Student Arrested for Jailbreaking Game Consoles - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/08/game-console-jailbreaking-arrest/ <comment><USER2> This is crazy, _especially_ in California, where jails are completely overpopulated (the jail currently holding Hans Reiser is designed for ~1700 people and currently has ~3400).

Agree with ujjwalg - sending someone to jail for that is crazy.

The point of jail is to physically stop someone from hurting other _people._ As in with fists or knives or guns. It's to stop violence. It is _not_ to redress perceived economic or copyright infringements.

Are they serious?! You're going to take a human being, a fellow countryman (and a technically skilled one!) and actually _forcibly confine him to a cage_ , because he circumvented the copy protection on a _video game_?!

What kind of crazy society is this, anyway. Welcome to the Twilight Zone.

<comment><USER3> Using your rationale, then Bernie Madoff should not be in prison, either.

I agree this person should not go to the prison, but I think your classification is too simple. Madoff hurt people - not physically, but financially. And the harm he caused was more devastating than if he had administered a physical beating.

<comment><USER4> It makes _us_ happy to see that Bernie Madoff is going to jail but how much good is it really doing?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The DMCA is one of the worst laws to come out of Washington ever. I don't think there is another law that so completely proves that Washington is beholden to corporate interests far more than people's interests. Somebody on the linked article calls it a corportocracy, and I don't think that is too far off.

That said, it is illegal, it is not surprising that you're going to get busted.

</comment><comment><USER6> Both articles on the front page here fail to mention that he was doing this as an advertised commercial service.

<comment><USER7> Auto mechanics work on cars as an advertised commercial service. It turns out that tinkering with parts should not be a crime.

(Yes, this guy was doing it to pirate video games. But handgun manufacturers build guns solely to murder other human beings, and auto mechanics can install equipment that allows you to exceed the speed limit. Neither of those are crimes, so why should modifying a game console be one?)

<comment><USER8> "handgun manufacturers build guns solely to murder other human beings"

That's a gross oversimplification of a complex issue. Very few people obtain a handgun legally for the purpose of Murdering somebody. (Less than 1% of legally obtained firearms are used in a crime) The primary reason to own one is for personal protection which implies the direct _preservation_ of life. Ignoring that fact is intellectually dishonest.

<comment><USER7> What are you intending to do with your gun, if not to kill someone? Shoot their arm off? ("Your arm's off!" "No it isn't.")

Okay, that's fine...

<comment><USER8> Not unless you have to. Walk softly, carry a big stick.

If all else fails then yes, I'm sorry, but yes, if somebody breaks into a house and threatens my family I will threaten them with force. The lives of 4 people who are innocent are greater than that of one who willingly put themselves into a criminal position. Do I wish that that wasn't necessary, sure, but that's not the reality of human nature. The threat of force has always been a factor in survival. Even in nature.

Poison caterpillars rarely get eaten, the birds learn to avoid them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> FTA:

 _The DMCA says, "no person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."_

Not to be a pedant here, but obviously the protection wasn't every effective.

What is to stop me saying something like:

"THIS POST IS ENCRYPTED WITH ROT26 ENCRYPTION"

then suing the pants off of all of you for circumventing my protection? Yeah, that is a stupid example, but things have gotten _WAY_ out of control here.

<comment><USER10> Yea, 'effectively' doesn't mean that the 'technological measure' has to do it's job effectively, but that the results of it 'in effect' controls access.

ROT-26 is a poor example. It does nothing to 'control access' to your text. Using ROT-13 would be a better example since it's so stupidly simplistic that a moron could crack it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> If pre-existing copyright law is to be considered, then we are entitled to make an archival copy of a work to serve as a backup. What's the point of allowing for an archival copy if that law also doesn't imply that you should be allowed to use said archival copy in the event that the original is destroyed? And if you are entitled to use the archival copy, then you summarily should be entitled to remove whatever restrictions from a device in order to lawfully use that archival copy.

IMO this guy did nothing wrong based on the spirit of the law, but it is rather the DMCA that is in conflict. If you want to charge anyone with a crime, it shouldn't be the guy who removed the restrictions, it should be whoever was actually pirating games using his modifications.

<comment><USER10> IIRC, being able to make an archival copy is not a law, but is part of a Supreme Court decision (i.e. 'case law'). The DMCA was enacted _after_ the Supreme Court decision, so I would assume that legally it would 'override' it. I'm definitely not a lawyer though so I have no clue if I'm right. Either way, I'm sure there will be a case at some point challenging this discrepancy to the Supreme Court and we'll see what they say at that point.

<comment><USER12> A law by Congress cannot override a Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court has the final say on the Constitutionality of laws in the United States via judicial review, which was used for the first time by the court in Marbury v. Madison.

[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/13...](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/13.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It's probably about time the geeks & nerds of the US figured out a way to pool our resources and get these laws changed. Lobbying works. If we had the money and a legitimate political organization things could change.

</comment><comment><USER11> Methinks he's got a good case to be made under DMCA exemptions for interoperability. While the programs are not independently created, running a lawfully archived copy of a game you have the right to use is a valid use of mod-chipping, and this interoperability is needed in order to use that lawful copy.

By the way why is the wired author calling this "jailbreaking" - it's modchipping, completely different from "jailbreaking".. in fact, he even used an iPhone as his graphic... o_O The two are completely unrelated.

<comment><USER10> Must be part of the 'newer' generation that was first introduced to taking back control of their devices through the efforts to unlock the iPhone rather than modchipping PS1/XBox/PS2/GC/etc. If not then he's a moron.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Another fine example of laws existing to protect the greater goo... oh wait.

Why is it that someone can buy drug paraphernalia at a retail store? Isn't it because there are theoretical uses for those products that are legitimate? To convict him, wouldn't they have to prove that there was NO legitimate use for his "services"?

I just don't see how this can possibly go the distance.

EDIT: I should clarify that I mean "legal" paraphernalia, such as rolling paper and the like. Not the kinds that have been explicitly deemed illegal.

<comment><USER15> I can buy a bong or a bowl at a store across the street from my house. In fact, they are quite fancy and expensive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> He definitely broke a law. But to send him to jail for doing this is just ridiculous. He should be penalized financially for this and thatz it.

IMO, anyone who jailbreaks their own stuff shouldn't be put under the law, but someone doing it for others for money definitely are breaking the laws. But it is not something that taxpayers money should be wasted in sending him to jail and going through the investigation. Fine him and be done with it.

<comment><USER7> It's legal for me to pay someone to clean my house.

Why should it be illegal for me to pay someone to remove restrictions from a device I own?

<comment><USER16> they are not charging people who got their consoles jailbroken. They charged the guy who was jailbreaking them for money.

Moreover, the analogy you have is completely irrelevant. I was not arguing against the moral issue behind it. I was saying he broke the LAW and thatz it.

<comment><USER17> He broke a law that should not exist in the first place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> We do not own property.

Only our masters may _actually_ own property.

 _"The "you don't own your computer" paradigm is not merely wrong. It is violently, disastrously wrong, and the consequences of this error are likely to be felt for generations to come, unless steps are taken to prevent it."_

"Ethics for Programmers: Primum non Nocere"

<http://glyf.livejournal.com/46589.html>

<comment><USER19> That is really an amazing article, I couldn't agree more.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=741661></comment>


Adobe got 7 million iPhone and iPod touch d/l requests for Flash in December - <AUTHOR> http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/10/adobe-got-7-million-iphone-and-ipod-touch-download-requests-for/ <comment><USER2> How many of those were people trying to tap on a video and being sent to Adobe's page? I've had it happen a few times, because of poorly-designed pages that smush onto the screen with multiple overlapping elements, or trying to double-tap but doing it poorly.</comment>


13yo "Spider Boy" scales walls using recycled vacuums - <AUTHOR> http://inhabitat.com/2010/07/01/13-year-old-spider-boy-scales-walls-using-recycled-vacuums/

<comment><USER2> I think people are missing the point, it's not the invention itself, it's how a 13 year old kid made his imagination into reality (instead of, for example, playing video games all day).

Just imagine what they can do at 20 with the right encouragement.

<comment><USER3> Video games can encourage imaginative thinking.

Check out Scribblenauts:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uh65m-3o1co>

<comment><USER4> My first major project was also a videogame. I made it almost ten years ago, and I still get fanmail about it once a month. I think creative people will create.

<http://marathonrubicon.com/>

<comment><USER5> Holy crap! Marthon Rubicon was you? Great work man!

I've always thought Marathon was a bit of an under-appreciated masterpiece game, particularly given how old it is. I got stuck into Rubicon after I lost my original install disks (and moved to a windows machine...)

<comment><USER4> Thanks :) Can't believe somebody on HN played Rubicon. Made my afternoon.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1qoINo2MPM>

<comment><USER7> footage and interview with boy who references that show: [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10458134....](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10458134.stm)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Anyone know how it seals? This is the part I admire - brickwork is porous so it may be difficult to attach to.

</comment><comment><USER9> I was confused at how he had enough body strength to hold on to the wall with one hand and only slight foot holds, but then I seen the foot holds coming down from the suction pad things.

doesnt really matter if he got some help, kid has a bright future.

</comment><comment><USER10> someone call Dean Kamen and Elon Musk, stat!

but seriously, let's make sure that kid gets good mentors. has talent and could do brilliant things in the future if he stays on the right path. _(up the frickin wall)_

</comment><comment><USER11> He clearly didn't do that all by himself though.

It looks like there is some machining on there that he probably had his dad or dad's friend do.

Doesn't make it less cool though.

<comment><USER12> Then he's on the right track. If you do all of the fabrication for your prototype yourself, you are probably doing it wrong.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This has been done earlier, but not by a 13 year old boy!

</comment><comment><USER14> could be a money spinner if he got sponsored by a vacuum cleaner company for their next ad...

<comment><USER10> imagine this kid being sponsored by James Dyson the inventor behind the cyclone-based vacuum company.</comment></comment>


Consumers are souring on Web, post-NSA, survey says - <AUTHOR> http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/04/02/eset-survey-nsa-consumer-trust-in-the-web/7164519/

<comment><USER2> "Internet? Oh that's that thing where the NSA snoops on you. No thanks."

How big a clue stick does the tech industry need applied to it's head (or wallet) before we end easy end-to-end encryption for everything, all the time? And no excuses about usability: Skype was born that way and one big factor in its growth was ease of use vs. SIP-based VoIP.

> _" This problem will linger throughout 2014," he says._

Ha!</comment>


Scala 2.8.0 RC1 released - <AUTHOR> http://www.scala-lang.org/node/5982

<comment><AUTHOR> There's a ton of great and long-awaited stuff in this release, but I'm especially excited about the delimited continuations (<http://www.scala- lang.org/node/2096>) support.

If you've struggled with asynchronous I/O in the past, libraries implemented using delimited continuations might seem like a breath of fresh air. They make it possible to write functionally asynchronous code in a traditional blocking style. Further, continuations can be serialized, introspected, and passed around from machine to machine.

<comment><USER2> Is the continuations library confirmed to be in there? (I guess I could just download it and see...) I have the beta and that package was not present.

<comment><USER3> As the linked page states, this is the first distribution where the continuation plugin is part of the main release.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I really hope Scala 2.8 lives up to its potential. Having used Scala 2.7 for close to a year now during my personal time, I'm very impressed with the vision and direction of the language. However, the language and its surrounding tools are immmature and I almost feel like any productivity I gain through using Scala is more than offset by the battles I wage with its tools.

Every time I code up a new project, for instance, I swear I encounter a new compiler or library bug. I've had jcl libraries spin in infinite loops, I've had the persistent immutable Set consistently crash during a filter, I've had the compiler both die at compile time and generate bad code that failed at runtime when trying to shield me from the ugly details of jvm arrays, and I've had actor libraries deadlock, forcing me to switch to using java executors. Buildr's Scala support is very immature and buggy. The Eclipse plugin is also unstable and I've at least twice had to rebuild my workspace from scratch. It also degrades heavily in performance over time so that I am frequently restarting Eclipse.

I think that the above problems are partially because the language is new, but partially because Scala as a project is so ambitious. They are trying to cover up all the warts of the JVM and create a powerful OO-functional language hybrid on top of it. They are trying to reify generics, implement C++-style templates for primitives to avoid the high costs of autoboxing, and implement arrays efficiently in a way that they play nicely with generics and the rest of the language, just to name a few things that really the JVM should have taken care of a long time ago. And, of course, Scala as a language is much richer and more complex than Java ever will be.

Again, I hope Scala eventually succeeds in all of its ambitious goals and begins being adopted for mainstream use, and I will continue to follow it and hopefully find time to contribute to it. And, if you don't mind slogging through a few bugs and flaky tools yourself, I highly recommend learning Scala and consider it the best language on the JVM so far.

<comment><USER4> I have been using Scala 2.8 for the past few months with Intellij 9 and it's been free of any _major_ bugs. Definitely none of the unstable problems you mentioned with the Eclipse plugin.

<comment><USER5> I've seen the IDEA plugin (Comm Edition 9, macbook pro, 4G RAM) slow to a crawl with a pretty large lift repo until heap was increased to 1G.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Looking for suggestions for a desktop rich GUI - <AUTHOR>

I'm working on a kiosk-like application which will run off a desktop/workstation level PC, and am looking for suggestions of what might be the best platform for something like that. At the moment I'm considering things like Flex, WxPython and WPF, but I'd like to hear opinions of the HNizens.
I am personally a great supporter of the approach that you should use the technology your team is familiar with, but we're just building the team and could use some pointers about the direction where to look at. Thanks!
Clarification: I'm not looking for a quick GUI prototyping tool, I'm looking for something that will run the final product. The concept if the GUI will most likely be similar to many Flash apps we can see around the Web, with many zooming in and out, animated menu items etc. And the backed should be able to connect to the network and the Internet, yes. <comment><USER2> I personally use Qt for my GUI needs and am building a large startup-related app with it at the moment. If working in C++ is too painful/slow/effort for you, PyQt is a powerful (and very easy) alternative, but the license may not suit your needs (dual licence GPL/Commercial). PySide is an LGPL version thats compatible (or almost compatible) with PyQt, developed by the Maemo team, but I'm not sure how mature it is.

Qt has excellent support for traditional GUI widgets, graphics (you can even embed widgets in OpenGL, allowing you to transform, zoom, rotate etc them as OpenGL geometry), networking, concurrency, plugins and other niceties.

<comment><AUTHOR> How does Qt perform? The licence is not an issue, since we're developing a commercial app, but ideally it should be able to work on a HDTV-sized touchscreen. Also, it is not required to run on a generic hardware -- we could build it to specs.

<comment><USER2> Qt's performance is extremely good. Obviously, if you use PyQt, you will get a performance hit, but this can be offset by doing processor intensive work (eg OpenGL or other drawing) work in C++ (either by writing Python libs in C++ or by writing a Qt plugin). Qt itself performs very well and theres a lot of effort being put into making it perform better still (I believe the 4.7 release is focusing on performance) and theres also beenn some mention on building an officially supported game framework around Qt.

I myself am using Qt for a drawing and processing intensive app - the main GUI code (and therefore the drawing) is done in C++, but all of the logic is being done in Clojure, running on an embedded JVM. I will rewrite logic in C++ if needed, but only where profiling suggests that Clojure (or communicating between Clojure and C++/Qt) is the bottleneck.

I'm also considering writing a small online game using OpenGL, Qt and QtWebkit for Graphics, GUI and web integration.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> It depends on what you're doing and what kind of application you need to build. Will it be hooked up to the internet? Do you expect to try and update it often?

Tcl and Tk are definitely "not what the cool kids are using", but are still fine tools for whipping up a quick GUI, and, despite that everyone "knows" they "look awful", have been updated to look modern, especially in the hands of someone who knows what they're doing in terms of design (which was one of the reasons Tcl and Tk got a bad reputation - they never emphasized that in the culture around the language).

</comment><comment><USER4> XulRunner? It's pretty standard and can be used to make something not look like Windows.

Squeak? You'd get a lot of control and ease of use at the cost of a learning curve, perhaps.

I also like the idea of Flash, Air, or any of those things.

</comment><comment><USER5> I'd highly recommend wxPython or pygame, depending on the nature of the user interface. It's very pleasant for rapid prototyping/iteration.

</comment><comment><USER6> Something like Flash but not Flash ?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, pretty much. :D</comment></comment>


European Commission Proposes €9.2B for HPC, AI, and More - <AUTHOR> https://www.hpcwire.com/2018/06/06/european-commission-proposes-e9-2-billion-for-hpc-ai-and-more/ <comment><USER2> This is probably the worst idea ever. Having dealt with EU's I+D efforts I expect this to be nothing more than a free giveaway of money to big companies in the EU, with absolutely _nothing_ of value to show for it.</comment>


Why complex life probably evolved only once - <AUTHOR> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18734-why-complex-life-probably-evolved-only-once.html <comment><USER3> Image that there are several different ways to meet these energy requirements, and mitochondria just happened to occur first. Mitochondrial life was first and so it had a chance to evolve and optimized itself. Any new systems that arose through random mutation would not have had a chance to evolve into a high-efficiency configuration and would not be able to compete.

Other potential systems may exist and simply never got the foothold necessary to evolve into an efficient competitor. I would guess that it's quite likely we're at a local maximum, not the single and only possible way to organize cellular life.

<comment><USER4> "Imagine that there are several different ways to meet these energy requirements"

OK, what are they?

<comment><USER5> "Imagine..."

It isn't necessary to know what they are. GavinB is just saying that there could be others.

<comment><USER6> That comment would be more worthwhile if there were some examples though

<comment><USER7> He's explaining why we wouldn't see examples of such, even if they did exist. Whether they could exist or not is another point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> One of the best reasons I ever read about why it happened only once is that if it had happened twice the newcomer would have been called 'food' at a stage too early to get much further up the ladder.

For it to happen twice the 'new' trail would have to be totally non-nutritious to the established kind.

I wished I remembered where I read it.

<comment><USER9> "if it had happened twice the newcomer would have been called 'food' at a stage too early to get much further up the ladder"

I'm sorry, but this doesn't make any sense. Just being called "food" is not a sufficient reason for extinction. In fact, organisms at the bottom of the food chain constitute the majority of biomass in all known ecosystems.

<comment><USER8> This talks specifically about those higher up in the food chain, that's what the 'complex' is all about.

<comment><USER10> No, by 'complex' it's talking about non-single-celled organisms. The article specifically mentions all animals, plants and fungi. In Biological terms, grass is a complex organism.

<comment><USER8> So, let's take the minimal case of 'complex' a system of two cells vs a system of only one cell.

Any animal from the 'other' branch that observes this 'complex' life from made of two cells and another one nearby made of only one would have the choice between two bites for the price of one and one bite.

So new 'complex' life would not be around for very long because the ohter branch has presumably already reached a higher level of evolution.

It would have be a _very_ successful mutation to stick around long enough to have enough offspring to take on higher organisms than itself by having some survive in spite of being predated on.

The lowest level organisms best defense against extinction is their enormous numbers or symbiotic relationships by evolving in tandem with higher order forms, a brand new attempt at complexity would not have that advantage yet.

The same goes for another carbon based evolution scenario, after all, if there could be two independent complex branches of life it would not be too much of a stretch to think that over the last billions of years a second life form would have come in to existence. But it would have found each and every niche already occupied by 'our' kind of life and likely not survive long, and likely not leave any trace of its existence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is crap. It doesn't say anything.

Article tl;dr:

Ignoring the inconceivably remote chance of life forming from non-life, it's very very rare for simple life to evolve into more complicated life. Also, we just realized that cells need to get bigger to get more complex, and that somehow isn't just 'another' mutation.

And then the _title_? There is nothing about how or why complex life only evolved once. Just that it was unlikely. Chance of life forming from non life * age of the universe * number of stars * the chance a star has an earth like planet, is far from zero.

I wouldn't even bother ranting but this was number 3 on the front page.

<comment><USER12> The original article [1] is titled "The energetics of genome complexity", which is much more reasonable. It argues that the energy processing of mitochondria was necessary in order for eukaryotes to expand in complexity.

The article is behind a paywall, so I can't read the details.

Anecdotically, there exist anaerobic eukariot cells that live on hydrogenosomes [2]. I don't know if they were originally aerobic and lost their mitochondria, or if they evolved in parallel.

There also exist sea slugs that live in symbiosis with the chloroplasts of the algae they eat [3], so this kind of symbiosis has happened more than once.

1\. [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7318/full/nature0...](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7318/full/nature09486.html)

2\. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogenosome>

3\. <http://www.plantphysiol.org/cgi/content/full/123/1/29>

<comment><USER13> One of the perks of working for a school... I'll try to summarize as best I can:

The main calculation in the Nature paper is the energy budget of a cell. They give the example of _E. coli_ : "to raise gene number tenfold, _E. coli_ must also increase its energy budget by close to tenfold; and therein lies the problem." The reason so much more energy is required is due to protein synthesis (DNA codes to RNA which codes proteins, if you're unfamiliar with genetics). So obviously with a larger genome, there's more proteins to synthesize, and this cannot be accomplished by simply making fewer copies of the old proteins. If anything, you need _more_ of some of those original proteins as infrastructure support for this new Genome 2.0.

So (and this is my wording) prokaryotes are at a local maximum for genome and cell size. Chucking mitochondria into the picture provides the wattage (literally) for them to reach a much greater genome and cell size, and therefore organismic complexity.

<comment><USER14> I am unclear about why the acquisition of mitochondria by a cell is considered to be such an unlikely event, as I lean towards the view that given enough cells/space/time, unlikely short term possibilities become distinct probabilities eventually. Also, I can't help wondering if the reason that simple cells are not observed to absorb free mitochondria is that eukaryotic cells and the organisms they evolved into have somehow poisoned the well, or attacked newly-complex competitors so aggressively that they've suppressed the population of omnivorous simple cells.

But I'm no biologist. Am I missing something obvious, or is there a particular paper explaining why this mitochondrial upgrade is considered such an unlikely event?

<comment><USER13> I would guess if one prokaryote engulfs another, it's highly unlikely that both of them are going to survive the experience, much less that both will thrive and evolve a symbiotic relationship, much less that this relationship will persist through cell divisions into subsequent generations. Both organisms would have to be uniquely suited to the relationship in the first place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Mitochondrial symbiosis may only have happened once, but I'm not sure I buy that it's such a leap - mitochondria aren't the only symbiotic organelles. There are also chloroplasts. So unless chloroplasts are modified mitochondria, it seems that the eukaryotic leap happened at least twice. That tells me it's not all _that_ improbable, or so I imagine.

<comment><USER16> Exactly, the existence of chloroplasts (in the language of the the article: the "power generators" in every plant cell) is an obvious proof that "complex life probably evolved only once" can't be worse title.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Still a sample size of one, my the drake equation is still looking rather full of letters. Though it is looking like we may be able to make a decent crack at fp (fraction of stars that have planets) soon given the success of keplar!

<comment><USER17> In a TED talk, Dimitar Sasselov, a co-investigator on the Kepler mission, said their current best guess for the number of Earth-ish, habitable, planets in the galaxy is looking to be like 100 million (at about the t=9:20 mark in the talk). That is, naturally, an early guess from extrapolations and such, but still it is more based on something than the based-on-nothing and intuition guesses that sometimes float around in these discussions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> If you are really interested in this, read "Rare Earth", [http://www.amazon.com/Rare-Earth-Complex-Uncommon- Universe/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Rare-Earth-Complex-Uncommon- Universe/dp/0387952896/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1287666028&sr=8-1), it goes through an incredible mass of astronomical, geological, and biological information. It concludes that, because so many things had to go just right, and so many others were completely random, primitive life (bacterial-level) is likely to be more common than previously thought, while advanced life (multicellular) is likely to be much less common. Because of the sheer size of the galaxy, it is probable that other intelligences evolved elsewhere, but they are probably going to be too far away for any sort of contact, even receipt of potentially meaningful radio. It is a well-written book, despite the amount of information it is very readable.

</comment><comment><USER19> The number of bacteria on earth is estimated to be 5000000000000000000000000000000. This is five million trillion trillion.

All of them are eating. Some of them are mutating.

Let them do this for a few billions of years and what seems to be a very unlikely event suddenly becomes almost certain to occur. Complex life FTW!

<comment><USER20> You've got what there, 10^16? That is certainly a very big number. But then, the article is claiming that the chance of becoming complex is a very small number. Is it less than 10^-16? (Is it even _knowable_? At a minimum, the author thinks he can say something about it.) You'd be surprised how fast these numbers get small if you need to brute force yourself away from a local maximum and over a valley.

I don't care how big your bignum is compared to everyday experience. Bignum * Smallnum does not automatically equal certainty, impossibility, or feasibility. It means _do the math_.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> The two key arguments in the paper are: 1) Cell membrane invagination isn't sufficient to overcome the energy well of prokaryotic cells; 2) Endosymbiosis is the only mechanism to provide the energy necessary to give cells a chance at complexity. [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7318/full/nature0...](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7318/full/nature09486.html)

In re: 1,

"Mitochondria must respond quickly to changes in membrane potential and the penalty for any failure to do so is serious. The electron and proton transfers of chemiosmotic energy coupling generate a transmembrane potential of 150–200 mV over the membrane (~5 nm across), giving a field strength of about 30 million volt per metre, equal to that discharged by a bolt of lightning. This high membrane potential sets the inner membrane of bioenergetic organelles (mitochondria and chloroplasts) apart from all other eukaryotic membrane systems. Failure to maintain the mitochondrial membrane potential is penalized by a collapse in energy charge, blocking active transport across the cell membrane, and a rise in free-radical leak, which in eukaryotes and many prokaryotes leads directly to programmed cell death.

....

"This requirement for physical association of genes with bioenergetic membranes to maintain ATP synthesis constrains both the genomes and the complexity of prokaryotes. If some genes for oxidative phosphorylation must be physically associated with a certain unit area of bioenergetic membranes, then beyond that threshold prokaryotes could not maintain membrane potential homeostasis unless additional genomes are co-localized with the membranes."

In re: 2,

"The main difference between endosymbiosis and polyploidy relates to the size and distribution of genomes over evolutionary time. In endosymbiosis, surplus organelle genes are lost or transferred to the host's chromosomes, streamlining endosymbiont replication via cytoplasmic inheritance. The outcome is a massive reduction in genome size, both in prokaryotic endosymbionts and organelles, with a reciprocal relocation of genes in low copy number to nuclear chromosomes in the latter. By contrast, in giant polyploid prokaryotes, all genomes are essentially the same. Without cytoplasmic inheritance, no genomic specialization ensues.

"In principle, prokaryotes could control respiration using specialized, membrane-associated plasmids that emulate organelle genomes in gene content and function. In practice, such plasmids are not found. Bacteria usually have small, high-copy-number plasmids that segregate randomly at cell division, or very few giant plasmids that co-segregate with chromosomes on filaments from midpoint. For plasmids in a prokaryote to support electron flux as organelle genomes do, high-copy-number giant plasmids encoding components of the electron-transport chain would need to associate with the plasma membrane, and evolve counter to the tendency to segregate with size rather than function. That no mtDNA-like plasmids are known indicates that high energetic barriers preclude their evolution: unlike organelles, which pay back energetically from the start, substantial energetic costs must be paid up front (high copy number of the correct plasmids, and the machinery to associate them with the membrane at regular intervals) before any energetic advantage can accrue.

....

"Thus, being large and having masses of DNA is not enough to attain complexity: cells need to control energy coupling across a wide area of membranes using small, high copy, bioenergetically specialized genomes like mtDNA. Segregating the genes relinquished by the endosymbiont (mtDNA) into low copy number in the host's chromosomes, specialization of the endosymbiont into an ATP-generating organelle and increasing organelle copy number provides sufficient energy per gene to support the evolution, maintenance and expression of some 10^5 more host genes, affording the cell the chance—but not the necessity—of becoming complex."

<comment><USER22> beyond that threshold prokaryotes could not maintain membrane potential homeostasis unless additional genomes are co-localized with the membranes

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> This correlate fine with what we observe and with the Fermi paradox. That is, there are no indications of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. When Frank Drake first turned his radio telescope to the sky and started to listen, he expected the ether to be full of radio signals from other civilizations. To his astonishment it was silent. Obviously there is a "great filter" in place which prevent intelligent life to evolve in abundance. And this article seems to point to such a filter. Nick Bostrom has an interesting philosophical take on this <http://www.nickbostrom.com/papers/fermi.pdf>

</comment><comment><USER24> there is some fallacy in such discussing of the precise state of chaotic dynamic systems.

It is not possible to exactly reproduce the state we have with life on Earth, like it isn't possible to get precisely the same weather in 2 different days - both are results of unimaginably many values behaving and interacting in unique way and even minor change will change the resulting outcome . Yet there are a lot of days that look and feel very similar and there is 99.9999999% chances that tomorrow, for example, we wouldn't have 150 F in San-Francisco while we can't be sure what precisely it will be - 60 or 70 or 50?

Does the life evolution system have such bound-ness and attractor-ness properties - well, as of now we can only guess. My guess is "yes".

Btw. Uniqueness because of complexity, in the sense of "evolved only once", stinks like Creationism/ID

</comment><comment><USER25> We know the odds of evolution are low; the point is that the number of stars in the Universe is astoundingly huge. With at least 10^20 stars in the Universe, those low odds get much more reasonable, especially now it's starting to look like planets are common.

<comment><USER20> Do you know the actual odds, though? I mean, there's low and then there's _low_.

If evolution on a habitable planet has a 10^-4 chance of happening, then the universe is almost certainly teeming with life. If it's 10^-18, the size of the universe is the difference between believing and doubting the idea. If it's 10^-200, the universe barely helps at all, and you need to start talking about billions upon billions of barren universes and we just happen to live in this one.

Do you know what the number is? Do you know where it lies between 0.9 and 10^-(10^10^10)? Do you know whether the 20 orders of magnitude you get from the stars is overwhelming, decisive, or not even enough to make a dent?

<comment><USER26> To my way of thinking, the fact that life showed up on Earth relatively quickly, within half a billion years of the planet's formation, suggests that life is relatively easy. The fact that complex life took another few billion years after that suggests that simple to complex is the difficult step. But the fact that we nonetheless find ourselves here around a live-fast-die-young yellow star when the universe is only 14 billion years old rather than in close orbit around a dim red star a hundred billion years later suggests to me that it's probably not a one-in-every-zillion universes sort of event.

<comment><USER27> That sounds reasonable enough to me.

[big bang --(we're here- ish)</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>- end of universe]

So the facts that we're that far to the left of that line, and that the universe(s) is/are really really big, suggest that life isn't that rare.

</comment><comment><USER28> So, we go from "Simple cells __hardly ever __engulf other cells" to "it has/will never happen anywhere in the universe"?

<comment><USER26> Blame the headline writer, but the actual article is still pretty interesting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I'm sorry, but the authors of this paper are totally clueless.

"whenever simple cells start to become more complex"

The definition of complexity here is irrigorous to the point of laughability. At one point the definition makes a call about "size" - " if a bacterium grew to the size of a complex cell, it would run out of juice"

Nonsense. There was recently discovered a macroscopic bacterium - <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomargarita_namibiensis> Yes, you can see them with your own eyes.

"If the energy-producing machinery straddling the membrane is not constantly fine-tuned, it produces highly reactive molecules that can destroy cells. Yet fine-tuning a larger membrane is problematic because detecting and fixing problems takes longer."

The solution, then is to create short-length response pathways. Presumably the "reactive molecule" they're talking about is superoxide - Life has evolved an incredibly awesome enzyme that takes care of it - superoxide dismutase - <USER2> even a slightly defective SOD doesn't lead to inviability. Certain types of photosynthetic bacteria, which need to "carefully manage reactivity" have solved this problem by creating 'hydrogenases' which bleed off excess energy in the form of hydrogen molecules (these may become useful in the alternative fuel industry).

"Acquiring mitochondria, it seems, was a one-off event."

Well, no. Plants later acquired chloroplasts. Some organisms have hydrogenosomes (which is inetresting, because we now have discovered vertebrates that seem to be able to survive off their hydrogenosomes, mitochondria be damned). Some bacteria have evolved anammoxasomes.

"cells capable of complex functions – such as communicating with each other and having specialised jobs – could evolve"

Clearly the author has not heard of quorum sensing. The notion that bacteria are hyperindividualistic robinson crusoes adrift in their environment is generally not believed anymore. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorum_Sensing>

Then the author redefines complexity to be a 'large genome' thing. Of course there really isn't anything stopping bacteria from having ploidy. Deincococcus Radiotolerans, for example, has 4-10 copies of its genome inside itself (for reasons that you might be able to guess from its name). <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinococcus_Radiotolerans>

And the whole complexity thing is bunk anyways. The actinomyces are such complex bacteria that for many many years scientists thought they were fungi. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actinomyces>

It's also worth noting, that there certainly are eukarya that are plenty 'complex' that simply don't have mitochondria. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giardia>

Better explanation: Eukarya were enabled because the Great Oxygen Catastrophe suddenly made being a paired oxidizer (mitochondrion)-reducer (host cell) beneficial. Prior to the oxygen catastrophe, mitochondrial cells would have only been able to survive in homeostasis with a cell that was happy to have its poop (oxygen) taken care of locally... Not to mention that eukarya are generally considered to have branched off of archae... The specialness of eukarya is that they were a unification of two highly divergent branches of the phylogenetic tree.

</comment><comment><USER29> _Or, as Lane puts it: "The underlying principles are universal. Even aliens need mitochondria."_

Right, midichlorians are in all living things of sufficient complexity.

Episode 1 was onto something?

Kill me quickly.</comment>


New PHP.net redesign - <AUTHOR> http://docs.php.net/

<comment><USER2> That's too bad. I spend A LOT of time on that website, and all of the visual cues I had come to expect are now gone, leaving me feeling lost.

</comment><comment><USER3> Looking great. I spend A LOT of time on that website so I hope it's as usable as it is pretty.

</comment><comment><USER4> It appears that so far the manual remains unchanged, so my use isn't really interrupted.</comment>


The Internet of Garbage [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/12599893/The_Internet_of_Garbage.0.pdf <comment><USER2> Is this the complete "book" the racist Jeong is famous for having written? At 79 pages it's basically a pamphlet.

<comment><USER3> I'm glad I looked her up. You're labelling her "racist" because she tweeted some stupidity and the right wing hate machine trawled old tweets to smear anyone and everyone:

[https://www.vox.com/2018/8/3/17644704/sarah-jeong-new- york-t...](https://www.vox.com/2018/8/3/17644704/sarah-jeong-new-york-times- tweets-backlash-racism)

<comment><USER4> Instead of reading propaganda from her former employer (and current publisher of this book), you can read her tweets yourself and see that she is indeed racist:

[https://twitter.com/nickmon1112/status/1025437806775226368](https://twitter.com/nickmon1112/status/1025437806775226368)

<comment><USER3> On the topic of right wing hate machine, that twitterer seems to have a agenda of trying to prove how white men are hated. And "please donate so I can buy an iPhone". It seems he even interprets things like "Scholarship for minorities" as racism. I do agree some of her tweets are questionable, but I wouldn't say all the ones he screen captured prove that she is a racist.

It seems I've stumbled upon Gamergate. Let me just back out of this slowly...</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The paradox of Graham Greene - <AUTHOR> https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-paradox-of-graham-greene-searching-for-peace-in-the-world-s-warzones <comment><USER3> I mean, if you want to know about the inner workings of Graham Greene's life, you're probably better off just reading his novels (the dividing line between his serious novels and his entertainments isn't as clear-cut as he made out).

Some personal favourites:

England Made Me: Interestingly enough for a novel written in 1935, about multinationals.

Brighton Rock: A vicious little tale of a small-town thug.

The Power and The Glory: A very, very catholic novel, but also a cracking thriller.

The End of the Affair: Another very catholic novel, but also very different.

The Quiet American: Hard to express exactly how good this one is. Vietnam, spies, and a huge indictment of "decent people".

Monsignor Quixote: Life after fascism, and a ridiculous priest who may, in fact, be a saint.

</comment><comment><USER4> I went to Greene's old school (where his father had been headmaster).

It's interesting how much stuff from the school pops up in his novels - <USER2> the school motto in "Monsignor Quixote" to the route walked from the school in "The Captain and the Enemy".

Minor anecdote: He visited the school once, and I remember seeing him stop at a corner and turn to look directly at me. Only in retrospect do I realise that he may have been looking across the decades at me as he might have been himself (the architecture and uniform hadn't changed much).

If you're looking for a light read then I recommend "Our Man in Havana" as a taster of Greene. It's amusing and less imbued with the claustrophobia of his more serious novels.

<comment><USER5> Oh, hi there, so did I.

I never got around to reading Greene, despite the connection, and now I feel as though it might be an interesting exercise.

Certainly the biography in this piece makes me interested in him; I can see aspects of myself in him. Unrelated to the school, of course.

<comment><USER4> Definitely worth a shot - you should find the early parts of "The Captain and The Enemy" strangely familiar.

I do find the suffocating catholic guilt themes a bit depressing (read "The Ministry of Fear" or "Brighton Rock" for prime examples), but they're extraordinary nonetheless.

(Edit) As you probably know, "Greenes" House and "The Greene Field" were named for his father.

<comment><USER6> Am sad to report that at some point in the 90s that field got astroturfed :(

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Nice read and definitely piqued my interest in reading the biography. Though, I've only read The Comedians by Greene (which was pretty good. Strong Casablanca fatalistic vibe set in Haiti.)

</comment><comment><USER8> Does anyone reading this have a copy of either of the "repudiated" novels, "The name of action" and "Rumour at nightfall"?</comment>


Ask HN: Cofounder doubt - can it ever work out? - <AUTHOR>

Does anyone know of someone who doubted that they had the right cofounder, stuck with the person they doubted anyway, and ended with a successful company? <comment><USER2> I think conventional wisdom on this one suggests the answer to your question is "No".

Ultimately you do want that doubt to go away I'd imagine, so think to yourself, what are the steps that need to be taken for the doubt to disappear? Then ask, how likely are those steps to happen?

I can only speak from the experience of not having doubted initially but then beginning to doubt... I'm still with the same co-founder in that company as we were able to work through the specific points of difference, however I can say the result is a compromised experience compared to the original vision (at least on my behalf).

Nevertheless, it is one that has had positive benefits away from the specific company in question, inasmuch as encouraging me to adopt a broader perspective on where I'm looking to find fulfillment (of various kinds), which has in turn ultimately led me to start a second company which I'm more passionate about, has a more favourable business model, and is the one I want to spend most of my time towards.

i.e. depending on your nature, there are positive externalities that can come from sticking it out, and it may actually work out holistically for the better.

That being said, it's a matter of probability; in all reality, the arrangement won't be ideal and the only value you'll extract from the process is that generic/ubiquitous 'wisdom of failure'.

<comment><USER2> Whilst I was writing the above, I recalled a more pointed answer to your secondary question -

It's probably not quite the kind of "doubt" you reference, however Max Levchin at Startup School recently referred to having a scintilla of such towards Peter Thiel when they were first kicking off PayPal. This doubt was engendered after Max was abandoned in a carpark with an empty car battery by Peter who seemingly didn't really care too much for his welfare (I personally wouldn't consider Max referencing a deep-seated sense of doubt, but maybe that's all that you're referring to)... I think by all measures, things worked out fairly well thereafter... ;-)

If you haven't watched/listened to it already, worth the time for the above and other amusing anecdotes/morsels of wisdom: <http://www.justin.tv/startupschool/b/298808490>

<comment><AUTHOR> that's the video that prompted me to ask this question! Max also said, 'Where there is doubt, there is no doubt.' which I generally agree with...but maybe entrepreneurs have a tendency to believe that they could be the exception to any rule.

<comment><USER2> Well, without wanting to regurgitate that which has become trite, it has been acknowledged that a little delusion-masked-by-confidence in an entrepreneur isn't an entirely bad thing!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I am in an interesting situation right now in which I and my co-founders agreed to certain financial terms. The main one being that they would send a small check every week. There was some doubt about the progress (a lot of features where added after the fact) but non the less they where uncomfortable. So I allowed them to modify the payment terms to give them time to feel comfortable. There is always a way to remove doubt even if you have to give a little when you would be justified in putting it back on them, in my case i could have put it back on them and said, you guys almost doubled the scope but the reality is many of those features are needed to make a great product, which is a common goal i share with them given that i am not in a pinch i can wait on the funds but by doing so and giving a little even when i was justified in not doing so, i was able to remove some of that doubt, because i know more than anything, doubt unaddressed is a start-up killer.

</comment><comment><USER4> Practically anything is possible. And like everything else, without knowing you or your cofounder, your back story, etc... the best answer I can muster up is a "it depends".

Having said that, the following answer relates specifically to me so take whatever I have to say with a giant grain of salt as we are probably different people. Regardless of the reasons, regardless of the back story, relationship, etc... If for any reason, I have any hesitation or doubt about who I'm working with, it stops there. That's just how I am.

There is a difference between doubt and an issue that can be resolved.

<comment><USER2> "There is a difference between doubt and an issue that can be resolved."

I agree that a doubt and an issue are two different things, however having a doubt is an issue in this context, and it should be acknowledged that some issues have the potential to be resolved (solved or disappear over time).

Because of this, I don't think dealing in absolutes is always warranted re: such dilemmas, though I do agree with your conclusion.

<comment><USER4> Agreed

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think Max Levchin once said something like "If there's doubt about your co- founder, there's no doubt." Meaning that the moment you have doubts about your co-founder, you should break it off and cut your losses. Hope this provides some perspective.</comment>


Ask HN: What are your favorite editors / IDEs and why? - <AUTHOR> I know this question seems to get asked semi-frequently, but since there seems to be new editors and IDEs popping up all the time, I figured I'd ask again.<p>I use: Atom - for anything web development related and some python as well IntelliJ IDEA - Java development Notepad++ - for any quick editing of single files <comment><USER2> For console mode / command line, I use Emacs for almost everything. But I don't really do much programming in Emacs... I mostly use it for editing config files, and various random text files. I'm not really an Emacs "power user" although I think I should one day invest the time to become one.

That said, I _have_ been playing around with Slime a bit for doing Lisp code.

For most programming, I work mainly in Eclipse with various plugins for different languages or whatever that I might use, outside of Java.

If I'm stuck on a Windows box for some reason, I always make it a point to install Notepad++ for quick and dirty editing of text files.

</comment><comment><USER3> Since I work both on Windows and Linux here are my tools.

IntelliJ as an IDE, mainly Java/Android but I use it too for any other supported language (shell scripts, python, whatever, if there is a plugin I use it), sometimes even for some single files, since I have it open nearly all the time.

Notepad++ for any quick edits on Windows.

vim for quick Linux edits (mostly stuff that needs root)

Edit: Sometimes I need a hex editor, for that i use Bless.

</comment><comment><USER4> Emacs + Evil. If it's not Java/C#/Scala, I do it here. A lot of note-taking using org-mode.

IntelliJ/Eclipse/Visual Studio.

</comment><comment><USER5> Visual Studio for C#. Atom for JS/HTML/CSS. Programmer's Notepad for everything else.

</comment><comment><USER6> Atom with vim-mode. And vim for quick edits.</comment>


GitHub Removes 'Chimera13' iOS Jailbreak After DMCA Notice from 'Unc0ver' - <AUTHOR> https://torrentfreak.com/github-removes-chimera13-ios-jailbreak-after-dmca-notice-from-unc0ver-200708/ <comment><AUTHOR> > The takedown request is interesting for several reasons. First of all, a > team behind an application that is exempted from copyright infringement > claims under the DMCA is using the same law to go after another jailbreak > app. In addition, the claim itself isn't without controversy either.

> "The code for Chimera13 is original code that I have written in Swift that > relies primarily on the public techniques," Coolstar writes, pointing out > the various pieces of open source and publicly available code that's > included.

> "The only 3rd-party code in this repository is Jake James' time_waste > exploit. However, this is under an open source license (GPL)," he adds, > highlighting the license in question.

> According to Coolstar, the original notice was sent in bad faith. He further > accuses the sender of committing perjury and abusing the DMCA process, a > claim he repeats on Twitter.

</comment><comment><USER2> Not too related but: What's with people misgendering CoolStar? Their pronouns are listed in their Twitter as they/them. Is this malintent, people thinking they/them cannot be used for a singular person, or just people not knowing?

<comment><AUTHOR> I didn't know this, but I'm not a jb dev, and I only loosely follow the reddit. I guess I have no excuse, but I honestly didn't know until you said this. I apologize if I did misidentified them indirectly by quoting. I hope I have not upset CoolStar or anyone else.

<comment><USER2> You're entirely without blame because you were only quoting. I just think TorrentFreak themselves should do a better job.

Edit: It looks like the DMCA notice[1] itself misgendered CoolStar, so it probably is malintent that TF didn't pick up on.

[1]: [https://github.com/github/dmca/commit/6b964c150db5840bc9820e...](https://github.com/github/dmca/commit/6b964c150db5840bc9820ec08bb8b166109791dc)</comment></comment></comment>


Coronavirus: Let There Be Light - <AUTHOR> https://simonsarris.com/sunlight <comment><AUTHOR> The Vitamin D hypothesis is actionable personally, and a reason for optimism. It will not save you, it does not replace quarantine, but it may reduce the death toll, and summer may bring some relief.</comment>


Compiiler Design - <AUTHOR> http://elvis.rowan.edu/~bergmann/books/c_cpp/Text/C_CppEd.pdf

<comment><USER2> The author, Seth D. Bergmann, originally wrote the text using Pascal as a base language. Code used in the text can be found for C++, Java, and Pascal here:

<http://elvis.rowan.edu/~bergmann/books.html>

<comment><USER3> Interesting, from that link:

 _"I have published a textbook on Compiler Design. Designed with undergraduates in mind who have difficulty with the so called "Dragon" book, it was first published in 1994 by Wm. C. Brown Publishers, and was then distributed for a year by Richard Irwin Publishers. I have recently obtained the copyright and am now distributing this book myself."_

Copyright to the Dragon book or to his own book? Cannot be parsed unambiguously :-)

That said did people really have trouble with Aho and Ullman? It seemed liked an incredibly approachable book when I took my undergraduate compiler class.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is not Wii related at all :( the double i really got me.

<comment><USER5> Don't worry, I'm sure they'll edit the title to be "C_CppEd - bergmann", or something equally misguided.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Thankyou.

<comment><AUTHOR> You are welcome!</comment></comment>


Teenagers now better behaved and less hedonistic but lonelier and more isolated - <AUTHOR> https://www.economist.com/news/international/21734365-they-are-also-lonelier-and-more-isolated-teenagers-are-better-behaved-and-less <comment><USER2> Something I think that needs to be discussed more is the fact that loneliness in society is actually starting to become a real social issue. People who are lonely are seemingly told by society that their loneliness is internal and must ultimately be their fault...but given the fact that studies like the above show that it is becoming much more prevalent in society seems to suggest there might be societal/structural causes that are effecting the trend, or at least positively affecting its growth in society.

I don't see many articles pointing it out so I think it's good seeing one that does.

<comment><USER3> I wonder how much of it is the rise of the exurbs, where you live by many people, but never talk to them and there is very little community to speak of.

<comment><USER4> It's even worse in dense cities where you may share a building with thousands but not know any of them. It seems the more crowded a location is, the more isolated the people within become.

<comment><USER3> I've always found the opposite to be true.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Teenagers have always rebelled against the rules and ideas imposed on them by their parents/grandparents.

This does _not_ mean that they will be more lenient/hedonistic than their parents though! We're seeing the counterexample in the coming generations.

It's pretty funny to see people's dismissive reactions in this thread. So much for not being bigoted like your parents, eh? :)

<comment><USER6> Not saying I fully buy into it, but this shift is exactly as predicted by Strauss–Howe generational theory.[1] The younger, more conformist _Artist archetype generation_ ('Gen Z,' b2005-????) shows different behavior from the older, more individualistic _Hero archetype generation_ ('Gen Y,' b1982-2004).

The cutoff isn't exactly distinct (some people put it after 9/11/2001), so depending on who you ask either Gen Z is just entering teenage years (2005), or most teenagers are already Gen Zers (2001).

Heck, it even predict HN's (Gen Yers) general reaction of disdain for the "overprotected" and "timid" generation. Take comfort though: it also predicts that Gen Y will be a dominant generation ("independent behavior + attitudes in defining an era"), while Gen Z will be recessive ("dependent role in defining an era").

Here are the descriptions. I added the actual and projected dates of the latest cycle in parentheses:

> Hero generations enter childhood after an Awakening (1961–1981), during an > Unraveling (1982-2004), a time of individual pragmatism, self-reliance, and > laissez faire. Heroes grow up as increasingly protected post-Awakening > children, come of age as team-oriented young optimists during a Crisis > (2005-2025), emerge as energetic, overly-confident midlifers (2025-2044), > and age into politically powerful elders attacked by another Awakening > (2045-2064).

> Artist generations enter childhood after an Unraveling (1982-2004), during a > Crisis (2005-2025) a time when great dangers cut down social and political > complexity in favor of public consensus, aggressive institutions, and an > ethic of personal sacrifice. Artists grow up overprotected by adults > preoccupied with the Crisis, come of age as the socialized and conformist > young adults of a post-Crisis world (2025-2044), break out as process- > oriented midlife leaders during an Awakening (2045-2065), and age into > thoughtful post-Awakening elders (2065-2084).

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes."

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss- Howe_generational_theo...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss- Howe_generational_theory)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> For once, an article that doesn't stigmatize teenagers too much, but rather speak about society changes. Usually it's all about criticizing teenagers because they do this or that badly, but when they're better behaved, adults necessarily try to explain how that's wrong...

Just give the teens a break! Let them live, learn and play the way they want.

<comment><USER8> I think it's right to ask whether observed changes are healthy, so long as you don't default to saying "change is bad, mmkay".

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Indolent and conformist perhaps is another way to describe this.

I fail to see how this a good thing.

A young generation perpetuating pointless taboos imposed on them rather than making their own experiences frankly is a sad development.

<comment><USER10> Is there anything wrong with waiting to have sex with someone you're invested in? I've found those types of experiences to be worth it, long-term. It's interesting that some see that as naive--it's the opposite if anything. Easy sex is fun but it would seem hard to invest in anyone but myself.

<comment><USER11> Why would investing in someone but yourself require giving up sex with others? That dichotomy between the unattached bachelor and the loving monogamous spouse seems to be just another of those taboos.

<comment><USER10> You're not required to "give up sex with others" if you don't want to. Hell, many people are okay with polyamory or casual sex in general.

I was merely stating that committing sexually can in fact be a good thing, and that the parent comment cannot speak for everyone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Alternatively, perhaps the trend is that teenagers nowadays tend to lie less when they're asked about how much sex they have.

</comment><comment><USER13> " _Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority, they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers._ "

This quote is hundreds of years old, often misattributed to Socrates, but applies perennially. It describes not values degrading, but changing. To people who value one thing, a younger generation valuing other things feels like degradation since other values seem worse, but there aren't that many human values. Eventually generations cycle through them all and repeat.

<comment><USER14> When things are often repeated across generations, they can:

a) always be true (we generally go to lower standards from the viewpoint of the previous generation, or even from an absolute viewpoint).

b) always be false

c) Sometimes be true and sometimes be false.

I'm not sure why people immediately jump to (b). Perhaps it's comforting to dismiss any worry of decline, and to always attribute it to change. Or it's not fashionable these days to even think about decline (it marks one as old and not "going with the times").

I find (c) much more plausible. After all, whether Socrates said this or not, some such decline happened after Socrates (the dissolution of the Athenian state and its eventual collapse) -- and several other times (in later Rome, etc).

And conversely, for huge periods of time people have not had much to complain regarding their children having some different lifetimes, because unlike ancient Athens or Rome or the US 50s and 60s or so, nothing much changed between generations -- a rural family in most of the world would have the exact same day in day out things to do, the same customs, etc, for centuries, with the very subtle and slow occasional imported innovation.

It's also funny those that while many would say that steady cultural decline couldn't possibly be happening, as many as all convinced for steady cultural progress -- like history is like some kind of march towards more and more enlightenment. Of course those people have never read history, or experienced how a steady and advanced country (or world, in 1939) can turn backwards in a moment's notice.

<comment><USER15> The problem is that "values changing" looks an awful lot like "values degrading" to those who held the older values, so it's impossible to tell which is which, until perhaps much later on when you have the benefit of hindsight.

E.g. gradually increased acceptance of homosexual behavior is considered an obvious sign of moral values degrading among many (perhaps most) of the elderly (and percentage-wise this is even more obviously the case if you go back to the 90's).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> >Teenagers who communicate largely online can exchange gossip, insults and nude pictures, but not bodily fluids, blows, or bottles of vodka.

>But they are also lonelier and more isolated

Heh. Let's see what effects they have after 10-20 years.

<comment><USER14> Depression and domesticity?

Health is not be-all end-all, especially when you're younger and can afford to be more loose with your lifestyle.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Better behaved and less hedonistic or just more passive?

<comment><USER18> We're turning our own human ecosystems into a panopticon, no wonder newbies are scared of straying off. Anything can and will be used against you, eventually.

(I'm not talking about fascist-kind repression and dissent wipeout, that's out of our collective memory anyway and eventually only a problem for politicized individuals. No, it's the much more concrete and pervasive peer control made possible by Facebook, Instagram and the like. It applies to anyone, even the most bland conformist and disengaged people )

Eventually we'll develop a concept of public persona that takes no shame for the past. Next generation probably, after recognizing their parents were panicked fawns blinded by headlights.

<comment><USER17> Yes, maybe. Although I'm a little older than subjects of this article, coming of age on the cusp of the smartphone era but before Facebook and before any of my friends had even a half-decent camera in their phones, and already suspected that the social energy was much lower than it was for people a few years older.

<comment><USER18> Yup, also late genX here. Alternative narrative could be that after decades of marketing driven needs system people are exhausted - see Adam Curtis "Century of Self" - and quite probably also broke. Not to mention all the aggressive neoliberal politics that took away so much that people started to notice and suspect it was all a distraction plot

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> When almost anything you do or say can (and will) be captured at the flick of a switch it modifies behaviour. Big brother is everywhere now if you're a teenager.

</comment><comment><USER20> Take that, Plato!

</comment><comment><USER21> Could be because of many reasons.

e.g: prior generations were exposed to tetraethyllead, which is known to make people aggressive.

<comment><USER22> Further reading [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead#Effect_on_crime...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead#Effect_on_crime_rates)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> If the downstream consequences of this:

> _Teenagers are also having less sex, especially of the procreative kind. In > 1991, 54% of American teenagers in grades nine to 12 (ages 14-18) reported > that they were sexually experienced, and 19% claimed to have had sex with at > least four partners. In 2015 those proportions were 41% and 12%. America's > teenage birth rate crashed by two-thirds during the same period._

Is this:

> _As with alcohol, the abstention from sex seems to be carrying through into > early adulthood. Jean Twenge, a psychologist at San Diego State University > in California, has shown that the proportion of Americans aged 20-24 who > report having no sexual partner since the age of 18 rose from 6.3% for the > cohort born in the late 1960s to 15.2% for those born in the early 1990s. > Japan is a more extreme case. In 2015, 47% of unmarried 20- to 24-year-old > Japanese men said they had never had sex with a woman, up from 34% in 2002._

I'm not convinced that is a good thing.

<comment><USER24> Why? Repudiation of this abhorrent "hookup culture" that seems to be sweeping through our western societies is to be applauded. I'm not arguing for abstention, but reserving sex for monogamous, committed relationships is, as far as I am concerned, an unmitigated good.

<comment><USER23> The idea that there is a _hookup culture sweeping through our western societies_ is directly contradicted by the numbers presented in the very article we are discussing here.

And anyway, I reject this prudish Judeo-Christian inspired sexual ethics. Sex is _good and good for you_. There should be more of.

<comment><USER24> You're most welcome to reject this "Judeo-Christian prudishness" (or whatever you want to call it) but just keep in mind I'm an atheist, and all for rejecting dogma — including the new doctrines of consumerism that is snaking it's way into our private sphere, making us all willing to use each other (apparently) for our short-term jollies.

<comment><USER23> There is nothing _new_ about us humans having short-term jollies, or even medium- / long-term jollies that are non-monogamous.

Short- / medium- / long-term non-monogamous jollies goes as far back as time immemorial. As far back as the beginnings of life itself. I'm willing to bet monogamy is _the new normal_ as far as historical longevity is concerned. I'm no anthropologist, so I'm willing to be corrected on that matter.

Also, I'd argue consumerism isn't exactly new either. People have been blowing their pay packets at their local pub since the invention of the local pub.

<comment><USER25> People also have been rejecting that since time immemorial, so the strength of your argument just barely suffices to eat itself.

<comment><USER23> That some people have been rejecting it since time immemorial doesn't mean those behaviours don't exist.

What I'm disagreeing with is this: _new doctrines of consumerism that is <snip> making us all willing to use each other (apparently) for our short-term jollies._

It isn't the _new doctrines of consumerism_ that are making us do this, it's human nature; we like to fuck.

So your argument ... isn't one.

<comment><USER25> There's still worlds between liking to fuck and using each other like toys. Though consumerist attitudes may not be new, see e.g. that Latin dude talking about how the mind is a fire to be kindled, not a vessel to be filled.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Can someone explain why less hedonistic is seen as better?

<comment><USER27> Suppose you have problems in your life, and you're suffering. You could drink alcohol or take opiates, and they might make you feel better for a while. But the effect wears off, and you're back in the same situation, except now maybe your problems are a bit worse, because the drugs made you sick, or made you do something you regret, or you become addicted, or you miss the feeling of them, or your tolerance has increased. You're flirting with a downward spiral. It's an unskillful way to handle suffering.

Well, same thing for trying to get solace from sex. It's like two drowning people trying to use each other as life preservers. Or two junkies who stay together just as long as they think the other person is helping them get the feeling they want. Love makes relationships safer because you will not purposefully harm the other person if you love them. You cannot love someone and use them to get a feeling to their detriment because if you love them their well-being is more important to you than your own.

<comment><USER28> I love your analogy of two drowning people. It really helps put into perspective so many of the relationships I have witnessed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Wow, what a lot of boring people we are going to create.

<comment><USER7> If you're entertained by people who get drunk, smoke and have irresponsible sex, then yes.

<comment><USER14> So, 3 of the most constant ways to entertain one's self throughout the millennia...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I'm surprised no one has brought up how extreme punishment has become for engaging in these behaviors. I don't have data to back this up, but my sense when I was in high school in the mid 2000s was that any slip up in any of these areas - smoking, drinking, etc. - would result in professional ruin. If caught, the punishment in many "zero tolerance" schools is expulsion and no top college admits students who have been expelled, except in very special cases.</comment>


Why Growth Hackers are Taking Over Startup Marketing - <AUTHOR> http://technori.com/2012/10/2600-up-and-to-the-right-why-growth-hackers-are-taking-over-startup-marketing/

<comment><USER2> Another day, another "Growth hacker" post that misses the point.

Hacker News, give marketers some credit here. The majority of good startup marketers are already analytically minded. They already run tests every week, though they may not run 10. They already look at the funnel and try to move the needle on AARRR with experiments, A/B Testing, and more. All of this already exists in the marketing world, and you don't need SQL queries to do it.

What "Growth Hacker" is really referring to is someone who works on the Product with the goal of driving growth, not someone who is a marketer with coding chops. The distinction here is pretty important. Working on Product is very different than working on Marketing, even though both have the same goal.

<comment><USER3> Yes, I thought it funny that given the synonyms that article title is "marketers take over startup marketing" :-)

Young tech talent does not give enough credit for great marketing. That turns out to be a double negative since the marketing folks don't want to call themselves product marketing because it makes them sound 'uncool' and folks who are ignorant of what marketing does give them no respect.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Isn't labeling a marketer as "growth hacker - someone focused on creating scalable growth by manipulating and measuring each aspect of the customer funnel" is same as labeling a programmer as "bug squasher - someone focused on establishing a project with consistently very low open bugs reports by manipulating and measuring each aspect of software quality control" ?

</comment><comment><USER5> > "90% of tests fail"

This is a valuable point for those looking to get into split testing, growth testing, growth hacking in general. Unless there is this kind of understanding going in, a 90% 'failure' rate (failure to find something that works) can be quite demoralizing.

Additionally, startups that hire or look for a growth hacker should be obsessed with the number and quality of tests, not just the graph magically beginning to go up and to the right. It's easy to think that anyone that gets things 10% right isn't really good at their job - don't fall into this trap with growth hackers. The good ones are testing 10 things a week, so good results will come.

</comment><comment><USER6> Growth Hacking decision/testing idea can come from anywhere in the startup. Consider GitHub. They decided on giving free account for Open Source projects and paid ones for private projects. This decision was the main cause of their viral growth according to the CEO Tom Preston-Werner. This decision can't be made by a developer or a marketer, unless you are a very small team.</comment>


What's a Woggin? A Bird, a Word, and a Linguistic Mystery - <AUTHOR> http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/whats-a-woggin-a-bird-a-word-and-a-linguistic-mystery <comment><USER2> the bird is the word (y)</comment>


Show HN: SkyAlt – Accessible database and analytics - <AUTHOR> https://skyalt.com/?build.2 <comment><AUTHOR> Hi, author here.

This is the 2nd release for SkyAlt. I did previous Show HN here[0]. There is a new website. The latest version runs on Linux(previously only on Windows). I fixed many bugs and make UX way better. Also, there are new Charts and Map views and many new Column types. You can connect and read-only(for now) from remote databases(through ODBC). The changelog[1] is surprisingly long for only ~2months of work.

For the next release, I wanna focus on usability, stability and make documentation.

Feel free to send me feedback(here or e-mail) and ask questions anytime, thank you!

-Milan

[0] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21536477](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21536477) [1] [https://raw.githubusercontent.com/MilanSuk/SkyAlt/master/CHA...](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/MilanSuk/SkyAlt/master/CHANGELOG.md)

<comment><USER2> Before I download, is this like mix between access and OneNote? As in a local database/notekeeping program with the ability to access outside DBs? If so, it looks interesting!

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, It is. You can create tables in SkyAlt and you can read tables from outside databases as well. You can even mix it up, for example: add a new column to the outside/remote table, but the column will be store in SkyAlt. Also, it's easy to create links between tables, so you can link between multiple remote tables(links are store in SkyAlt) and so on.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Interesting, thanks for posting! I like how people start trying out new license models while still trying to keep their products as open as possible.

Since this is a desktop application, not a Saas, and you opted for a subscription model: would you mind sharing your thinking behind this? Traditionally desktop apps like this were sold on a 'version' basis (i.e. you get this major version as well as any minor updates for a one-time fee).

I can understand how a subscription model is desirable, as it sorta provides a predictable income stream. But in your case, where you try to reduce the risk for customers by promising to release the code as GPL after a few years anyway, wouldn't the traditional model make more sense, where users would 'own' one version of your product (esp. since you don't provide an ongoing service like hosting, apart from updates)? As a customer, my costs would be more predictable with less risks, and you could always have a mixed model (like for example Jetbrains has with it's IDEs), where you could still charge 'per seat', and have a subscription-like model where people get cheaper mayor upgrades and maybe support if they pay annually.

As I said, I can understand choosing a pure subscription based model. But, personally, I'd be more inclined to spend money on something like this (or recommend your product as a consultant) if I could outright buy the latest version, or at least have the option (at a higher price, of course). I'm not sure at all that this is a common sentiment, so I might very well be in the minority here. But I'd still be interested why you choose that model...

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the question.

The project started with privacy. The only way how to provide privacy for data is to do computing on-premise. But on-premise creates the problem that when you run the binary file, it's a black box and the best way to prove security is to publish source code. Since everyone can see source code, it's on-premise and it's simple to compile, it creates the problem with piracy, so I made it free/full-featured/unlimited for non-commercial(consumers) use. Commercial companies don't steal software(probably, they are afraid of penalties), at least in developed countries, so that's the place where I make money. It also my sales funnel. Users start using SkyAlt at home for free and at some point, they realize It can solve some problems at work. Luckily, they are many use- cases in both markets(consumers and B2B).

I thought about Perpetual Pricing(use it forever, but updates are for the first year only), but at least for first few years, there will be significant progress, so everyone should update. License converts code to GPL 5years after it has been published. Running 5years old version is a really bad idea(security, etc.). We will see how well this will work, I may change it in the future.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> How does your project differ from Metabase[0]?

[0] [https://www.metabase.com](https://www.metabase.com)

<comment><AUTHOR> I've never heard of Metabase. From the GitHub page, I can see it's very popular and looks great!

I'm watching videos on their website and it looks like, that Metabase uses browser as a front end, SkyAlt is native. I'm not sure If you can create/edit tables/columns in Metabase, it looks more like a "import data and create dashboards". SkyAlt is more like Airtable meets Tableau.

<comment><USER5> Correct metabase is readonly. And i think thats a good thing. For BI tools such as these you have many types of users and generally want it to be strictly readonly.

<comment><USER6> Yes. But you have some users that want writetoo. Nice to have the option.

<comment><AUTHOR> Right now, SkyAlt can't write to the remote databases and in the future, it will be able to write only data, not change a structure(create/remove columns, etc.).

This will lead to the option to build internal tools. Adding dashboards and writing to remote databases should be easy to program, but right now I focus on stability, usability and documentation for current features.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is like a modern day Access right?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes. Overall SkyAlt architecture is vertical. This means, that when I'm adding a new feature I try to add it in form of new View or Column type. You can see the current lists in this picture[0].

This leads, you can start using SkyAlt very quickly. You need to know only Table view and Text and Number columns, that's it. You can learn Charts, Map, etc. views and Date, Link, etc. columns later or ignore them. I hope that this "vertical design" will keep SkyAlt organize for new users, but power users will get advanced features. In short, it's not there if you don't need it.

[0] [https://www.dropbox.com/s/i14c67o8x1vxuub/vertical_design.pn...](https://www.dropbox.com/s/i14c67o8x1vxuub/vertical_design.png?dl=0)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Lawyers for individual techies - <AUTHOR>

Dear HN Hivemind,<p>I'm an individual entrepreneurial techie, but I'm finding that I am woefully undereducated in the ways of contracts and the legal aspects of options, founders shares, incorporation, etc.  Can anyone offer advice for finding a good lawyer who won't (at this stage anyway) charge me an arm and a leg to give basic advice on contracts and options? <comment><USER2> email@example.com

He has been helping some guys I know - he is a really great guy - I cant figure out how to PM - so pasting it here...</comment>


Middle aged misery peaks at age 47.2, economist says - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloombergquint.com/global-economics/middle-age-misery-peaks-at-age-of-47-2-economist-says <comment><USER2> Now on the far side of that, I think one reason is that you start realizing just how little anything really matters. I try to make those around me a little happier each day, but also know that there's almost no effect that I can have on the world.

I'm reminded of this:

There is a Taoist story of an old farmer who had worked his crops for many years. One day his horse ran away. Upon hearing the news, his neighbors came to visit. "Such bad luck," they said sympathetically.

"Maybe," the farmer replied. The next morning the horse returned, bringing with it three other wild horses. "How wonderful," the neighbors exclaimed.

"Maybe," replied the old man. The following day, his son tried to ride one of the untamed horses, was thrown, and broke his leg. The neighbors again came to offer their sympathy on his misfortune. "Maybe," answered the farmer.

The day after, military officials came to the village to draft young men into the army. Seeing that the son's leg was broken, they passed him by. The neighbors congratulated the farmer on how well things had turned out. "Maybe," said the farmer.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm 40, and I've been bracing myself having witnessed a couple close people go through midlife crises. I think the key is low (or even poor) expectations, which luckily I've always had throughout my whole life.

</comment><comment><USER4> only 4 years to go :)</comment>


Chromium Developers Refuse to Implement History Disable Feature - <AUTHOR> https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1775

<comment><AUTHOR> There is however two plugins that you can use;

[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/) "No History" plugin.

"History On/Off" plugin does not work properly.

 __Make sure you delete all old history and restart chromium when install this plugins __</comment>