one, especially from an efficiency of scale perspective.

<comment><USER3> They already tried that. It was a horrible experience with Windows CE. The .Net Compact Framework was a subset of the .Net Framework. You could run a .Net compact targeted app on the desktop. I wrote Windows Mobile apps back in the day. You could also write C++/MFC apps that targeted both. They weren't great apps.

But today MS has Xamarin that is a good enough cross platform framework for enterprise style apps.

<comment><USER7> Don't forget that Windows CE _was_ rather dominant, though. It's partly that Windows Mobile 6.x was a market leader for long enough that Microsoft somewhat seemed to ignore the iPhone in its early days.

Windows CE never had the efficiency of scale convergence quite in mind, though. Windows CE was never quite Windows at the kernel level, for instance, and it was a competing OS inside Microsoft in some ways that mattered in the old xkcd siloes pointing guns at each other fashion.

Windows 10 mobile, especially towards the end (Redstone 3) was so very similar to Desktop Windows under the hood. It was still a fork, but it was a converging fork.

(UWP still sometimes gets unfavorably compared to the .NET CF, but UWP has always been more powerful and capable than CF and CE-era C++/MFC, even at its "worst" when Windows 8 launched. Especially now that .NET Core is open source and "leading" the .NET Framework/.NET standards rather than vice versa, UWP is much stronger than .NET CF ever was.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Does one single company have to own every single market?

What is the fascination with monopolies?

I for one am happy there's choice

</comment><comment><USER13> Their biggest defeat was perhaps the browser war. They were so strongly trying to dominate the open standards they totally forgot about the applications. Funny how Qt and Electron are now exactly where Microsoft had always wanted to be.

<comment><USER14> Are they? AFAICS Microsoft in the past never wanted to rule cross-platform anything. They just wanted to be the only (OS) platform, using UI toolkits as a means to that end.

<comment><USER7> Microsoft was founded on cross-platform. Their goal was clearly to have their software on every "home computer" regardless of manufacturer. Owning the OS just makes that goal easier.

Even the early GUI era you could see Microsoft hedging bets and trying to be the best Macintosh software company while working on Windows. Even as late as the XP/Vista timeframe you could see that Microsoft was often proud of being _the_ largest third-party software vendor for the Macintosh. (That statistic got shaken up soon after, IIRC, but Microsoft held that position for a long time.)

Cross-platform certainly isn't a new attitude for Microsoft. In some ways it seems a return "home" to when they were the BASIC provider for every computer. (Though the argument of whether or not BASIC then was an OS platform is a fascinating one, which is why both perspectives are "correct".)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I think we all knew this by the end of the Ballmer period.

</comment><comment><USER16> I wonder why Amazon does not have already a Gmail / Outlook live solution.

<comment><USER17> Why should they? How would such a product relate to any of their current offerings?</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is there any way we get rid of more than Covid 19 by quarantining? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Yes, there will be a drop in flu deaths this year for example. And a rebound next year

</comment><comment><USER3> Air quality has already been reported to be improving. You have 70-90% decrease in plane and vehicle traffic. Less boat traffic too, so water quality will improve. The earth is healing itself. ;-)

</comment><comment><USER4> Like other diseases? I don't know what this question is asking

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes other diseases. Sorry for not being clear. I've had trouble with the number of characters limit.

<comment><USER4> [https://qz.com/1824020/social-distancing-slowing-not-only- co...](https://qz.com/1824020/social-distancing-slowing-not-only-covid-19-but- other-diseases-too/)</comment></comment></comment>


The Post Transaction Marketing Wall Of Shame - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/11/17/ptm-scams-scamville-rockefeller-senatehearing-wallofshame/ <comment><USER2> What exactly does that CEO think he is selling, for $10 dollars a month, to people who don't even realise they've bought something?</comment>


[Show HN] Android app for Wisden Cricket - India edition - <AUTHOR> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.wisdenindia.cricket

<comment><AUTHOR> Cricket enthusiasts - would love to hear your views on our latest love!</comment>


Get Ready for High-Frequency Lawyers - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-05-10/get-ready-for-high-frequency-lawyers <comment><USER2> The linked summary of his work ([https://www.aeaweb.org/about-aea/honors- awards/bates-clark/y...](https://www.aeaweb.org/about-aea/honors-awards/bates- clark/yuliy-sannikov)) is far more informative than the Bloomberg article with the clickbaity headline.

</comment><comment><USER3> Obligatory link when automated lawyering comes up: [http://www.ftrain.com/nanolaw.html](http://www.ftrain.com/nanolaw.html)

Worth the read.

<comment><USER4> Now that's scary.

<comment><USER3> It seems like you'd get there automatically as soon as you have some sort of smart-contract enabled judge system. Ethereum's first killer app, maybe.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Overall cool article, but it seems to blow by the fact that lawyers aren't expected, or usually practically able, to write complete contracts for the solution space (the space being all potential states of the relevant portions of the universe at time of enforcement).

When they do they're for relatively trivial contracts, or for standardized contracts (think a commodities future) that purposely limit the relevant universe to the easily measurable.

I don't think we're going to see HFL compete with human lawyers in the way that HFT competes with human traders anytime soon. To the extent that dynamically rewritten contracts become a thing I think we'll largely view them as an iteration of HFT actually.

On a partially related note I was discussing a law-tech idea with a lawyer friend who pointed out the (US at least) issue that law firms have to be owned by attorneys. A lot of potential legal tech ideas then basically are on thin ice if the tech's behavior is close enough to the line of lawyering. The HFL described would certainly run into that issue (at least enough for one case to set precedence).

<comment><USER6> Every time I see one of these 'XYZ start-up is going to change the legal world' I shake my head. There seems to be this misguided idea that lawyers are essentially programmers, and that legal work can be entirely automated. There is a huge amount of humanity in law. It is in essence a codified system of dispute resolution.

Legal work involves a huge input of social capital and human-to-human communication: negotiating, interviewing, mediating disputes, arguing, schmoozing clients, networking with lawmakers, smoothing over conflicts with clients and other lawyers, etc... I don't see computers ever replacing this aspect of legal work, and no, AI is not the answer for the same reasons that AI is not a substitute for friends or significant others.

Clients with millions of dollars on the line will never want to place their fate in the hands of an algorithm. They want a reputable team that they can talk to and place their trust in. This is why large corporations continue to use expensive 'name brand' law firms even though much cheaper firms could do the same work. Same goes for criminal law: do you want to place your liberty (and life if you're an American citizen) in the hands of an algorithm? Anyone who has been confronted with the power of the criminal justice system will tell you that its scary. You need a human you can talk to, who can explain and reassure and humanize this otherwise cold and harsh system.

I'm not going to name names, but I've seen some start-ups who offer contract templates and claim that you'll save oodles of money on legal work by using their contracts. First of all, if you haven't studied contract law, how do you that what you're paying for is actually useful? Are you going to ask a lawyer to review it for you? Secondly, if there's ever a dispute over one of these contracts, you're going to have to hire a lawyer anyway. Finally, judges tend to frown on template contracts. A custom contract will always come across as stronger in the mind of a judge or arbitrator.

The law is not binary. It is murky and cloudy and flawed. There is rarely a 'right' answer to legal questions. Judges will frequently make seemingly arbitrary decisions. At this point in time there is simply far too much humanity integrated into law for computers to deal with.

However I do see lots of potential for technology to make legal work faster and more efficient. Programmers are light-years ahead in their work-flow and tools. Whereas programmers take pride in having the slickest workflow, lawyers tend to be allergic to software and hate having to learn new systems. They bang away at buggy old versions of Microsoft Word since they hate having to learn new versions. They use bizarre and inefficient methods to collaborate and share documents. In fact, an IDE for legal work that combined version control, word processing, time accounting for billable hours and access to research databases would be the killer app imo. Also, encrypted email and chat that is extremely user-friendly would be a big big hit among lawyers.

<comment><USER7> > Clients with millions of dollars on the line will never want to place their > fate in the hands of an algorithm.

They will want, if it will unlock multi-billion market opportunities. It happened multiple times already, e.g. algo trading robots replaced some human traders.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Sounds like hell:

In a nutshell, Sannikov's theories describe how an employer would adjust a contractor's compensation in real time, in response to changing performance and external conditions. Where most previous researchers only allowed contracts to be updated at regular intervals, Sannikov described what happens when they can be changed infinitely fast.

<comment><USER9> Not just like hell, but illegal to in the context you describe. Contracts require both parties to agree to the terms--and to subsequent changes to those terms. Sannikov's proposal is DOA, though based on the article it was probably intended more as a thought exercise than as an actual proposal for the future of law.

<comment><USER10> > Contracts require both parties to agree

So... Next step: Giving power of attorney to a software agent. (What could possibly go wrong?)

<comment><USER11> Probably the first few times will go wrong.

But the time and money saved is just too appealing

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12>
       Business service robots will bring forward
       the day when we need to think hard about
       how to spread the massive wealth created by
       the automation of everything.

So instead of allocating half of all wealth to the top 1% we'll allocate it to the top 0.1%?

<comment><USER11> Yup, that's why you should invest in as many automation companies as you can.

Roomba, Intel, ibm etc.

There won't be revolution. There will be just rich and poor.

<comment> norea-armozel Easier to turn off the power with a few sticks of dynamite or a backhoe. So much for robotic feudalism when the substation is toast. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It's a nice thought, but we haven't even yet replaced meatbag lawyers doing the relative basics like document review.</comment>


Show HN: Hotel Ninjas, Cloud-based Hotel Management - <AUTHOR> http://www.hotelninjas.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey Everyone,

We are a small team based out of Barcelona, Spain.

This tool is a public beta for our cloud-based hotel management software. We're trying to help the long tail of hotels to better manage their properties at lower cost.

The tool is built on Django for backend and Backbone.js/Bootstrap for frontend.

I will appreciate any feedback that you may have!

Thanks

Avi</comment>


I have $8k of AWS credit that expire soon. What should I do with them? - <AUTHOR>

Looking into mining altcoins, but open to other suggestions! <comment><USER2> If you think your going to need servers down the road on AWS I would look into reserving a bunch of servers on three year terms for medium usage. Pay upfront using your credit and save money later on down the road.

</comment><comment><USER3> Set up some boxes to help with Archive Team's current projects. [http://www.archiveteam.org/index.php?title=Main_Page](http://www.archiveteam.org/index.php?title=Main_Page)

</comment><comment><USER4> Also, how did you get this credit?

</comment><comment><USER5> Lots of projects you can help here: [https://boinc.berkeley.edu/projects.php](https://boinc.berkeley.edu/projects.php)

<comment><AUTHOR> great idea. looking into it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Buy some reserved instances and then put them for sale.

</comment><comment><USER7> Create a bitcoin mining farm from EC2 instances ;)

</comment><comment><USER8> [http://www.seventeenorbust.com](http://www.seventeenorbust.com)

</comment><comment><USER4> MINE DOGE

</comment><comment><USER9> resell ?

<comment><AUTHOR> open for that idea.</comment></comment>


Security vulnerabilities fixed in Firefox 72.0.1 and ESR 68.4.1 - <AUTHOR> https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/security/advisories/mfsa2020-03/ <comment><USER2> In the advisory, Mozilla states it was being used as part of targeted attacks. Qihoo 360 ATA is credited with discovering the vulnerability and the in-the- wild exploitation of the flaw. Catalin Cimpanu says Qihoo 360 deleted a tweet connecting this bug to an undisclosed Internet Explorer zero-day [1] so it remains to be seen if there is another bug out there that remains unpatched. Mozilla also patched a pair of vulnerabilities that were used in targeted attacks last year [2]

[1] [https://twitter.com/campuscodi/status/1215020566656299011](https://twitter.com/campuscodi/status/1215020566656299011)

[2] [https://www.tenable.com/blog/cve-2019-11707-cve-2019-11708-m...](https://www.tenable.com/blog/cve-2019-11707-cve-2019-11708-multiple- zero-day-vulnerabilities-in-mozilla-firefox-exploited-in)

</comment><comment><USER3> Was this bug introduced in a recent version or is it old? I tried clicking through to see the bug, but I'm "not authorized".

Edit2: never mind the old edit, lmkg has a good point about the age of the CVE.

<comment><USER4> > The CVE was created last September, so it was known about at least that long

Mozilla could have reserved CVE numbers in blocks, and still be allocating from that batch.

<comment><USER5> Is there a reason why an organization would continue to use CVE numbers from last year?

<comment><USER6> CVE are assigned from the year the vulnerability was found. Not when it was announced.

However, a CNA like Firefox does not allocate CVE as they need them. They first ask Mitre for a block of X CVE to use as they need. They probably got a new block in September.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> For anyone who is unable or unwilling to update, setting the following two values to 'false' in about:config _should_ patch this:

javascript.options.baselinejit

javascript.options.ion

I cannot 100% confirm this as I haven't found a PoC in the wild yet, however.

<comment><USER8> Be aware that this will disable two tiers of JS acceleration (JITting): The lowest level (BaselineJIT, introduced only recently) and the highest level (IonJIT for very hot code).

<comment><USER9> What does that even leave? The baseline interpreter?

<comment><USER8> Sorry, I had it partially wrong. There's the C++ Interpreter and the baseline interpreter (that one was added only recently[1]), and then the two JITs (BaselineJIT and IonMonkey). I understand that IonMonkey itself has two levels chosen depending on code hotness.

I.e. these settings will kill all JITs (so the highest 2-3 tiers) and leave the two interpreters.

[1] [https://hacks.mozilla.org/2019/08/the-baseline- interpreter-a...](https://hacks.mozilla.org/2019/08/the-baseline-interpreter- a-faster-js-interpreter-in-firefox-70/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Anyone quickly know if this fixes a bug introduced yesterday by 72, or if this is a longstanding bug?

(e.g. Canonical seems to still be on firefox 71 via standard ppa)

<comment><USER11> ESR is affected, so it's possibly as old as July 2019. Maybe older.

<comment><USER12> The vuln is via IonMonkey JIT parsing. It might be as old as that project, I hope we find out how far back it goes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Running Firefox in an Alpine-based Docker container. What could go wrong?

Well, for starters: Alpine's ESR appears to be on 68.3.0esr.

Is there perhaps a better way to run Firefox in a Docker container?

<comment><USER14> Why would you run Firefox in a Docker container?

<comment><USER13> Theoretically, so that Firefox doesn't have trivial access to other files available to my user.

<comment><USER15> You can run GUI apps from docker?

<comment><USER16> You can run GUI apps across a network, so why not?

<comment><USER15> ah duh, forgot about how X11 works for a moment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Dont forget that if you manually update, Firefox destroys your update settings:

[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1576400](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1576400)

<comment><USER18> There's a flag mentioned in that issue you can pass to the installer to disable that behavior.

Also, are there seriously people running FF with updates disabled? I personally see almost no scenario under which I'd ever not want to update.

<comment><USER19> Perhaps they disable FF updates to let their package managers handle it? (I'm thinking in arch linux land for example)

Not sure how that conflict is resolved

<comment><USER18> I'm not even sure if the linux version of FF has an auto-updater. And even if it does every distro I've ever used (Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, and currently Arch Linux) must disable it, because I've never had FF try to auto update on linux.

<comment><USER20> Automatic updates don't play nicely with package managers that install things as root, so it is disabled during the build process. It does exist though, and is enabled on Linux if you download firefox from [https://www.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/new](https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new).

OP in this thread seems to be using that installer with automatic updates, and then disabling it by hand, since when updating via a package manager you don't run into this issue.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Swapper - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/david_hurn_photographer_swaps_magnum <comment><USER2> Looked at the story. Not clear what they are talking about.

</comment><comment><USER3> What's this about? It's hard to tell from the title or first few sentences.

<comment><USER4> > The Swapper is a story about the internationally-acclaimed British > documentary photographer David Hurn; it is a story of a dyslexic, Welsh > schoolboy written off as being "a bit thick" and an extraordinary > "succession of bizarre coincidences" which would propel him into the ranks > of photography's elite.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Its a little NSFW

<comment><USER6> Definitely qualifies as Art and not porn. That said, some people may still be sensitive.

<comment><USER7> Porn is a subset of Art.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The content is amazing.

But, I found the navigation on this to be tedious. Would have been better if it was just one giant page.

<comment><USER9> Uh, it _is_ one giant page?</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do you gain domain knowledge for unfamiliar industries? - <AUTHOR> I am interested in pursuing an entrepreneurial side-project hopefully serving a business problem rather than a consumer-facing service.
I really enjoy researching different industries and learning about how systems operate, but I've found it's hard to identify specific areas of inefficiency/pain points that I could solve with software. Short of getting a job in that industry, does anyone have any methods for gaining the level of insight where they are able to confidently identify problems and begin sketching solutions?
Things I have tried so far are reading trade journals, blog posts and books, but those don't really provide the level of insight I'm hoping for. <comment><USER2> Ask people what they use Excel for and convert those into SaaS apps (you won't believe the things people do with Excel - I've seen Financial models running in Excel!). Even if you know nothing about an industry, this can be a quick conversation starter "do you use Excel often? what do you use it for?"

Try old school, boring, slow moving industries for low hanging fruits - manufacturing, leasing heavy equipment and even agriculture/animal raising in some cases. These have actual time saving requirements than building yet another project management application

<comment><USER3> This is an excellent idea. I see retail/apparel execs struggle through Excel all day. Considering they're creative-minded and visual learners, I'm surprised no alternative has been adopted

<comment><AUTHOR> Could you get a little more specific? Are they managing inventory through spreadsheets? Or looking at financials?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've attended trade shows / conferences where you get to see vendors and how they all serve that industry in their own ways. Also checkout any certifications that pertains to that industry so you may have the opportunity to learn in a structured setting.

</comment><comment><USER5> Ask professionals; I had an idea for some real estate listing thing, and just went to a local real estate agent to inquire how stuff works, I asked if there were issues they face which related to what I was thinking of.

Most folks are willing in giving you some basic insight into what they do. Maybe if the field is under trade secrets or one other development field would be a different story, or if you are looking to "disrupt their industry". If disruption is the goal then might be best to inquire in another far away town and say you want to do X in my town of Y... Less threatening if you are not competing in someone's competitive market.

As you learn more you will engage the people you talk to with your knowledge and as you progress you will get more help. Trying to get in depth knowledge cold-turkey would seem like a waste of time for most professionals.

</comment><comment><USER6> \- Talk to people, the more senior the better. Approaching someone without a product can be difficult, however if you can identify a broad goal, eg digitising a process, a new way to do x, its a start. Use it to approach executives to ask for advice. "Help a poor startup .. Im researching x", and from there dig down into specific problem areas.

\- Keep an eye out for commercial problems, more-so than technical ones. Crap systems in businesses exist because the cost (in terms of work/lazyness not just $) of doing so outweighs the benefits. Its rarely a technical challenge preventing improvements.

\- For large companies look at quarterly investor reports. A lot of these (in plain english) outline where they are trying to save cost or new areas they are trying to move into. See if you can help provide services that fit within their roadmap. That will get you a lot more attention.

\- Let the people you are talking to understand you are an expert in technology. Don't pretend to be an expert on their industry. Let them tell you what they need and as you build knowledge see if you can productise your service into something that makes sense

</comment><comment><USER7> Join a board of an association as a substitute which works close to the domain in question. There are a lot of charity organisations that can give domain knowledge.

As a member of an housing association board (co-operative apartment complex), I have learnt a great deal about property management, applicable laws and regulations, understanding offers from contractors, managing tenants, etc.

</comment><comment><USER8> The answer totally depends on the industry. For example, the methods of gaining domain knowledge in financial services will be far different from those for the construction industry.

Some advice I can give that would apply regardless, is to find a co-founder who is an industry domain expert, and preferably has spent his career working with your potential customers.

Not only will finding such a partner greatly accelerate your learning of the domain, but it will get you into sales meetings and closing deals. In many industries, if you are a solo-operator and an outsider, you will have trouble even getting into the room. This is especially true if your competition has a domain expert on the team and you do not.

</comment><comment><USER9> Get a cofounder in that field. It's hard to get 10 years of experience in something without spending 10 years in it. Whatever you learn will be shallow and subject you to Dunning Kruger effect.

</comment><comment><USER10> Find a connection with an investment banker (Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs), or consulting company (McKinsey, etc...). Also an investment advisor would have access to IB reports. They have great detailed industry analysis, deep analysis on companies in a given industry, their challenges...Also read the IPO filings (called S1) from the SEC (called edgar), it is free.

</comment><comment><USER11> I love looking at post-mortem of similar businesses to learn from their mistakes. Here's an excellent example, a collection of business stories that I turn to from time to time as case studies.

[https://amzn.to/2Ej18af](https://amzn.to/2Ej18af)

</comment><comment><USER12> Interview people working in the industry. Ask them what their day to day looks like. Interview enough people and you'll start to spot patterns.

<comment><USER13> I would add that shadowing someone for a day or two while recording everything and taking notes would be better than that,and actually doing the work even moreso. A lot of the time the problems people mention are not the root cause. It should also be said that feeling the pain and looking further upstream can be more effective sometimes so more interviews along the chain might be useful.

But this is definitely something you should _talk_ about with those directly involved.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Go through their trash. It's what industrial spies do.

</comment><comment><USER15> I work in them.</comment>


VLC For Android May Arrive In Early 2011 - <AUTHOR> http://digitizor.com/2010/12/25/vlc-for-android-may-arrive-in-early-2011/

<comment><USER2> Well, well, well, since I am the one cited in the article, I may need to explain a bit...

VLC has been ported since quite some time on embedded platforms.

The work on Android was started some time ago, and was resumed since 3 months. The main issue remaining is the output modules (or sink) because they weren't available from the C/C++ part.

This is fixed in the NDK 2.3, and the port is likely to be finished in the next few weeks/months.

<comment><USER3> Great to hear! Sounds like Google is still doing a good job of delivering the tools that developers need to make good apps.

Anything that's still missing or leaving something to be desired with the Android stack/

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> original source is <http://gigaom.com/video/vlc-for-android-coming-soon/>

linked page is just a conclusion.</comment>


Amazon RedShift vs. local PostgreSQL - <AUTHOR> http://rarestblog.com/blog/2013/02/15/redshift-postgresql-in-the-cloud/ <comment><USER3> What this test is essentially doing is comparing Postgres against a single node of Redshift. It is not surprising that Postgres is faster. But Redshift is not meant to be used on a single node.

What Postgres & Redshift represent are are two different products for two very different problems. Postgres is good for small sets of transactional data like orders in a shopping cart system (less than 1TB). Redshift is good for big sets of data involving user behavior and clickstream analysis (greater than 1TB). I would not want to manage clickstream data on a single instance of Postgres nor would I want to manage an order system in Redshift.

A better test of Redshift would be to see how it compares to Asterdata...particularly with both in AWS. That should be telling.

<comment><USER4> We don't run a shopping cart, but one of our databases at present is at 11.3TB on PostgreSQL 9.1 and we're by no means dealing with small sets. We routinely juggle several Gigs at a time when we need to do analytics. We didn't see a reason to put this on a cloud since bandwidth + electricity is still cheaper for us than bandwidth + storage in the cloud at present.

<comment><USER5> If you have a few servers to spare, I'd recommend installing Cloudera Impala on them. You can use Apache Sqoop to pull the data out of Postgres and into HDFS.. Directly after, you can run SQL queries which will query the data in parallel (similar to redshift).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I don't think comparing RedShift to Postgres is accurate, RedShift was not designed for transactions, it was designed to store/query billions of rows using a columnar storage format...it's more like an analytic database (Greenplum, Teradata). Also, these databases are designed to scale out, and so you usually don't really see compelling performance gains until you start adding a few nodes to help influence parallelization.

With that being said, I'd be interested to see how RedShift compares to Impala.

</comment><comment><USER6> I really don't understand what's going on here.

* You're measuring request latency. What part of that (for RedShift) is due to the network? (EDIT: I re-read and saw you're using `SELECT 1` as a gauge for round-trip latency and subtracting it from the results. Are you only doing this for RedShift, or also for local PostgreSQL? To me, it seems like that heuristic is over broad -- it encapsulates not only network latency, but syscall overhead, query parsing, etc).

* In your tests, PostgreSQL _without indices_ performs on-par with RedShift. Does RedShift not support indexing? Is there some metric you're trying to show by not using indices? As designed, this benchmark does not map to any use-case I've ever seen.

<comment><AUTHOR> * I noted in post that "SELECT 1" was done in 100ms round-trip, so I subtracted that from all points where it was reasonable. (No point to subtract it from 8 seconds).

* Not sure about the index support. Didn't try.

My idea was quite simple. I have some data at work (databases up to 30GB). Sometimes we hope to find something better. The main question was - <USER2> RedShift help, will it be radically faster? Will it be radically easier?

The answer for me - no, it won't help in my case, we need that 30GB data in real time, it looks like RedShift is more when you have 1TB+ data. Yes, it is radically easier.

<comment><USER6> Thanks for the reply. I figured for a dataset of that size, the main bottleneck might be not indexing -- maybe RedShift stores row data in a higher-latency medium while keeping indexes in-memory. Curious, I checked the documentation[1] and found this:

> Amazon Redshift doesn't require indexes or materialized views and so uses > less space than traditional relational database systems.

Reading through the rest of their FAQ, it sounds like they echo your conclusion -- RedShift shines the most for use-cases where the dataset is large enough that, to use PostgreSQL, you'd have to shard out multiple instances.

\--

[1] <http://aws.amazon.com/redshift/faqs/#0030>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> very interesting. one of the reasons we picked mysql for a very high-volume app over postgres is that we have RDS and didn't want to do backups/snapshots/etc. Could we now use RedShift as a postgres-API RDS?

<comment><USER8> You wouldn't want to replace RDS (or MySQL/postgres) with Redshift for OLTP workloads. Redshift is built for analytics and complex query workloads. The major benefit is the ability to do MPP (Massive Parallel Processing) and distribute the work out to nodes. I believe you can have up to 100 nodes in the cluster with the 8XL machines and 32 with the single XL.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> You need to run this with a column store database like Infobright. Postgres is more of a transactional database, Infobright is suited towards the similar large dataset analytics that this is aimed towards.

<comment><USER10> Redshift isn't Postgres. It's built on top of Postgres, similar to how Infobright is built on top of MySQL.

<comment><USER11> Redshift is built on ParAccel, not Postgres. It speaks the Postgres API, but the storage engine is not Postgres.

<comment><USER12> Some of the code is based on Postgres, based on their own marketing materials: "Paraccel has leveraged Postgres for some of its parsing and planning functions". So the head node continues to have Postgres origins, but not the compute nodes. Also see this write-up on their paper discussing the links to Postgres: [http://dbmsmusings.blogspot.com/2009/07/paraccel-and- their-p...](http://dbmsmusings.blogspot.com/2009/07/paraccel-and-their- puzzling-tpc-h.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I run 3 large oracle RDS instances I wonder if redshift could be effectively used the same way, we have been thinking about migrating to postgresql.

<comment><USER14> How big is your data?

<comment><USER13> 16tb per instance

<comment><USER14> Cool. :)

I wouldn't know a better way to deal with that with Postgres than sharding across instances. But my "big data" is about 0.75 TB so it fits nicely in one instance. I don't know how people with real problems do it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Wouldn't it have been better to do an EXPLAIN ANALYZE for the timing measurements instead of having the results returned locally?

<comment><AUTHOR> Honestly I don't know. Do you think it would be better? Could you explain why?

<comment><USER16> because it shows the estimated cost (plan) of the queries independent of the magically subtracted network roundtrip time. it also serves to show if the redshift even supports it.it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ahhh, you meant on the RedShift side. I did not think of it. It would have definitely been better. Good point!

It seems that it actually supports it <http://docs.aws.amazon.com/redshift/latest/dg/r_EXPLAIN.html>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is a pretty interesting. I wonder how query performance differs between Redshift and local PostgreSQL for other types of benchmarks as well, say TPC-H queries. (And I guess how Redshift scales out as the dataset size increases in TPC-H.)

</comment><comment><USER18> I'd like to see some more information about the local setup, including hardware and the postgresql.conf. Otherwise, this tells me very little in terms of comparison.

<comment><AUTHOR> In anyway this test won't tell you much, just how different systems behave to bigger load.

The local setup was quite usual: PostgreSQL 9.2, Mint 13, default conf in VirtualBox in iMac i5 12GB. (read: home computer, no tuning)

For me the result is that mostly RedShift is on par with local PostgreSQL, sometimes even winning for <5M rows. So with better PostgreSQL tuning you can probably stretch it, but not for as much as RedShift can do for REALLY big data.

Also the big deal was that RedShift scaled linearly.

<comment><USER14> It scaled linearly, but also went unresponsive for five minutes. (Yeah yeah, it's a new service).

The default Postgres configuration is pretty weak. work_mem is set _way_ to low, for instance, and that's bitten me a few times. I wouldn't say it's unrealistic--lots of people run with it that way in production and never find out how easily they could speed things up. Even me, for years.

But ultimately I'm more swayed by your interaction with it and I hate the endless benchmark tweaking that comes after every blog post about performance testing stuff. The point of this Redshift thing is hugeness first and foremost, so it's interesting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Data warehousing often involves star schemas, which means lots of joins in your queries. I'd love to see how a real world OLAP tool performs on this.

<comment><USER20> While you could use Redshift as a source for OLAP, most OLAP tools will have their own data store. But if you are referring to ROLAP, then it can perform well if tuned properly for the star schema. This would include BI tools like Microstrategy and Mondrian with Jaspersoft.

The main issue with Redshift is the lack of multiple sort orders on a table. Take a look at our blog post on first impressions gleaned during the preview. Disclosure: we are one of a couple of systems integrator partners for Redshift.

[http://www.full360.com/2013/02/14/aws-redshift- full360-first...](http://www.full360.com/2013/02/14/aws-redshift- full360-first-impressions.html)</comment></comment>


Humorous software development quotes - <AUTHOR> http://paultiseo.wordpress.com/2009/02/18/top-13-funny-software-development-quotes/

<comment><USER2> Hey everybody who's never seen these funny quotes before and is upvoting this, here's more new and funny stuff:

[http://crossthebreeze.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/feature.jp...](http://crossthebreeze.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/feature.jpg)

Also:

<http://roflcaust.org/images/hammerzeit.jpg>

Lots more here:

<http://www.reddit.com/r/funny/>

Enjoy!

</comment><comment><USER3> That's a nice little group of quotes.

Quote 7 is a mismatched metaphor though. Somebody finish this sentence for me:

If programmers wrote programs the way builders built buildings...

<comment><USER4> ... we would call a GUI element without a functionality attached to it a bubble.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Two thumbs up. I can already tell that Quote 10 is going to come in awfully handy on my next project ...

<comment><USER6> I am in the middle of a Quote 1 now... :(

The nice thing about Quote 10 is that 9 people effectively dilutes the responsibility.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I know another version of #6:

In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice they are not.

<comment><USER7> Yet another, often attributed to Yogi Berra:

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.</comment></comment>