The Science Behind Making Your Child Smarter - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-science-behind-making-your-child-smarter-11545660001 <comment><USER2> I think it should be renamed "The Dubious Science Behind Trying To Make Smarter Adults"

I recently read Blueprint by Robert Plomin. Here is a pretty good summary:

[https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/oct/24/blueprint- by-r...](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/oct/24/blueprint-by-robert- plomin-review)

Plomin makes a pretty solid case in Blueprint that it's pretty much down to genetics and yes, there are environmental differences, but no you cannot manufacture them. They are random and unpredictable.

After having read that book as I was reading through this article I was thinking back to a lot of the points laid out by Plomin. Namely the "Nature of Nurture" finding that we our genetic predisposition drive our choices over the long term which basically washes out the vast majority of things our parents and school try to do for us. We basically stabilize our own IQs over time.

<comment><USER3> _it 's pretty much down to genetics and yes, there are environmental differences, but no you cannot manufacture them_

I'm not so sure. If you look at genius level people (Mozart, Einstein, Perelman, etc) pretty much all of them had supportive, smart, educated, and usually wealthy parents. Of course genetics plays a major role, but it's not clear that genetics would overcome indifferent development environment.

<comment><USER2> Unless you're one of the leading behavioral genetics researchers who has personally conducted multiple famous longitudinal studies (adoption studies, monozygotic and dizygotic twin studies) since the mid 70s trying to nail down exactly what the environment is responsible for and you have done a thorough analysis of the literature and summarized it in a book. Then it's clear.

How much more rigorous of an analysis could you get?

The conclusion isn't that environment doesn't play a role. It does. The conclusion is that shared environment (family, school etc) doesn't contribute in any predictable way to the heritability of psychological traits (I think he says it's less than 1% ~ 2%). All psychological traits are on average 50% heritable (he says it ranges from 30% ~ 60% but it's on avg. 50%). The rest of the variance is from so called "non-shared" environmental differences. If you live in the same home with the siblings and go to the same school and are even in the same class, you still don't have exactly the same experience. A lot of your experiences are unique to and it's those things that shape you in combination with your genetics. He concludes that after all the research that has been done that non-shared environmental differences are unsystematic and unstable which means they are essentially random and you can make no predictions based on them and that implies you cannot systematically engineer outcomes for people.

<comment><USER3> _you cannot systematically engineer outcomes for people_

I'm describing a particular scenario, and I'm not sure your studies have any data about it - the situation where a gifted child is developing in an indifferent environment (not being stimulated or motivated). No one claims we can turn _anyone_ into a genius. But I'm pretty sure one needs very fortunate conditions to become one.

<comment><USER4> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan)

It's not necessary.

<comment><USER2> This is a great counter example, but I would urge people not to get caught up in trying to look for outliers to try and prove a point.

The parents comment still stands I think. You kinda have to ask is it always the case that even in a bad home genius always manifests where it might? Or do you sometimes find that it goes entirely to waste. I'd venture to say it sometimes does go entirely to waste. On balance those kids probably go on to do well above average and it's likely you've never heard 99.999% of their names.

I'm not sure why people want to focus on outlier geniuses so much when debating the claim that there is something they as a parent can do to systematically engineer higher intelligence in their own children. I just don't think it's that useful.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is "The Biodeterminist's Guide to Parenting" by Scott Alexander (of Slate Star Codex fame)

[https://archive.fo/7RULL](https://archive.fo/7RULL)

<comment><USER5> Here's an article on nootropics for children

[https://www.topcognitiveenhancers.com/nootropics-for- childre...](https://www.topcognitiveenhancers.com/nootropics-for- children-3-great-solutions-for-a-happier-calmer-and-more-focused-child/)

<comment><USER6> That strikes me as "a short primer to chemical child abuse".

<comment><USER7> I agree, the whole website seems to have no medical grounding and is just selling snake oil.

<comment><USER5> It references studies on human children subjects that I was able to look up, although did not provide easy links.

Other than the graphic design and "eww chemicals" I'm not sure what the actual problem is with the content.

And the three recommendations were actually all quite "natural" and commonplace.

<comment><USER6> Nonprofessionals basing how to give chemicals to their children is distressing for the same reason the anti-vax movement is distressing: people think their Google search is a substitute for medical care, and make treatment decisions based on it.

Remember: Arsenic is natural. So is polio. The "natural" label is meant to imply safe, and it is a rhetoric device used go convince others of the minimal harm of their snakeoil.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> [https://outline.com/gd7JNw](https://outline.com/gd7JNw)

<comment><USER9> Thanks. We should have a bot that automatically does this for all paywalled links.

<comment><USER10> And also link to The Pirate Bay for torrents of software?

<comment><USER11> Normal software vendors are not normally so bad that it is justified to protect yourself in a way that hurts them. Granted, with the rise of built-in spyware we might eventually have to start doing that. (Or, more realistically, we could distribute patches.)

<comment><USER10> I'm responding specifically to the paywall concerns here. Clearly the person I'm talking to is interested in not paying for content.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Whilst there is very little evidence on how to increase intelligence, we know a lot of things drastically _reduce_ intelligence. Generally, once that happens, it cannot be undone:

1) malnutrition at a young age. Meaning under 3 years old or so. Malnutricion during breast feeding or pregnancy is the most damaging. After a few years it mostly stops mattering.

2) some chemical contaminants, most notably (and commonly) lead. There are others (and worse ones), like Cadmium, but they're not very common at all.

3) genetic predisposition. Most pronounced, but far from the only effect, is Down syndrome. Of course there are genetic problems, like epilepsy, that are bad enough to make you an idiot.

4) _any_ contact whatsoever with child services has a strong negative effect. If the child is removed from their parents, the effect magnifies dramatically. But children treated do far worse than untreated children in the same situation (and if you look at what happens in practice in such treatment, such as removing the children from school for years, this cannot come as a great surprise)

One almost-exception: voluntary treatment involving the mother (mostly _by_ the mother) has only a slight negative effect. Father does not seem to matter if they're part of treatment. Still does not have a positive effect though. (Absense of a father has a strong negative effect though. I would love to see studies on if you see the same with mothers where the father is the primary caregiver)

I would say that attempting to fix children, in whatever way, other than advising the mother without any other option, is the negative. Children do best when following through on whatever way they develop. Attempting to change things is really bad.

5) drugs, and psychoactive medication are a strong negative, if taken over longer periods (obviously for strong drugs, longer period can be months. For most psychiatric drugs the period is something like a year)

6) lack of attention is a strong negative. Less so than attention by youth services, but it is decisively not good.

That can mean by parents, by peers, by teachers, by ...

At this point though we're talking about things that will definitely leave your IQ at over 90. It won't be catastrophic, whereas child services sometimes produce from normal children that people that have problems like not being able to count at age 17.

And then there are things that don't matter, but are widely perceived to matter.

(All of these have the same caveat. Make them bad enough and of course it will matter. If abuse means you don't survive, of course it will affect you. It essentially never does)

1) getting abused does not influence intelligence (Concrete example: getting scolded daily from age 3 by your mother for not cleaning your room because she's drunk will not make you an idiot)

2) quality of life does not matter. If anything it has a slight negative correlation: worse living conditions will actually make you (a little bit) smarter. (again, there is a level where is most definitely does matter, but that level is _very_ low)

<comment><USER13> > One almost-exception: voluntary treatment involving the mother (mostly by > the mother) has only a slight negative effect. Father does not seem to > matter if they're part of treatment. Still does not have a positive effect > though. (Absense of a father has a strong negative effect though. I would > love to see studies on if you see the same with mothers where the father is > the primary caregiver)

Can you clarify #4? What "treatment" are you referring to? Chemical dependency? Treatment in child services?

<comment><USER12> Any psychiatric treatment. The exact name and even mechanism varies a lot depending on location. For children, there's almost always legal threats behind them though, especially where child services is involved.

The dirty secret of psychiatry is that it almost never works. By the standard of placebo, "will this treatment work better than giving people a tictac 'that should help'" 90% of psychiatric treatments are ineffective. Better in the study means "reducing the chance of a future treatment being necessary" (doesn't include one other option that probably should be tracked: suicide)

On children, the stats are worse, and there you generally see a worsening of symptoms given treatment. Right now psychologists are trying to build a case that child psychiatric treatments at least do not make things worse (because there is a famous study showing that it does). When it comes to forced treatment, there is no real doubt: it makes things much worse. The outcome everyone wants to see is that treatment helps, but it just isn't what the data shows.

And of course, there are plenty of examples of forced treatment causing complete disasters, for example the famous French case of Solenn Poivre d'Arvor. TLDR: Girl gets anorexia, gets admitted to youth services. Girl jumps under metro after escaping what is effectively a prison, part of youth services. She committed suicide so "she could be saved in a little bottle, to be kept by her father, not thrown in the sea" (roughly translated, it was in French of course).

The reason it's so famous is what happened next. Her dad was a news anchor, who convinced then-president Chirac (and a lot of other rich French people, Chirac's wife organizing a lot with the mother of this kid) to build a new youth care facility with the following rules:

1) everybody, under any circumstances, is free to leave. They will not inform the police or youth services unless asked.

2) under no circumstances will ever anyone's name or dossier be discussed or passed to any other part of youth services

(one wonders just what French youth services pulled to make the mother of that kid demand such rules and convince a LOT of people, including the wife of the president, to make them official rules of the institution)

It is a pretty building called "Maison de Solenn" that tries to improve treatment of anorexia disorders in France. It is also an incredible and very, very public total failure of youth services, but the truth is this (youth services forced treatment) happens in something like 70% of the cases of suicide in France.

[https://histoire.inserm.fr/les-lieux/la-maison-de- solenn](https://histoire.inserm.fr/les-lieux/la-maison-de-solenn)

<comment><USER14> Wait, so Maison de Solenn, the new facility, is also a failure?

<comment><USER12> That's a good question, it certainly seems to have some effect but I'm not sure it's there yet.

1) it hasn't achieved the goals it set out for (firstly changing French youth care, secondly achieving significant progress in treatment of anorexia). But it's certainly trying. It's certainly getting the attention of policymakers from youth care, they're just totally unwilling to change.

It's also hosting conventions for researchers into anorexia.

2) perhaps one could say that it has a small measure of success on the first goal: it hasn't changed any other institutions but it seems to be trusted by French youth tribunals, despite its rules. Tribunals will assign kids that would otherwise be incarcerated to this, and they're free as a result.

As for outcomes I'm not sure. Despite their rules, this institution seems to have managed to avoid fucking up bigtime (which cannot be said for child services as a whole).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> On learning Music:

> music training may hone self-control, including focused attention and > memorization.

And then later in the article:

> Raising IQ may require the kind of sustained involvement that comes with > attending school, with all the practice and challenges it entails. "It's not > like you just go in for an hour of treatment a week. It's a real lifestyle > change," he says.

Well... are the qualities you develop via learning an instrument not the same qualities that are going to help in other areas of life?!

The other thing, is if you do a study on IQ and learning music, you shouldn't look only at taking lessons... you should look into the type of practice people do, for how long they practice etc. Basically garbage in, garbage out.

For all the fancy math equations and language people use to put into these studies, sometimes I think they sure are pretty dumb and short sighted.

</comment><comment><USER16> TLDR; Learning to play musical instruments or playing chess does NOT improve IQ. Lively conversation with complex vocabulary, interactive reading with child, memory games and not ending school prematurely helps.

</comment><comment><USER17> Learning an instrument teaches perseverance, which is a large part of success. I make sure my daughter practices her cello scales every night, which is the part she does not like.

<comment><USER18> As in, she likes the other bits about cello?

<comment><USER17> Yes.</comment></comment></comment>


Darwin Among the Machines (1863) - <AUTHOR> http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-ButFir-t1-g1-t1-g1-t4-body.html

<comment><USER2> Pilfered from Wikipedia entry:

Butler developed " _Darwin Among the Machines_ " and subsequent articles into The Book of the Machines, three chapters of Erewhon, published anonymously in 1872.

Project Gutenberg eBook Erewhon by Samuel Butler:

[http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1906](http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1906)

</comment><comment><USER3> Url changed from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_among_the_Machines](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_among_the_Machines), since the original source is online.

More about Samuel Butler: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Butler_(novelist)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Butler_\(novelist\)). Has anyone here read his novels?

<comment><USER4> The Book of the Machines (Erewhon chapter 23 [1]) predicts networked machines and even that we would teach their programming languages to children:

 _"As yet the machines receive their impressions through the agency of man's senses: one travelling machine calls to another in a shrill accent of alarm and the other instantly retires; but it is through the ears of the driver that the voice of the one has acted upon the other. Had there been no driver, the callee would have been deaf to the caller. There was a time when it must have seemed highly improbable that machines should learn to make their wants known by sound, even through the ears of man; may we not conceive, then, that a day will come when those ears will be no longer needed, and the hearing will be done by the delicacy of the machine's own construction? — when its language shall have been developed from the cry of animals to a speech as intricate as our own?_

 _"It is possible that by that time children will learn the differential calculus — as they learn now to speak — from their mothers and nurses, or that they may talk in the hypothetical language, and work rule of three sums, as soon as they are born; but this is not probable; we cannot calculate on any corresponding advance in man's intellectual or physical powers which shall be a set-off against the far greater development which seems in store for the machines. Some people may say that man's moral influence will suffice to rule them; but I cannot think it will ever be safe to repose much trust in the moral sense of any machine._

 _"Again, might not the glory of the machines consist in their being without this same boasted gift of language? 'Silence,' it has been said by one writer, 'is a virtue which renders us agreeable to our fellow-creatures.'"_

[1] [https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/butler- samuel/187...](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/butler- samuel/1872/erewhon/ch23.htm)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> check out George Dyson's great book of the same title that covers Butlers' essay in detail

Very recommended reading

[http://www.amazon.com/Darwin-Among-The-Machines- Intelligence...](http://www.amazon.com/Darwin-Among-The-Machines- Intelligence/dp/0465031625)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> A short summary, by just quoting from the article:

 _There are few things of which the present generation is more justly proud than of the wonderful improvements which are daily taking place in all sorts of mechanical appliances. […] what the end of this mighty movement is to be. In what direction is it tending?

[…]

What sort of creature man's next successor in the supremacy of the earth is likely to be. We have often heard this debated; but it appears to us that we are ourselves creating our own successors; we are daily adding to the beauty and delicacy of their physical organisation; we are daily giving them greater power and supplying by all sorts of ingenious contrivances that self- regulating, self-acting power which will be to them what intellect has been to the human race. In the course of ages we shall find ourselves the inferior race.

[…]

We take it that when the state of things shall have arrived which we have been above attempting to describe, man will have become to the machine what the horse and the dog are to man.

[…]

Our opinion is that war to the death should be instantly proclaimed against them. Every machine of every sort should be destroyed by the well-wisher of his species._</comment>


Specializing Ropes for Ruby [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://chrisseaton.com/truffleruby/ropes-manlang.pdf <comment><USER2> I'm marginally surprised nobody's used ropes for Ruby previously; this is something that was done in the first few years for all the JS VMs* given it provides pretty sizeable perf gains (because string concatenation is so common), and this seems to show it's true for much Ruby code too.

*: to be pedantic, Carakan never did use ropes, just lazily concatenating strings for some operations.

(And now I wait for someone who worked on this to tell me why they didn't do it sooner. :))

</comment><comment><USER3> If you prefer the video format, I also gave a talk based on this content at RubyKaigi 2016:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQnxukip368](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQnxukip368)

<comment> swingline-747 To give some context, rstring rep is like an expanded Pascal rep with more metadata. rstrings allow nearly free substrings if string data is immutable. IIRC this is similar to what Java uses for string-table constants (CONSTANT_Utf8_info).

For historical context, a string rep besides ASCIIZ / charZ (NUL-terminated) was dollar-terminated used by DOS.

Pascal would store a byte length at the head of a string to indicate it's length.</comment></comment>


Happenstance - <AUTHOR> http://www.futilitycloset.com/2010/12/12/happenstance/

<comment><USER2> Pretty much anyone who was alive in 1620 will by now either have no descendants or a ridiculously large number of descendants.

If his descendants continued to breed at the rate of 2.5 children each at the age of 25 then by now he'd have approximately 1.6 million descendants in the latest generation (plus another million or so from their parents and grandparents' generations, still alive). Bump it up to an average of three children and we're looking at 30 million descendants. Bring the breeding age down to 22 and we're talking 287 million descendants, which just happens to be the population of the US. Of course you'd need to adjust that downwards since there'd be plenty of (mostly rather remote) inbreeding along the way.

If you could get a complete list of your (seven hundred thousand or so) ancestors dating back to the 17th century you'd probably be totally thrilled by the number of famous names on it. But of course, everyone else would have a similar number of famous names on their own.

</comment><comment><USER3> Without analysis of the counter-factual, the list seems impressive. But had Howland died there is a high probability that there still would have been a 32nd, 41st, and 43rd US president; prominent 19th century poets; Alaskan governors; pediatricians and Hollywood leading men. And listing both Bush's seems gratuitous - why not list all the Baldwin brothers?

Probably the only two individuals on the list whose impact on US history might be considered irreproducible are Smith and to perhaps a lesser extent, Young because creating enduring spiritual systems [Mormonism] and political states [Utah] seems more dependent on individual characteristics than the roles filled by other individuals.

<comment><USER4> There's a famous Twilight Zone episode about a time-traveling assassin who kills baby Adolf Hitler. The episode concludes that nothing really changes, as another child growing up in that environment becomes just as bad as an adult.

I'm not sure if I believe it, but it's an interesting argument. There almost certainly would have been people in most of those positions, though perhaps not with the same quirks.

<comment><USER3> That's what I was trying to differentiate in looking at the list...the impact of zeitgeist relative to the butterfly effect. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect>

In other words, it is likely that Dole [had he won the Republican nomination] would have defeated Dukakis as readily as Bush did in 1988, or that Carry Grant could have starred in _The African Queen._

On the other hand, the specifics of Smith's personality and circumstances are hard to separate from the movement he spawned.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Bullshit or not - it is interesting to think of the fact that we all are a continuation of biological life dating back to our common ancestors.

</comment><comment><USER6> Can anyone verify this or is it one of those myths?

</comment><comment><USER7> FDR, Bush, Palin and Brigham Young?

Note to self: if you ever build a time machine, go back and make sure Howland drowns.

<comment><USER8> This may or may not be possible, depending on certain factors.

First, assume that this would cause a paradox, basically, an exception of type CausalityFailException.

If the universe has runtime checking, you go back in time, eliminate Howard, all those people, and then they never existed, your motivation never existed, and you can't have gone back in time. Basically, the stack of history is now in an unknown state and calculating the state of the universe causes the temporal stack to overflow.

XX/YY/ZZZZ AA:BB:CC ERROR: Exception thrown: "Unknown Timepoint" CAUSED BY: XX/YY/ZZZZ AA:BB:CC Nested Exception: "TemporalStackOverflow" CAUSED BY: XX/YY/ZZZZ AA:BB:CC Nested Exception: "CausalityFailException" CAUSED BY: yummyfajitas:1234224578783

IF, however, the universe had compile-time checking, you'd get a simple, much cleaner 13/12/2010 09:43:23 ERROR: Cannot compile module "yummyfajitas- timetravel" - Method "EliminateTheFuckwits" has uncaught Temporal Side- Effects.

This leads us to believe that any language which can do compile-time checking is necessarily better for debugging, quality, and universe stability.

(In other words: God used Scala.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> If you're a man and you have children, anything you did differently before you had them would have resulted in different children because your sperm would have shifted.

[http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2008/06/parenthood_as_t....](http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2008/06/parenthood_as_t.html)

</comment><comment><USER10> If you're wondering whether the story is true or not, it appears to be. All of the relevant facts are present in John Howland's (heavily cited) Wikipedia article.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Howland></comment>


Coding Interview Problems with Detailed Solutions, Test Cases, Program Analysis - <AUTHOR> https://hoanhan101.github.io/2020/01/06/101-challenges <comment><USER2> Somewhat related: a while ago I went through a bunch of the "Cracking the Coding Interview" problems and completed them in Rust, whilst recording most of the coding for YouTube (until I got bored).

Here's the project: [https://github.com/brndnmtthws/cracking-the-coding- interview...](https://github.com/brndnmtthws/cracking-the-coding-interview- rust)

<comment><USER3> Wow, that's awesome I was literally just looking for something exactly like this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I have been prepping for almost 6 months now. I look at the stocks new hires get at my company and what my refreshers are. Companies seem to be relying on the fact, most people are too lazy to leetcode and will not give good refreshers. I have been with the company long enough that leaving and coming back atleast will add 600k to my earnings in the next 4 years. One thing however though I notice, that my coding speed has improved a lot by doing timed leetcode questions. I also look at the complexity of everything I write far more than I used to. Overall it looks like a win, win for me. The moment my company gave same level of stock as I would get in 2 years to a new college hire, I have decided to move. I have been with the company for more than 18 years. It is possible it is my company that does this. I hear goog refreshers are good.

<comment><USER5> Although I absolutely hate it, I interview every 1 or 2 years and use it as negotiation for refreshers. The only time I ever got a reasonable pay bump was by showing I had alternative offers. On the other hand, you have to also be willing to leave.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I like using the Blum Mental Hash as an interview question. As far as I can tell, it's not mentioned in any interview cram lists, and it's complex enough to see how candidates split up a problem.

[https://scilogs.spektrum.de/hlf/mental-cryptography-and- good...](https://scilogs.spektrum.de/hlf/mental-cryptography-and-good- passwords/)

<comment><USER7> That looks fun. Do you require them to know trivia or do you provide them with the definition and ask for an implementation?

<comment><USER6> I explain how it works first and then ask for an implementation. I look for sane code organization, correctness, and an awareness of Pythonic idioms if it's a Python heavy role.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It pains me to see another Coding Interview preparation tool. It's such a sad situation in the current industry.

Students learn to game the system to get a high paying job. Students who care about what they are working on will painstakingly try to perfect their projects. They don't have time to game the system and therefore have a hard time getting a coveted job.

Companies want to hire "the best" so they usually hire someone who can ace the company's interview. People who can ace the company's interview are usually those who studied for it.

I recently took over a codebase from an ex-employee who went to Google. People were happy for him but I am so indignant. His code caused me hell. One production bug after another led me to eventually throw out all of his code. His code was written by somebody who did not care and his tests were useless. I'm pretty sure during his time at our company he was focused on leetcoding so he could get somewhere better. I wanted to reach out to him on LinkedIn to give him a piece of my mind hoping it may make him a more responsible engineer but I decided against it. I focused on fixing the features for the users because it was the right thing to do.

I want to work with people who care about the product they are working on. People who care about building great products are not solving coding interview problems.

<comment><USER9> Currently a junior in a reasonably well-regarded (and difficult) CS program, this is 100% how I feel. As a result of my genuine interest in the material being taught and desire to do well on course projects, I do not have the time or energy to be grinding Leetcode and HackerRank to the extent that I've read others do. Yet every company I apply to will not even speak to you unless you pass their brain-teaser-esque HackerRank problem, many of which are somewhat ambiguous and have typos in the problem statement. It's infuriating and seems like it only incentivizes the behavior you describe here.

<comment><USER8> I'm sorry you feel this way. The best advice I can come up with is, either find a product space you care deeply about and see how far you can take it or swim with the wave and start preparing for coding interviews.

<comment><USER9> Interestingly, the only places I've interviewed with that deviated from the typical SV coding challenge interview have been the national labs (JPL, LANL, Sandia, etc.). The questions they asked were much more focused on my interests as well as evaluating my general software engineering skills. I did an internship at one of them last year and it looks like I might be headed back there this summer too. Hoping I don't get locked into the national labs scene permanently.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The coding interview in our industry reminds me of a question on Quora I got today. It asks if it is true that Richard Feynman only had a 125 IQ score. It is the case. And it makes me wonder how much good those interview questions are used to judge someone with a limited time. I know a few people in my company were let go after 6 months albeit they did fabulous with those interview questions.

<comment><USER11> IQ is hard to measure, and it isn't really clear what it represents anyways. Metrics are always going to be incomplete, unlike in a litrpg.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Neat. I actually had a coding interview I got to skip because I'd already done the exact same question for another company, and had done my original work in Git+Github :)

Going through these and writing up solutions seems like a decent hobby project, applicable to a lot of situations.

</comment><comment><USER13> Practicing for coding interviews are to FAANG companies what the SATs were for the Ivy League.

It's not about how smart you are or how well you will do. It's about how good you are at studying interview problems/the SAT. And even then it's a crap shoot if your admission reviewer/interviewer was in a good mood that day.

As much as it's suboptimal/unfair/whatever your objection is, your options are to not play the game (and miss out on the wealth of opportunity or cash) or to dive on in and accept reality.

</comment><comment><USER14> some of these questions seem super easy, and then some of them have wording that seems impossibly hard to comprehend.

</comment><comment><USER15> The fact that one can just ahead and cram for these problems should pretty much... severely downgrade, at least, their usefulness as hiring filters.

<comment><USER16> Everyone always says this, but the fact remains that it _is_ a filter in the sense that not everyone can learn it, or retain it. People always complain that the techniques requested in an interview are not required for the job. I see it in a different sense. The jobs they ultimately qualify for do not require such skills.

<comment><USER15> There's now doubt that these tests serve as some kind of "a" filter.

The question is, whether they serve as a particularly _good_ filter.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Does anyone have insight on the extent to which interviews for 'data scientist' or 'ML engineer' roles involve Leetcode-esque or whiteboard coding exercises? What is the norm (if any) for assessing coding and subject matter competency for these sorts of roles?

<comment><USER18> It depends on the company and the role. In general, I would be prepared for some white boarding questions, although I've found they're generally "a little easier" than the ones the engineers whine about.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> in golang

<comment><USER20> I think python is the most efficient language to use in interviews tbh. Functional languages might be better depending on the problem but you don't want people thinking you're a witch or something.

<comment><USER21> I learned enough Python for the interview questions specifically for this. Based on my (obviously anecdotal) experience, candidates I interview spend considerably less time on actual coding when using Python.

That being said, Scala makes design questions much easier thanks to its type system.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The new trend in SF/bay area seems to be companies you're applying to preparing you _specifically_ for the questions they'll ask. People realized no one memorizes one specific search algorithm or puzzle, so they now tell you, before the interview, that you'll be asked problems A, B and C.

Not "algorithm problems" or "search" - "we'll ask you to revert a doubly linked list".

It's bizarre.

<comment><USER23> Where have you seen that? The most I've been given is a general interview prep guide about how to prepare for an on-site.

<comment><USER22> 2 "FAANG" companies and another one of the top big tech ones. One had a recruiter calling and literally listing all the questions they "could ask", coding, architecture and all. They asked all of them.

<comment><USER24> I don't think it's the companies themselves as much as the recruiters. I've had recruiters pump me for info on the specifics of the question asked, and I obliged. I was younger and naive, and... didn't understand what they were doing. Not until later, when the reverse happened to me - I was given "potential" questions to prep for (which... I already knew answers to because it was my regular day job for) that I understood why I'd been asked about that stuff before.

<comment><USER25> You are implying that FAANG recruiters are doing this without the knowledge or consent of the hiring team, which is ridiculous.

<comment><USER26> If recruiters are incentivized by a metric of how many candidates get through the process, why wouldn't they do that without the consent of the hiring team?

External recruiters do that all of the time. I worked with the same recruiter when I was trying to get a job and when I was hiring through him. I knew he prepped candidates so I had to have a different set of interview questions and different coding interview tests (with an IDE on a computer).

I know of one company where the hiring manager had all of the candidates do a merge sort on the board. He used the same interview question for years. All of the recruiters knew what to prep their candidates for.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Life, Death and Resurrection of Computer Art Group Mistigris - <AUTHOR> https://paleotronic.com/2019/10/16/back-from-the-dead-the-life-death-and-resurrection-of-computer-art-group-mistigris/ <comment><USER2> Thanks for sharing, very interesting read (for someone who was born too late to witness this zeitgeist of blooming demoscene, underground zines, VXing &c).

Can anyone recommend similar writeups?

<comment><USER3> Not a write up but BBS: The Documentary is covers a lot of what you're asking about.

 _BBS: The Documentary (commonly referred to as BBS Documentary) is a 3-disc, 8-episode documentary about the subculture born from the creation of the bulletin board system (BBS) filmed by computer historian Jason Scott of textfiles.com._

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

[https://youtube.com/watch?v=nO5vjmDFZaI](https://youtube.com/watch?v=nO5vjmDFZaI)

<comment><USER2> Cheers! Just remembered that Polgar's Freax is on my reading list.

[http://freax.intro.hu/](http://freax.intro.hu/)</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Unimersiv – Learn through virtual reality - <AUTHOR> https://unimersiv.com/hn.php <comment><AUTHOR> Hello Hackernews!

We spent the last few months building the first VR learning platform and we would love to get your feedback!

Baptiste</comment>


Women Hackers - the mission to locate subversive women on the net ('99) - <AUTHOR> http://www.obn.org/hackers/text1.htm

<comment><AUTHOR> Today on the birthday of legendary female computer scientist Grace Hopper, inventor of the compiler and the term "debugging", among other achievements - I ask the Hacker News community, why is the computer science overwhelmingly male and becoming increasingly so as time goes on? The hacker community seems to be absolutely comfortable in this state, and to me that's disturbing. Diversity creates innovation - and for an industry that prides itself as innovators, the silicon-valley idea pool seems like a dangerous closed-loop.

This has been an issue for a while, so I'm posting this somewhat dated yet historically relevant article from 1999 which brings up this very issue, an issue which was never answered.

You can probably skip the first two sections defining and explaining hackers and hacking.</comment>


Ask HN: Is it time to give up on my side project? - <AUTHOR>

I have a side project that is managed hosting for non-profits and churches. Since most are very non-technical, the premise is to remove all technical aspects from setting up/having a website. Each site is build on a pre-built WordPress theme and I take care of getting the site to functional stage, content entry, file uploads etc. etc. Basically, the user signs up, sends in their content and I hand over a completed website. The only thing they have to do is add new content if they want to. I am also part of the Microsoft Bizspark program so I am running everything on VMs built in Azure. A CDN, backups etc. etc. are also included with the hosting. In other words, I am not using some $20 reseller hosting plan for host gator.
I could be wrong, but I think my product is pretty good and there is a need of what I am offering. Clearly, I am doing something wrong because I can't get customers. I've talked to local churches/non-profits, made calls, sent emails, bought online ads, wrote guest blog posts et.c etc. Really, the only substantial, feedback I have received is that I was turned down because I don't offer "unlimited" everything like other hosts do...
I'm at the point to where I don't really see the benefit of keeping this thing going. I could be wrong but I feel like most non-profits/churches are distrusting of website companies, don't see the value in paying for quality when something else is cheaper, and the whole concept of using a website to further their vision seems like a waste of time. It seems like the only way I could get customers is to spend 80/hr a week writing content and personally meeting with people.
I want to help churches/non-profits but it seems like helping and making money is off the table. I have several other side projects I would love to dive into but I am hesitant to just give up on everything I have done so far. I highly doubt there is any 1, 2, or 3 things I could do to improve my position but I would love any feedback. <comment><USER2> One of the problems with developing a product for non-profits and churches is that you run into needing to have your offering assessed by a committee before a decision can be made.

Rather than one business owner or individual being able to say yes, what happens is someone will need to propose the idea to the board/church council etc. and then it will be debated, and perhaps might get the go-ahead. More likely than not however someone in that group will have some objection, or say "my nephew is good with computers - he can do that!" It's going to be a very high-touch environment to work in, and probably not great as a side project just because of the time you will spend.

Could you perhaps target people who design sites for these organizations? They are already doing the high touch sales - perhaps you could come in as the technical partner. That way you'd be selling the reassurance of all the backend technical support, the backups, the CDN etc. but not dealing directly with the end customer but instead hopefully a local web designer who has several of these types of clients.

<comment><AUTHOR> "my nephew is good with computers - he can do that!"

Haha um yes.

Thanks for the thoughts. Your suggestion about partnering up with some companies that already have a foot in the door is a great idea. I'll definitely be thinking that through.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Definitely add an unlimited plan at a higher price point if that's what they have voiced concerns over previously.

Plus committees like choice so lay out a few options/plans and detail out things they might ask about.

I would stress things like unlimited, custom, support, CMS and downplay things like wordpress/themes.

I would also offer a higher price point where you maintain their website . . . maybe with once a month or once a week batches of changes . . . this could minimize WP training and them breaking things trying to learn WP or stressing about having a member make updates.

btw, if you get a client taxing the limits of the bandwidth you were expecting them to use on your azure vm set them up on a shared hostgator plan . . . just set the price point of the unlimited so you can cover that if needed.

"my nephew is good with computers - he can do that!"

Think about expanding your services to include things their nephew can't do . . .

Setup donations via stripe on the website . . .

A web application for events, event sign ups, prayer lists, etc . . .

As far as decisions typically being made by committees . . . test out asking for a letter of feedback, questions, concerns from committees considering your service . . . then you'll see what they are thinking about and can respond with an outline of responses to seal the deal . . . plus use the feedback to improve your plans/marketing.

Churches do seem to be a difficult sell . . . but there are companies that do well in that niche . . . there is a local company that has a saas book keeping app with a focus on churches that I know is doing well.

I would try some recommendations you received and see what happens . . .

Good luck turning things around . . .

</comment><comment><USER4> It sounds like you either haven't identified a need or haven't identified the right solution for that need (I'm guessing the latter).

I'm willing to bet you could gather some more customer feedback, but let's consider the item you mentioned:

"I don't offer "unlimited" everything"

My guess of what the customer is telling you is that because they don't understand the technical side of things, they are worried they will end up paying more in fees / overages. Same reason cell phone companies are offering unlimited plans - they provide comfort that you won't go over.

How do hostgator and many others offer Unlimited Disk Storage & Bandwith for such a low price? Because they know that even if they posted real limits, most customers won't even go close to those, and I bet they deal directly with those that do to optimize. Saying "Unlimited" is worth the (likely small) risk to close the deal. Listen to the customer, they're telling you what they want!

Something to consider, not sure how they would respond - what if you charged by the size of the organization (churches : church members)? That would loosely approximate bandwidth, and probably make sense to your customer.

One other thing I would point out, a little customization goes a long way. Can you offer to customize the site for their organization, or their specific needs, for low cost or free? You want a recurring customer, right? Put in a little work up front (show them their possible site?) and you may have a better chance of closing the deal. IMO, for non-technical clients, it's much easier to sell them on something they can see.

I wouldn't give up on this just yet, I think it's a nice niche, but you really need to understand the customer needs and why they would or wouldn't make a purchase decision.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback, I really appreciate it.

You make a good point about offering "unlimited" resources. This early in the game, I have nothing to lose and it would be a selling point.

As far as customization goes, that basically falls under setting the website up. So, essentially yeah I mean a logo will be uploaded, colors will match their branding, the homepage will have user selected elements etc. etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Then offer unlimited, right? Even if it means raising your prices, then your clients would probably like paying more knowing that pricing is predictable.

Also, I think a free trial would be nice. Just set everything up and then show it to them. Hard to say no to that.

And like patio11 recommended in one of his blog posts, write up a checklist of every feature, something that can be printed out and passed around to the decision makers.

I think you also need to make sure you're emphasizing how the site can help boost their attendance and donations and lower their administrative costs. And on that note, have you added many donation-related features? E.g., a meter to reach goals, themed donation drives, paypal/credit integration, and maybe an online merch store for church goods?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the input and suggestions. The problem with a free trial is that the websites are built on WordPress. No matter what the WordPress community wants to think about the CMS, it's not the most user friendly piece of software for people are only comfortable with sending emails and checking Facebook. My target audience is very non-technical so training is always included before sites are turned over.

I toyed around with a free trial but found it wasn't a good idea because no one knew how to use the WordPress backend.

>I think you also need to make sure you're emphasizing how the site can help boost their attendance and donations and lower their administrative costs

This is definitely true and something I need to work on. One of my biggest obstacles is writing content that will clearly explain the advantages of utilizing a website instead of just having a "brochure site" thrown up on some random host.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Who is your target customer? You mention churches and non-profits, but why do they build/setup a website. How is your product helping them address this?

<comment><AUTHOR> In short, they build sites to provide people with information/services. A lot of these orgs have very basic websites and they don't use the websites as tools to further their goals.

My product helps them by basically doing everything for them. They don't have to worry about registering a domain name, setting up the hosting account, setting up the website, modifying it to look good, installing updates, running backups etc. etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I sent you an email.</comment>


Ask HN: How to (truly) learn whilst working on code? - <AUTHOR> I believe I am quite good at "figuring stuff out", however recently I find myself thinking, is there a different way to work in which you may be slightly slower but end up learning more!<p>Would love to hear how others try and achieve this in their work. <comment><USER2> Thinking with your code can be an effective learning tool. You can learn how to offset more and more abstraction layers to your code and focus on higher level capabilities. When your code becomes a thinking tool, you will pay more attention to the languages you use, and start requiring more from them; as they will shape your thinking.

Initially, ML languages did this for me. I now use Rust in a similar fashion. Even when I have to program in languages that require heavy cognitive load, like C++ and JS, I can leverage what I've learn in my preferred languages. Program defensively (maybe slower?), design with types, and still be able to build highly complex software while managing complexity.

<comment><AUTHOR> My question was more around HOW to learn more effectively over just building features.</comment></comment>


Cody Brocious (HN's Daeken) interviewed on StartupAid at 6:30PM PST - <AUTHOR> http://startupaid.com/todays-guest-cody-brocious-of-upmc

<comment><USER2> Just wanted to say thanks to Sean and Kev for doing this -- had a lot of fun with it and can't wait to watch the next one :)

<comment><AUTHOR> No, we really appreciate you being part of our experimental "let's see how the hell to do this" phase :)

UPMC sounds like an amazing challenge with a ton of opportunity, but only because you guys have come so far already. Congrats on getting your first beta customers, and keep us up to date on the launch in June!

Also, for the future, I would be curious to hear about how you found your business advisors, since I can imagine that's the difficult point for people starting out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Missed this - but Daeken is a smart cookie, so I'd appreciate a link to a video if it's available?

<comment><AUTHOR> We're still trying to duct tape available tools together to do a panel-style interview. Tinychat seemed like the best bet so far, but there's a bit of lag (maybe inevitable), and there doesn't seem to be anyway of recording the video once it's been broadcast.

Does anyone have any suggestions for a group-video-chat that's easy to use and can save the video for posterity?</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Functional front-end? - <AUTHOR> I'm finally at a point where I can start work on a significant side-project, and I'm trying to determine my tech stack.
I'm using Haskell server-side, and I would like to build my front-end using functional techniques as well.
I've looked at PureScript, Elm, and Cycle.js as possibilities for building my client side code.
I'd like something that can integrate with other libraries in the Javascript ecosystem, and it would be nice to be able to use it for client side routing, ajax calls, etc.
PureScript is impressive, but it looks to have the steepest learning curve, and and the last time I tried it the  toolchain was terrible (hopefully this is no longer the case).
Elm looks good too, but from what I can tell it doesn't really fit into the modern npm / bower / requirejs etc. ecosystem.
I like the philosophy behind Cycle.js, and of course interop wouldn't be a problem, but... it's still JavaScript.  This isn't a huge deal, but it does count against it a bit.  I use JS all day and it would be nice to have something typesafe, and closer to Haskell syntactically and semantically.
I'm open to other suggestions as well, I'm not trying to limit it to those three, but they at least give an idea of where my mind is.  I would be especially interested in hearing from people who have used any of these (or others) to build web applications.
Thanks! <comment><USER2> Hello,

I've been learning Elm for a few months and have done a few small side projects in it. I'm also currently in the process of learning PureScript.

I prefer the way Elm is structured around signals. PureScript does not seem to be structured this way by default, but there is at least one project written in PureScript that gives you Elm-style FRP.

Once my Elm projects became sufficiently advanced, I noticed I was looking to use higher-kinded types, which Elm does not seem to have yet, while PureScript does. This may be important to you.

</comment><comment><USER3> I hope you find PureScript has improved considerably since you last looked, but if you have any specific issues, please drop into #purescript IRC and let us know.</comment>


New app restriction might kill Titanium and Air on iPhone OS - <AUTHOR> http://developer.appcelerator.com/question/14241/what-does-this-mean-for-titanium-mobile-iphoneos4

<comment><USER2> Doesn't this mean you now have to write every iPhone application directly in C and Objective-C? This doesn't make much sense. What's a translation layer? C preprocessor? What if I implement a language in the C preprocessor? That's not allowed? Ok, how much of the C preprocessor can I use? Is there a limited number of #defines before you start saying no? Do I have to provide my source code to you when submitting an app for approval? What if I implement an embedded language in C++ through operator overloading? Is that a translation layer? Is Boost a translation layer? Can I use Boost::Lambda?

The fuck? This doesn't make sense. What is a translation layer?

<comment><USER3> The solution is Android. Do you have JVM bytecodes? Great, your app is approved.

<comment><USER2> My Nexus One is so laggy that I can't stand to use it anymore. It's just a huge pain in the ass scrolling around, resizing, etc. It's a slow turd, and the Android devs seem intent on bolting on more useless features rather than speeding up the user experience or fixing bugs. The first (and only) update for my N1 added more bugs than fixed.

<comment><USER3> Want some cheese to go along with that whine?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> If Apple are serious about gaming, as they seem to be, they surely won't enforce a limitation that will kill tools like Unity. It will be interesting to see their clarification, but somehow I think we'll all be fine.

<comment><USER5> I suspect that this is just a poorly thought-out attempt to keep Flash off of the iPhone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> They really should have just let Flash CS5 apps fail in the marketplace, or just been very selective about quality when approving them.

</comment><comment><USER7> I wonder if apple loathes the idea of Appcelerator or others enabling developers to develop simultaneously for platforms outside of Apple. They probably like that it opens up development to more people - but they want total commitment to their devices.

</comment><comment><USER8> Appcelerator's initial response: [http://developer.appcelerator.com/blog/2010/04/apple-4-0-and...](http://developer.appcelerator.com/blog/2010/04/apple-4-0-and- titanium.html)

<comment><USER9> Is this link mirrored anywhere? It seems to have gone down.

<comment><USER8> It's still there for me, but here's the text:

 _By now, most of you have probably seen or heard about Apple iPhone SDK 4.0 and a little hidden gem in their freshly minted 4.0 Terms of Services, notably 3.3.1: "Applications that link to Documented APIs through an intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited."

It's clear that products like Titanium, Unity3D, Ansca, MonoTouch and others are now a bit in question for iPhone 4.0+ with this language. We're all trying to get our heads around what this means and trying to reach out to Apple to get clarification.

Hang tight, we'll try and give you more information as we can figure it out from Apple. We don't want to make any false promises or claims – and most importantly, we want to make sure we're abiding by Apple's rules._

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> this is bad new for appcelerator. Good luck guys!

<comment><USER11> I can't think of anyone this is _good_ for.

<comment><USER8> Cocoa devs?</comment></comment></comment>


A 25-Inch Plot of Land in Greenwich Village Embodied 'a Resistance' - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/10/nyregion/hess-triangle-greenwich-village.html <comment><USER2> See also [http://socks-studio.com/2014/10/22/gordon-matta-clarks- reali...](http://socks-studio.com/2014/10/22/gordon-matta-clarks-reality- properties-fake-estates-1973/)

</comment><comment><USER3> I thought it was weird to give the size of a plot in units of length. _That_ made me click the title. If it had said "270 square inch plot" I probably would not have been curious enough to follow the link.

So, I claim the title is click-bait. :)

<comment><USER4> I simply assumed the writer inadvertently left out the word "square". Apparently, the omission was a deliberate nudge to Hiring at any other publication with laxer standards.

<comment><USER3> No, it's not just an omission of square: the plot in question is a little triangle, each side around 25 inches long, so the area is around 270 sq in.

<comment><USER4> Indeed: The abbreviation "sq" indicating area.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I know the NYTimes thinks its charming, but this plaque embodies the arrogance and greed of wealthy landowners in NY who have opposed the construction of mass transit for over a hundred years.

<comment><USER6> Plenty of people fight against violent confiscation of private land. You don't have to be arrogant or greedy to resist.

<comment><USER7> There is no private land in the United States that was not confiscated either by direct violence or through the threat of violence.

In fact, private land can only exist thanks to the threat of violence against those who would use it outside of the "owner's" intent.

<comment><USER8> > In fact, private land can only exist thanks to the threat of violence > against those who would use it outside of the "owner's" intent.

Kinda like what makes your wallet 'yours'.

<comment><USER7> Exactly.

The key difference, though, is that my wallet is unlikely to be directly useful for the creation of a public good. Some portion of the contents are frequently used to that end though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This article gave me an idea. We've all read about neighborhoods being "gentrified", raising the property taxes, effectively pricing the original habitants out. I've wondered, if this ever happened to me, how could I solve the problem. Some kind of "poison pill", making the land useless to anyone else. Perhaps the solution is dividing the property and carving out a small 1 square foot section somewhere important on the property, so its land value is low enough to where anyone can afford the property taxes on it. That way, even if you're forced to sell the land, there's this little part they can't take from you that makes the rest of the land useless.

I'm sure someone else has thought of this... anyone know of something like this, or other solutions to this problem?

<comment><USER10> It would vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but generally you can't just carve up a lot willy-nilly. In order to transfer ownership of a lot, a deed must be recorded with the relevant government agency (city, county, etc.). These agencies generally have plat books recording the location and coordinates of lots so that this transfer can take place without having to send a surveyor out each time there's a transfer, and there are rules and procedures regarding how lots are recorded, modified, and updated.

<comment> d-sc Not only that. There's usually development regulations for 'sub divisions' that specify minimum things like street access, utilities, etc.</comment></comment></comment>


Feedback and Advice on R10Cipher Required - <AUTHOR>

Hi Guys
I have successfully launched R10Cipher IV recently and it is doing moderately well.  I'm looking for the next step for this software - what should it do to make it better, more capable, more functional, more desirable ?
Download for Windows, Mac and Linux here:
http://www.r10cipher.com/
Any feedback appreciated, Cheers - <USER2> <comment><USER3> Maybe I'm a bit biased ,if you launch a cryptographic product, we could expect to have extended information of the algorithms in use and how the various security protocols are implemented.

If not, the software/hardware has the tendency to jump into the famous "Snake Oil" classification.

<http://www.interhack.net/people/cmcurtin/snake-oil-faq.html>

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi You are 100% correct. On the home page is a link to 'The Story of R10Cipher' in there you can read the following:

'The encryption technology used by R10Cipher was also developed in the UK. Blowfish is a keyed symmetric block cipher which was invented by 'Security Guru' and renowned author, Bruce Schneier, Chief Security Technical Officer at British Telecom, in 1993. It provides excellent encryption and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Blowfish is free of patents, and back doors, and Bruce has placed Blowfish in the public domain.

Blowfish was chosen over AES for two reasons, a) It's a fast, secure and respected encryption technology and b) There are still many concerns, specifically in the USA, about the security of AES and whether a backdoor exists to which the government has access. Whether that is true or not is irrelevant as it is a popular public conception and using Blowfish bypasses those doubts when selling to US customers.'

I did once have this information on the home page but most people were completely put off by it, only the techies were interested therefore it is there, but not jumping off the page.

Cheers - Steve</comment></comment>


Wordpress.com implements Twitter API (for posting and reading) - <AUTHOR> http://en.blog.wordpress.com/2009/12/12/twitter-api/

<comment><USER2> So, when will they implement the Open Micro Blogging spec, so they can interoperate with identi.ca and Jaiku?

<http://openmicroblogging.org/></comment>


Corporate Life – Over and Out - <AUTHOR> http://www.brendaningram.com/blog/4-brendans-blog/37-corporate-life---over-and-out

<comment><USER2> Wish I could understand the last paragraph/quote.</comment>


If you want to save the world, veganism isn't the answer - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/25/veganism-intensively-farmed-meat-dairy-soya-maize <comment><USER2> This article reads more like an ad for their farm, which granted as far as farms that produce meat from livestock goes, seems really nice. But their approach is not gonna work at scale, because you cannot have enough farms that operate this way to supply meat to a whole population. They also only compare their approach to what is basically the strip mining approach to crop growth. They don't look at things like crop rotation, or plenty of other farming techniques that prevent your land from becoming an arid desert. The title is clickbait, and the actual content of the article is way off. If this had been an article about how they tried to treat their animals better than our current factory farming conditions, this article would have been a great look at a way to raise livestock that doesn't make me think I'm looking at some sort of dystopian Bond-Villain's greatest evil contraption. But instead they tried to make it about veganism vs. eating meat, and failed to provide any actually compelling reasoning.

<comment><USER3> There is no ecologically sound way of getting vegetable calories out of the Montana native grasslands. The best way of feeding people using that land would be raising Bison; cattle are an acceptable second choice.

But your basic point still stands. The Montana native grasslands can only support a few cattle per square mile, so it definitely does not work at scale.

<comment><USER4> There's an interesting UN report from a while back, _Livestock 's Long Shadow_ [1], that observes that, nowadays, it's not necessarily even ecologically sound to use the grasslands in the first place. A big feature of their findings are that large-scale grazing tends to prevent forests from forming in wetter climates, and contributes to desertification in more arid ones. Both of those consequences have _huge_ implications if you're worried about climate change.

One of the key goals they set out, aside from getting people to rely less on livestock agriculture in the first place, is to try and convert more of it to CAFOs. Yeah, factory farms are ugly, but they found that it's much more efficient from a land and energy use perspective. As have other disinterested parties. The loudest voices saying otherwise seem to be ones that have a financial interest in selling more grass-fed beef.

A subtext here is that we live in a very different era than the one that the one invoked by more nostalgic approaches to agriculture. Once upon a time, people had no choice but to figure out how to feed themselves off the land they occupied, and nature put much firmer limits on how many people could occupy certain areas. Nowadays, not only is getting food shipped in a realistic option, sometimes it's even the more economical and sustainable one.

1: [http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM](http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM)

<comment><USER3> I agree that just idling those Montana ranches is probably best. Huge tracts of land just to raise a few cattle. But then what?

Back to Bison? Bison are much more effective at preventing forests from forming than cattle are. So "natural", but from an ecosystem protection and climate change perspective probably not the best choice. "What's best for the environment" is often a large set of conflicting goals...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> More humane and sustainable forms of animal agriculture would certainly be a step in the right direction from the horrors of the concentrated feeding operations that supply most of the world's meat supply right now. But those techniques were developed for a reason. There's no way to meet the current and rapidly growing demand for meat without completely setting aside the welfare of the animals and the environment. The idea that we can just return to the idyllic farms of hundreds of years ago and still feed steak to billions of people every day is a pipe dream.

The real solution is to reduce the global population but in the meantime switching to a vegan diet will dramatically lower your carbon footprint and help reduce the horrific suffering we inflict on animals every day because we like the way they taste. You might think you understand what it takes to put that bacon on your plate but chances are you have no idea:

[http://watch.dominionmovement.com](http://watch.dominionmovement.com)

There's also a growing body of evidence that a well-planned vegan diet is not only perfectly healthy but healthier than diets rich in animal fats & proteins.

<comment><USER6> One thing to note is that being vegan is very difficult and most people aren't going to be vegan. One thing everyone can do is to cut their meat intake. People have meat for almost every meal and it's pretty simple to cut back and you still get some health and environmental benefits.

<comment><USER7> > People have meat for almost every meal

I'm gonna call BS on this unless you provide a citation.

Many people (in the west) eat a breakfast (cereal, pancakes, waffles, bagel, toast) or lunch (PB&J sandwich, salad) that contains no meat every day or every workday. Then you have to account for all the meals where there is no meat (pizza, mac and cheese). You'd need to have a substantial fraction of the population eating meat (almost) literally every meal in order to make up for the people who habitually don't eat meat at particular meals.

Edit: I'm talking about meat for the purpose of environmental impact and sustainability here. I'm not talking about meat from the perspective of strict veganism or the milk in your coffee or the eggs in your baked goods, those have negligible impact compared to raising animals to slaughter for food.

<comment><USER8> bacon with your waffles? hot dog for lunch? meat lovers pizza for dinner?

<comment><USER7> Most people don't eat a breakfast with multiple things most days, just a quick meal before work (or they shove a bagel in their face while driving). Most people eat food that requires basically no prep work for lunch most days. Eating out (with the exception of coffee and donuts in certain industries) is not a regular occurrence for most people because it's not justifiable at their income level.

I'm not denying that one can have meat at every meal if they so desire. I'm saying that as a matter of convenience many do not.

<comment><USER8> The McDonalds drive through doesn't require any prep work and is super cheap. I see tons of people load up on Egg McMuffins with sausage at 6-7am on their way to work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> They make 75 tonnes of meat per year on 3500 acre.

Unless I am missing something, this is really not helping the world. This would amount to something like 0.05 million calories/acre/year.

If I compare that to others ([http://www.waldeneffect.org/blog/Calories_per_acre_for_vario...](http://www.waldeneffect.org/blog/Calories_per_acre_for_various_foods/)) this doesn't seem like a realistic way to feed the global population.

<comment> J-dawg George Monbiot's comment on the article [0] basically makes the same point.

If all meat farming was done this way, optimised for environmental impact and animal welfare, there simply wouldn't be space for it. We'd all have no choice but to eat a lot less meat.

The resulting diet would be something a lot closer to veganism / vegetarianism than most people's idea of a "normal" meat-eating diet.

We are only able to eat the quantities of meat that are currently considered normal by treating animals like shit and harming the environment in the process.

[0] [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/25/vegani...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/25/veganism- intensively-farmed-meat-dairy-soya-maize#comment-119748600)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> A point that seems to be lost on most people who advocate for a plant based diet is that not all plants have the same environmental impact. Among plants _as a class_ , there is a 60x range in the amount of calories provided per unit of resources required. So it matters a lot _which plants_ you replace meat consumption with.

Generally speaking, beans, grains, and plant oils provide a lot of calories per input, whereas leafy greens and berries provide less calories per input than meat. So, if you replace your meat consumption with a bunch of kale salads and berry smoothies, your diet probably has a similar environmental impact to a diet that includes meat. But if you replace your meat consumption with beans, rice, olive oil, etc. then you're probably reducing the environmental impact of your diet.

I wrote a blog post about this:

[http://www.richardjones.org/why-kale-is-actually-terrible- fo...](http://www.richardjones.org/why-kale-is-actually-terrible-for-the- environment/)

<comment><USER11> I can assure you that no vegan replaces meat with kale salads and berry smoothies.

<comment><USER10> Does their grocery bill change as a result of not eating meat, though? If not, then there's probably no difference in environmental impact.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It's worth reading the "Guardian Pick" comment from George Monbiot, another Guardian journalist, for an interesting response/analysis of the articles proposals:

[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/25/vegani...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/25/veganism- intensively-farmed-meat-dairy-soya-maize#comment-119748600)

</comment><comment><USER13> Not much that I can add to this conversation, but let me share a pet peeve: the phrase "save the world," which is used indiscriminately in so many contexts that's its devoid of meaning.

Save the world for whom? The tacit answer seems to be: for humans. Most vegans, including me, are vegan because we find the exploitation of animals morally unjustifiable. Our world includes the nonhuman world. And by being vegan we are saving it.

<comment><USER14> It seems that vegans have no problem shifting their consumption of food to a part of the biota that they feel doesn't have the capacity to understand what is happening to them or to feel or respond to the pain of the process of being harvested for our food.

I often wonder how the plant feels when the sharp cow hoof shears a leaf or stalk as it grazes. Does it mourn the loss of the immature seed heads that fall to the ground to be consumed by the waiting insect hordes or buried forever in the soil to be consumed by the soil microbes? A generation lost to a random grazer who was totally unappreciative of the effort that the plant expended sucking nutrients from soil and carefully metering out available water all the while competing with each of its anchored neighbors for vital sunlight.

As the horse grazes the pasture do the bunches of grass shout pain filled warnings to their neighbors as they are forcefully yanked from the ground by their roots and consumed whole to be digested and deposited some time later as a turd that will feed their fellow grasses? Oh the indignity of losing your closest kin to a ruminant who deposits their crushed, altered remains on your shimmering blades so that they can feed you and your surviving kinsmen. By their deaths do you so prosper.

Does the plant yearn for mobility so that it could exact some revenge upon the aggressors? Is kudzu the plant kingdom equivalent of a super-hero – taking land that humans value for farming and agriculture out of production? Do insects pass on to their plant hosts the bold tales of the lands currently under conquest by invasive plant species? Is there something in the vibrational frequencies of the bee and insect wings that conveys information to the plants about how the plants in the next field are faring? Are they suffering from lack of water on that sunny slope? Are you lucky to be growing here on the shady side of the ridge because your cousins on the other side are spindly and dry? Is the farmer currently murdering your fibrous friends with their machines that foul the air and compress the soil so that extra work is necessary before life-giving roots can once again permeate its matrix?

Does the elm or the hackberry tree feel indebted to the birds who eat their seeds and shit them out along my fence lines so that I have new bird-shit elms and hackberries to clear each year, like magic?

Were the oaks disappointed to see the jays stealing their acorns to be deposited miles away from the mother tree thus reforesting the plains on retreat of the glaciers after the last ice age or did they somehow communicate to the birds that it would be appreciated?

I think the answer to the old question about whether a tree falling in a forest makes a sound if there are no ears to hear it has to be a resounding yes. It is the chemical scream of an injured plant crying out for another opportunity at life as it crashes to the forest floor. As humans, we don't have ears to hear these screams and have only recently documented their existence [0]. Much remains to be studied.

[0] [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/13/science/plant- defenses.ht...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/13/science/plant- defenses.html)

<comment><USER13> Believe me, I know the plant cognition literature quite well ([0],[1] or [2],[3] for the technical literature) which is why I would consume lab grown meat over free growing plants if it ever came to a head.

However, your mock poetry about plants yearning for freedom is close to being an ad-hominem attack. Are you saying you don't eat plants because you feel their pain? My guess is probably not. Instead, you are trying to deflect attention away from the suffering of those whom we know _do_ feel pain.

[0]: [https://www.amazon.com/What-Plant-Knows-Field- Senses/dp/0374...](https://www.amazon.com/What-Plant-Knows-Field- Senses/dp/0374533881) [1]: [https://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Life-Trees- Communicate_Discove...](https://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Life-Trees- Communicate_Discoveries-Secret) [2]: [https://www.amazon.com/Plant-Sensing- Communication-Interspec...](https://www.amazon.com/Plant-Sensing- Communication-Interspecific-Interactions) [3]: [https://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319755953](https://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319755953)

<comment><USER14> >Are you saying you don't eat plants because you feel their pain? My guess is probably not.

You are correct. I am, like we all have evolved to be, omnivorous. I supped on delicious pig parts with potatoes and brussels sprouts last night. The seasonings I used included crushed plant seeds, pressed seed oils, and real butter from someone's cow.

Vegans, like those people who choose to eat meat-heavy diets are making a conscious choice to ignore a specific option from all the available food sources.

Your body has evolved to be able to handle all of it, some of it may be better for your health over the long run but that doesn't mean that you can't eat it. It means that you have chosen not to eat it for philosophical reasons.

I'm not in your head so I don't know why you have chosen to be vegan except that you say that you don't want to cause pain to that part of the biota that we understand has the capacity to experience pain. It appears to be an ethical question for you. Stick to your guns. Live your life.

I wrote the "mock poetry" as you describe it in a tongue-in-cheek way in order to have the reader see life from a different perspective, that of the plants that you would potentially be consuming. I have also followed the literature about plant growth, etc. for many years. I don't have a green thumb so I usually end up feeling sorry for the plants who unwittingly fall into my cart when I'm on my annual garden upgrade adventures. I do what I can to make their growing environment more growth friendly, ultimately so that I can eat the fruits of my, and their, labors.

After catching the NYT article that I linked I was grazing HN posts and found this one and at that point I knew that I had found the perfect article to challenge a vegan's belief system about the ethics of eating something that knew that it was being injured in the process and perhaps felt pain and sent itself into damage control as a result of the attack on its life.

I only needed to find a vegan poster who would make the argument that eating plants is more ethical than eating animals because animals feel it when we hurt them. You came along and my heart skipped with joy, or maybe I have an undiagnosed arrhythmia. I quickly began to type out in my word processor all the things you see gathered in that "mock poetry" part of my posted reply. My mind was flooded with bullshit so I flushed it into that post.

Poetry, like art, is subject to individual interpretation.

I intended to cause the reader, and you, to consider that plants may also be disinclined to accept our established usage of them as a food source. Perhaps they are in fact just resigned to their fates and immediately launch into damage control as soon as a credible threat appears.

If you took my post personally then maybe the lack of collagen in your diet has thinned your skin a bit too much. You should consider adding supplements to your diet to correct that deficiency. Of course the best sources of collagen are animal products. The choice is yours.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I think the main thing veganism and vegetarianism have done in recent years is win over minds. As opposed to the clichéd vegan that will mention that fact whenever they can, the number of quiet vegetarians and vegans around me has skyrocketed in recent years. Even though they hardly ever discuss it, the fact that more and more people around me, even though still a minority, refuse meat and/or dairy products for themselves has really denormalised the role of meat in our society.

And that, in turn, makes even meat eaters more likely to consider voting for a political party that will restrict industrial farming practices, or to consider eating meat from farms like the authors'. And in that sense, it might still be the answer, regardless of the effectiveness of the veganism/vegetarianism itself.

<comment><USER16> I recently started reducing my meat consumption, and I was surprised by how many people are doing the same without making a big deal out of it. _That_ is the sort of change that sticks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> they begin the article by saying pasture raised, organic meat is better for the environment than single-crop, fertilizer grown crops, through a reduction in emissions and and increase in biodiversity and health of the soil. It does not compare it to the obvious alternative of more sustainably grown crops, using crop rotation, cleaner sources of energy for farm equipment, etcetera.

<comment><USER18> It's a common argument I've heard against vegan/vegetarian diets to compare the best possible scenario of meat production, no matter how uncommon, to the average case of plant production.

I see it as equivalent to trying to discredit the value of college by pointing out Bill Gates.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Keep in mind that the majority of soy and corn a fed to animals. In this context the argument that "soy farms deplete the soils and destroy forrests" becomes a lot weaker...

Yes, roaming, free living animals are good for the planet, but you don't have to eat them to have them roaming around.

</comment><comment><USER4> > Intensively farmed meat and dairy are a blight, but so are fields of soya > and maize.

. . . more of which are being used to feed livestock than to feed humans.

This article reads more like an apology and a rationalization than a balanced review of the whole situation.

<comment><USER20> Yes stopped reading there as everyone going vegan would actually plummet the demand for industrial crops because eating them directly is order of magnitude more efficient than eating them through inefficient proxy like meat. Any time one eats 1000 kcal worth of meat they are effectively eating 10000 kcal worth of soy/maize.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> If one where to simply list behavior and action from having a positive effect on the environment, neutral, or negative, it would not be that hard to see that general farming is on the negative side. It can be promoted as a better alternative to even worse things but to even cross the line into neutral one has to go elsewhere than just cutting out meat of ones diet.

A common thread in environment positive food is that it moves the environment towards a better balance and away from mono-organisms. Open fields with pasture raised livestock has this effect when used proportionally in countries where single-crop and forest has started to reduce the bio diversity, such as in Sweden. Fishing in overpopulated lakes helps so that less common species don't get out competed or eaten. Honey from bees has positive side effects that sugar canes do not. A bit less studied but possible areas is also seaweed or mussel farms since those filter water and can reduce eutrophication (through the health aspects makes this a difficult balance).

Veganism isn't the answer simply because that diet alone does not have a net positive effect on the environment, and the reduction compared to even worse diets isn't impactful enough. We have to start actually looking for actions that have a positive effect, rather than simply going from bad to slightly bad diet.

</comment><comment><USER22> Of course not. It's not The Answer. There is no single magic bullet.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

The current problem is the end to end status quo. What we eat. How we travel. Etc. That collective mindset needs to change; and since many of these habits are social (i.e., we assume the norm around us) we need to nudge the want for change forward. It's like a row of dominoes.

Diet might not be the final answer. But it certain helps us to move in the direction of being able to tackle the really hard stuff. We can't just sit and watch. The collective fear that will create is frightening.

Edit: For typos.

</comment><comment><USER23> There are some negative comments about the amount this farm produces but at 3500 acres and 75 tonnes of meat, I very much doubt they are attempting to maximise their output as a farm, especially considering the other camping and nature activities they host.

It is also an estate which will have other land uses so I would be more interested in seeing what would be reasonable to expect of the same amount of land used exclusively for farming cattle in this way because I think this could be a lot higher.

Then we can argue about whether this is scalable ;-)

</comment><comment><USER24> "unless you're sourcing your vegan products specifically from organic, "no- dig""

Then veganism could be the answer?

</comment><comment><USER25> For those omnivores amoung us who want ethical meat, I feel obliged to suggest my favorite highly sustainable farm:

[https://cornerpostmeats.com/](https://cornerpostmeats.com/)

</comment><comment><USER26> Isn't most of soya and corn produced used for feeding cattle to produce meat anyway? Is there some comparison on amount of soya needed if everyone on earth goes vegan vs soya consumed by meat industry?

<comment><USER27> Yes but this article is about grazing livestock, not soya/corn fed livestock.

<comment><USER26> Then why compare to veganism? The issue then is about sustainable production.

<comment><USER27> Not sure if you've read the article. The point he's making is that sustainable farming doesn't share all of the downsides of veganism, soil degradation for instance.

<comment><USER26> Sustainable Veganism is better than sustainable meat?

<comment><USER27> Not sure what the question is here. But the article points to veganism on it's own not inherently being the best option. That there are definitely ways to be sustainably vegan, but veganism alone doesn't guarantee sustainability.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> probably not a popular opinion but I think the best way to reduce your carbon foot print is not to have children

<comment><USER29> True, but taking your argument to it's logical extreme suicide would work even better.

<comment><USER30> No, it's successfully and continuously convincing others to suicide by any means necessary.

And it's not the logical extension by the way. Not creating is not the same as destroying.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> In lots of parts of the world, livestock farming is feasible in ways that arable farming isn't: sloping, rocky terrain and so on. It's not going to go away entirely.

"Artificial" livestock rearing where the animals are treated as boxes into which feed can be put that emits meat does achieve a higher capital intensity, but it's reliant on cheap imported feed.

This is the kind of thing that is very hard to solve by individual market action.

</comment><comment><USER32> This article could be written by a small scale vegetable farm as well. I could write something similar about the herb box on my window sill. Look how great my herb box is. I don't even use pesticides.

But the question is how to reverse out of high impact industrial meat farming. That a tiny farm is having some success doesn't move the needle. Veganism and buying from small farms works today on an individual basis, but how could you roll them out to an entire population. It's also why demonizing veganism in the title is cheap clickbait.

The choices people make every day in the supermarket aren't veganism vs buying from this person's tiny farm. Seems tacky to compare the fringe groups while ignoring the elephant in the room. Especially when wresting the status quo would entail monumental cultural level transformation in any direction.

</comment><comment><USER33> The focus on veganism as an answer to environmental problems is absurd. Yes, beef is a huge problem, and it's not particularly healthy for you anyway. But cutting out eggs, chicken, honey, or dairy isn't going to make anywhere near the same amount of impact, and replacing calories with some plant products (like corn, soy, almonds, lettuce, or avocados) may even be worse for it.

Veganism is not any sort of reasonable answer to any environmental problems. Our environmental problems are a pricing problem...that goes for oil, suburban sprawl, overfarming, overfishing, excessive water usage, etc. Nobody is paying for their externalities, and no amount of voluntary diet restrictions for a race of omnivores will offset that. For example, once you cut out beef, the next best thing you can do for the environment is not to cut out pork or dairy, but to stop driving in a single occupancy vehicle. Proper pricing gives you that information, fundamentalist ideologies do not.</comment>


The OpenSSD Project: Open-Source Solid State Drive for Research and Education - <AUTHOR> http://www.openssd.io/ <comment><USER2> Previously:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12260146](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12260146)

Doesn't look like anything has changed significantly since then. (Well, I suppose the project got a new domain, and Indilinx Barefoot hardware platform they're using has gone from "obsolete" to "thoroughly obsolete".)

</comment><comment><USER3> Hugged to death. Wayback link:

[https://web.archive.org/web/20200422195643/http://www.openss...](https://web.archive.org/web/20200422195643/http://www.openssd.io/)</comment>