A Short Rebuttal to Searle (1984) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://ai.stanford.edu/~nilsson/OnlinePubs-Nils/General%20Essays/OtherEssays-Nils/searle.pdf <comment><USER2> Almost 20 years before Searle, a short fictional story by A.Dneprov, "The game", was published in the Soviet pop-science magazine "Knowledge is Power". Not only had it described the essence of the Chinese room setup, it also came to the same conclusion:

 _> If you, being structural elements of some logical pattern, had no idea of what you were doing, then can we really argue about the 'thoughts' of electronic devices made of different parts which are deemed incapable of any thinking even by the most fervent followers of the electronic-brain concept? You know all these parts: radio tubes, semiconductors, magnetic matrixes, etc. I think our game gave us the right answer to the question 'Can machines think?' We've proven that even the most perfect simulation of machine thinking is not the thinking process itself, which is a higher form of motion of living matter._ [1]

[1] A Russian Chinese Room story antedating Searle's 1980 discussion [http://www.hardproblem.ru/en/posts/Events/a-russian- chinese-...](http://www.hardproblem.ru/en/posts/Events/a-russian-chinese-room- story-antedating-searle-s-1980-discussion/)

</comment><comment><USER3> The last sentence seems to sum up nicely my viewpoint on Searle's Chinese Room:

> For all I know, Searle may only be behaving as if he were thinking deeply > about these matters. But, even though I disagree with him, his simulation is > pretty good, so I'm willing to credit him with real thought.

</comment><comment><USER4> I've often thought Searle's Chinese box argument was vapid, and have been unsure why so many seem to hold it in high regard. This article was helpful in this regard; Searle seems to think that he can presume that are a set of rules that allow for translation; without knowing those rules (i.e., the "program"), the argument becomes uninteresting.

<comment><USER5> > vapid

I'm not sure that is the right word, at least for me.

I teach, and every once in a while a person asks a question that I just do not understand. It is a bad feeling; I am left standing in front of everyone saying "Could you repeat it in other words? Could you give another example?"

I have that same feeling on reading Searle's paper, and on hearing him talk about it on In Our Time. He says a number of things that I agree with. Then he says, "Therefore obviously computers cannot understand Chinese." I'm left slackjawed, wondering whether some kind of type error happened or am I just too dumb? (Entirely possible, no doubt.)

I don't have the `vapid' sense that I understand the argument and it is incorrect, rather I'm left with a sense of "What just happened?"

<comment><USER6> He stressed on many occasions that computers can understand Chinese, but not the typical digital ones, programmed as simple symbolic manipulators.

<comment><USER7> Sounds like nonsense. There's no meaningful difference between digital computers and other kinds of physically realisable computers.

<comment><USER6> Well, the burden of proof is on you. The Turing-Church thesis is not a theorem, it is just a conjecture. It might be true, might be not true. Now, if you define a physical computer as a Turing machine and nothing else than yeah, we, humans might as well be not computers at all.

But that was not my point. Digital computers could be, in principle, conscious, but the idea that you can construct a mind by making a symbolic program is flawed. Human brain could be, in fact, a digital computer, but the mind in it is not a result of some vulgar symbolic computation, but a result of some mysterious computational process, that very possibly has nothing to do with manipulations with some abstract symbols.

<comment><USER7> > Now, if you define a physical computer as a Turing machine and nothing else > than yeah, we, humans might as well be not computers at all

We're not even Turing machines. The Bekenstein Bound establishes humans as finite state automata.

> Human brain could be, in fact, a digital computer, but the mind in it is not > a result of some vulgar symbolic computation, but a result of some > mysterious computational process, that very possibly has nothing to do with > manipulations with some abstract symbols.

So a magical computer? What purpose in a brains computation does the magic serve exactly?

<comment><USER6> The very definition of a "symbol" presupposes that there is some entity, which assigns meaning to that symbol. Well, unless you assume that the Nature itself conscious, it does not operate in the terms of symbols and symbolic computations. You can possibly claim that the elementary particles are the symbols of the Nature, and all the physical processes are computations involving such symbols but that would be a degenerate case, which won't help your argument. Mind is a natural phenomenon, which arises as a result of a certain physical process, in matter organized in a certain way. That is all. Until we learn why it happens in that type of matter, we would not be able to recreate minds.

<comment><USER7> > The very definition of a "symbol" presupposes that there is some entity, > which assigns meaning to that symbol

No, that's not what's meant at all. Searle is making a distinction between syntax and semantics, where computers process only syntax (symbols are meaningless tokens), but humans can reason semantically, where propositions carry meaning. Both perform symbol processing, so "symbolic computation" is not a useful distinction here.

Further, Searle is asserting that semantics cannot arise from syntax. But this is clearly false, as various methods of computational induction demonstrate: given only syntactic analysis of output bits, you can build a semantic model to predict subsequent bits.

So what gives the symbols of the semantic model meaning? The correspondence of each symbol to real, observable objects.

> Until we learn why it happens in that type of matter, we would not be able > to recreate minds.

You're assuming that consciousness requires some special property of matter. There's no justification for this assumption.

Furthermore, you are arguing that we cannot create something that we do not fully understand. This too seems false. We created fire long before we understood it, for instance.

<comment><USER6> > Both perform symbol processing

Not sure about that.

> So what gives the symbols of the semantic model meaning? The correspondence > of each symbol to real, observable objects.

And what decides what symbol corresponds to what real object?

> You're assuming that consciousness requires some special property of matter. > There's no justification for this assumption.

Really? I thought that is something we have agreed upon. You are claiming that any system structured as a digital computer (hence, has a special property) is conscious, I am saying that it is not enough, it has to be structured some special way.

> We created fire long before we understood it, for instance.

This is a laughable argument. "We reproduce (as living beings do). therefore we create minds".

<comment><USER7> > You are claiming that any system structured as a digital computer (hence, > has a special property) is conscious

Nowhere did I make that claim. You're clearly confused about the arguments being made so I suggest your reread this thread.

> And what decides what symbol corresponds to what real object?

An inductive inference algorithm, like I said.

> This is a laughable argument. "We reproduce (as living beings do). therefore > we create minds".

Exactly right. Therefore your claim that we must understand something before we can make it is trivially incorrect.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Old and not a particularly interesting rebuttal. Searle later stressed how the Chinese room argument demonstrates how programs, in and of themselves, cannot generate consciousness. This important aspect is not addressed in the rebuttal.

For an updated overview of the argument and replies, see: [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese- room/](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/)

<comment><USER9> Searle claims that the argument demonstrates this, but his response to the 'systems reply' shows that he does not appear to understand the challenge that it presents to the argument:

 _" My response to the systems theory is quite simple: let the individual internalize all of these elements of the system. He memorizes the rules in the ledger and the data banks of Chinese symbols, and he does all the calculations in his head. The individual then incorporates the entire system. There isn't anything at all to the system that he does not encompass. We can even get rid of the room and suppose he works outdoors. All the same, he understands nothing of the Chinese, and a fortiori neither does the system, because there isn't anything in the system that isn't in him. If he doesn't understand, then there is no way the system could understand because the system is just a part of him."_

Searle does not seem to understand that the systems reply is not dependent on where or how the components of the system are implemented. He apparently cannot conceive that, while the subject's conscious mind is solely occupied with mechanically performing the operations of the algorithm, the system that her conscious mind is part of actually understands something, and that this would be so even if the system were implemented entirely within the physical body of the subject. It is an outlandish concept, but the premise of the experiment is itself outlandish, and a philosopher should not expect ordinary intuitions to be a reliable guide to what would happen in such cases.

<comment><USER10> There are two types of expanded responses to the Systems Theory: the first is a line of argument extending into modal logic and the second is a line of argument that blurs the lines between the Chinese Room Argument and other arguments that purport to show computation as insufficient for 'mind'. Of course - as often happens over decades of discourse in analytical philosophy - the boundary between even these two lines of argument that I just classified is rather fuzzy (shoutout to Zadeh).

The SEP entry mentions Schaeffer (2009) and Nute (2011) for the line of disagreement extending into a discussion of modality.

Regarding the second line of argument, the entry mentions Harnad (2012) and says that he appears to follow Searle in, "linking understanding and states of consciousness" as well as arguing "that the core problem of conscious "feeling" requires sensory connections to the real world."

The primary issue in all of this is whether certain non-biological systems (i.e. a computer) are sufficient for the understanding generated by certain biological systems (i.e. humans). This has not much of anything to do with physicalism or dualism, no matter what certain responses by non-experts (Penrose, Kurzweil, etc.) would have some believe. The fact that Cole even mentions Kurzweil is, arguably, a disservice to those outside the relevant domain.

The take-away is this: in analytical philosophy, many famous thought experiments are important not for their intended conclusions, but for the expanded dialectic they generate, and which lasts for decades (if not longer). The expanded dialectic brings additional clarity and raises important questions that had either gone unnoticed or were impossible to see before the thought experiment.

<comment><USER9> Decades of arguments attempting to short-circuit the scientific process, by claiming to show that minds cannot possibly work this way or that way, do not seem to have contributed much, if anything, to our understanding of how they do work. It all seems very self-referential, in that there is a lot of arguing about arguments.

<comment><USER10> I think the suggestion that lengthy arguments in the philosophy of mind are attempting to short-circuit scientific progress is a bit uncharitable.

There is a small minority of individuals on both sides that seem to want to slow scientific progress (whether intentionally or not). Now, the vast majority of the time it is presumed people like Searle fit this description. People like Dennett fit this description as well, though. Anyone _truly_ making definitive claims about having resolved the question of (say) conciousness, is not taking the right tack from a scientific perspective.

<comment><USER9> I did not intend to suggest that there is anything wrong with attempting to cut the Gordian knot with an insightful analysis, it is just that, in these cases, it does not seem to have led to anything useful. And Dennett's book 'Consciousness Explained' is certainly presumptuously titled, though he is at least looking for explanations, when he is not confronting those who claim it can't be done. Meanwhile, the state of technology has advanced to the point where we can at least imagine Searle, in his room, competing successfully in a Chinese-language game of Jeopardy.

No-one ever disproved vitalism, but its implicit threat to the progress of biology simply dropped by the wayside.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The chinese room thought experiment is more like Searle's attempt to get you on board with his intuitions about the philosophy of mind - but taken on its own as an argument it's pretty unsound.

His real argument exists in a bunch of stuff he wrote about intentionality (the real argument probably still fails - but it's more nuanced than the Chinese room stuff everyone talks about).

If you want a really good paper about the problems around machines and minds check out "Troubles with Functionalism" by Ned Block

<comment><USER12> Thought experiment is the right term for it. It applies equally to a brain if you think that the chemical and electrical processes in the brain are identical to understanding. Searle believes that consciousness is a fundamental fact.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> > While I agree that AI research has a long way to go (perhaps several > decades) before it might produce responsible machines

...written in 1984. I do not believe we've made any progress in terms of creating "responsible machines."

My general feeling about the Chinese Room argument is that it discusses the "psychological phenomenon of understanding." We don't really know what that phenomenon _is_ , it's a feeling or sensation from our perspective (or at least from mine) and so I'm uncomfortable ascribing much importance to it. Until we understand how our minds actually work, the "Turing test approach" makes sense to me: if we can't tell the difference, then it's "responsible."

</comment><comment><USER14> > Whatever the key to self-reflection turns out to be, it clearly will involve > the processing of internal symbolic representations.

Clearly?

<comment><USER15> Depends on your definition of "symbolic".

If you mean symbolic in the sense that computers use symbols, then no, it won't involve that. Humans are self-reflective (at least some of the time), and they don't think that way (with the possible exception of mathematicians).

But words can also be considered symbols, and when we think, we usually think in terms of words. "I" is a symbol, and it's hard to self-reflect without using it.

<comment><USER16> I think in this context he's talking about a very specific meaning of _symbolic_ , vs _connectionist_ the two main classes of models of thought. Symbolic is something where you can make out the structure of what's going on (a requirement for analysis or "introspection"; hence clearly). The alternative is bottom up modelling eg with neural networks where only the outcome is known and the internal processes can't really be analysed.

<comment><USER17> My frank thought on this is the AI researchers that placed their bets on symbolic logic were placing their bets on the idea that symbolic logic is at a higher level than connectionist logic.

If you're not emotionally invested that argument is laughable. It's total basis is that human suck at math.

<comment><USER18> The original artificial neuron, the Pitts-McCulloch neuron, was a propositional logic circuit, conceived entirely on the basis of a model of biological neurons as logic gates, with a threshold function that controlled their true or false value. It was even called the Threshold _Logic_ Unit. The paper where it was first described is titled "A _Logical_ Calculus of the Ideas Immanent in Nervous Activity". In fact, the perceptron too was a logic circuit, a function with two outputs, "positive" and "negative ... or "true" and "false".

AI researchers always used the tools that all scientists use to model their subject, in this case, intelligence: maths. Logic is maths, just as probabilities, calculus, algebra, etc etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> After reading "I Am A Strange Loop" several years ago, I got on an ouroboros joke kick. I wrote one about John Searle. I'm posting it it here because so far, underneath this pdf is the only place it has ever seemed apropos.

What did the ouroboros say to John Searle?

"Let me out of here, you know I can't speak chinese!"</comment>


A peek inside a venture-capital pitch meeting - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/10/AR2010011002252.html

<comment><USER2> Pretty clueless article. I'd expect better forom the washington post, but on the other hand, what do they know about VCs? Don't read if you want to know what raising money from VCs looks like.

 _About eight partners who are lawyers, MBAs and financial types sit around a conference table while an entrepreneur "pitches" the business_

That's your problem right there. No former entrepreneurs as partners? Financial and MBA types only? Fail.

<comment><USER3> I don't know, it does sound like the firm has a decent track record.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> "Entrepreneurs can't build anything without money"

... w t f? That is insulting on so many levels.

</comment><comment><USER5> How about them being smart enough to recognize the good idea and find the talent as well? Am I naive? I understand that VCs are not the ones that need the money but also they want to make money.

"While some members of Grotech's team liked Wieler's idea, they said he didn't articulate his vision for the company very well."

If they liked it where is the problem then?

T.

<comment><USER6> I think the stuff about articulating his vision is a VC's polite way of saying that they don't like the founder. And typically, how they feel about the founder(s) is a lot more important than how they feel about the idea.</comment></comment>


CloudSight – Image Recognition API and Visual Search Results - <AUTHOR> http://cloudsightapi.com/api <comment><USER2> This image: [http://cdn.static- economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecac...](http://cdn.static- economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/full-width/images/print- edition/20151003_LDP003_0.jpg)

Got me this: [https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9098858/cloudsight.png](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9098858/cloudsight.png)

Concept looks interesting though ...

</comment><comment><USER3> I pasted this URL from Wikipedia [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/FloorGob...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/FloorGoban.JPG) and got

{"error":{"locale":["can't be blank"]},"url":"//d1spq65clhrg1f.cloudfront.net/uploads/tmp/1443856576-19861-9975/FloorGoban.JPG"}

</comment><comment><USER4> This is pretty good - probably better than the recent public release of Google's pre-trained Neural Network (based on the ImageNet classes).

It looks like this is using an attention-based model - it seems to generally pick out the most important thing in an image. That's pretty nice.

It would be interesting to know how many classes it is operating on (and where they got the training data!).

</comment><comment><USER5> CloudSight seems fixated on what people are wearing. I tried multiple pictures of Shakira and CloudSight only seems to care what she is wearing.

[https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3788882/SHAKIRA2.PNG](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3788882/SHAKIRA2.PNG)

</comment><comment><USER6> Interesting idea. However it misses the food in the plate: [https://www.dropbox.com/s/rj8tgj4f01d2ux1/Screenshot%202015-...](https://www.dropbox.com/s/rj8tgj4f01d2ux1/Screenshot%202015-10-03%2012.33.22.png?dl=0)</comment>


Show HN: Gush – run complex workflows with Sidekiq - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/pokonski/gush

<comment><USER2> I used to use a similar gem that was listed on sidekiq's wiki. I think it's called superworker.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, I've seen it. Looks pretty good, but I wasn't fond of the DSL it had. I wanted something simpler.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> tl;dr: a lib which lets you define complex graphs of dependencies easily and it will execute them in correct order.

All that with just Sidekiq :)</comment>


Jon Stewart Talks SOPA, at Last - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/socialmedia/2012/01/12/reddit-user-ventures-to-the-daily-show-gets-jon-stewart-to-talk-sopa-on-air/ <comment><USER2> It's good to note, before anyone jumps to any conspiracy theories about Viacom silencing Jon Stewart, that Stephen Colbert has talked about SOPA on multiple occasions (see [http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report- videos/40346...](http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report- videos/403465/december-01-2011/stop-online-piracy-act) and [http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report- videos/40346...](http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report- videos/403466/december-01-2011/stop-online-piracy-act---danny-goldberg--- jonathan-zittrain)). I don't know the editorial overlap between the two these days but they are certainly under the same corporate roof - Viacom.

<comment><USER3> I read somewhere that the writers rooms of Daily Show and Colbert rarely cross, at least day to day. I believe they deliberately keep them separate to keep them tonally unique, even though it sometimes results in both shows covering the same topic, and even occasionally making the same joke.

(Sorry for no source on that.)

<comment><USER4> I did some UX consulting for The Colbert Report that required me to research their entire writing and production workflow and my understanding is that the executive producers of the shows might check in with each other, but it's true that there's essentially no overlap, and there's no effort to coordinate topics.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If even Jon Stewart's team hadn't picked up on SOPA, that goes a long way to suggest why a Wikipedia/Twitter/Facebook/Google/etc blackout would be useful. If they're not up to date, how could we expect any non industry insiders to be?

A brief blackout is like tapping the media on the shoulder.

"We'll be all, like, SOPA what? ... uh ... I have some reading to catch up on."

Nobody thinks about dial tone until it's not there.

<comment><USER6> If you think Mr. Stewart is simply behind in his reading, I have a nice bridge for you.

He's in entertainment, he comments endlessly about policy. You think he somehow missed the #1 policy initiative of his employer?

He is very well paid, with a large budget that employs a lot of people. But I don't think his show breaks even on its revenues, it is a tent-pole for his channel. He's paid not for his own audience but the larger strategic benefit he brings to his employer. So think on what might happen if he starts to pose still larger strategic problems for that employer? And what happens to Mr. Stewart should he want to move on from his current perch? [EDIT: As suggested below, the 'strategic benefit' payment is speculation. Probably a mistake to go there, b/c I think my point still stands: if he hurts a major legislative initiative of his industry, his life gets a lot harder and riskier.]

And while he himself seems reasonably secure, he has a staff of writers and producers, many of whom would like to move on to bigger and better things. Who will be greenlighting those various ventures?

Remember, Hollywood blacklisted people for (alleged) Communism. Those people lost their whole careers. Imagine what might happen to those who challenge the studios' interests still more directly.

I'd say this is the perfect moment for Mr. Stewart's reputed bravery, independence and courage.

<comment><USER7> Can we get a source on TDS not making money? It's one of the most popular shows on Comedy Central, syndicated in many countries. If _it_ doesn't make money, it's hard to see how Comedy Central stays afloat.

<comment><USER6> No source, I seem to recall reading his salary is pretty high given his ratings, but I couldn't point to it.

I don't it's speculative to say networks will lose money on some product to build audience. Stuff like the NFL, Letterman?, that sort of thing.

Even if he's making them money directly, he's not untouchable if he gets blamed for hurting a major political priority.

They probably wouldn't be so clumsy as to just fire him -- but his next negotiation could get a lot harder, and he'd be a lot more exposed to "business decisions" should his ratings stumble. And his people could find it a lot hard to move on and up with other projects.

<comment><USER8> can I get a disclosure from you about anything that would impede your neutrality (either way) like employers, business partnerships etc on the subject of SOPA

that last part just sounds like a threat from the other side, you know?

<comment><USER6> Wow, hadn't thought of that.

Zero industry connection, nada. Formerly in finance (not covering media), now freelance and building my own business.

Anyone peronally worried about my post can find my email in profile -- send me a phone number, I'll call you.

EDIT: Wasn't me. Downvotes never make sense to me. Downvote me for _admitting_ I said something speculative? With all the crazy guesses posited as Gospel truth here?

<comment><USER8> thank you, didnt expect this to get mod-worthy. I was just curious. I wasn't "worried" or anything, the part about 'anyone who wanted to move up...' just seemed out of place to me, like you never hear that about other 'support' jobs. Basically I wanted to know if you were even more cynical than me or an insider -- I guess the former! thanks for the detailed response.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> We're in desperate need of a Ted Stevens moment, here.

There has been absolutely no art to show the absurdity of the pro-SOPA position. Without a visual, Stewart has very little to work with.

It's not hard – you've got dinosaurs born decades before the internet was conceived trying to make critical policy decisions around it. There's got to be something brief and absurd to be said there.

But until we get that soundbite, it's going to be a much more difficult story to pitch.

<comment><USER10> >> you've got dinosaurs born decades before the internet was conceived trying to make critical policy decisions around it.

But weren't the people who conceived the internet born decades before the internet was conceived?

As someone born before the internet was conceived, I find that comment particularly offensive.

Edit: Now get off my lawn!

<comment><USER11> I believe that jab was aimed at organizations with no ability to adapt, not at people.

<comment><USER12> But... corporations are people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> "The Internet" was basically Reddit and a guy who asked if he should ask Stewart about SOPA.

This is the follow up thread: [http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/od6qy/i_asked_jon_...](http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/od6qy/i_asked_jon_stewart_about_sopa_he_said_hed_look/)

Edit: Original thread - [http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ocely/i_have_vip_p...](http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ocely/i_have_vip_passes_to_the_daily_show_tonight_what/)

<comment><USER14> Sure, but "the Internet sent me" was a brilliantly concise way to give context to the question (and be funny, and memorable). These Q&A sessions are fast- moving and questions with long rambling introductions are not good ones. "There's a site on the internet called Reddit, which is an aggregator of links with a large community, and I posted there to see..." No.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Here is a link to the video for Canadians: [http://www.thecomedynetwork.ca/Shows/TheDailyShow?videoPacka...](http://www.thecomedynetwork.ca/Shows/TheDailyShow?videoPackage=101367)

</comment><comment><USER16> Is there a way us non-Americans to watch this?

<comment><USER17> Curiously, the clip plays for me in the Netherlands. But there was little on SOPA in it.

<comment><USER18> Yes, the title is a bit misleading. He only said he would talk about it in the next show.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Mmmmm... The funny to flack offset probably isn't worth it to Stewart and Colbert. They're not news shows and there's not much comedy to draw from the SOPA proceedings. Especially with Ameraca's favorite reality show cramming up the broadcast space.

<comment> mkr-hn Their interviews are the real deal. Getting a famous Internet person on to talk about SOPA wouldn't be an unusual thing for either of them.

<comment><USER20> "Famous Internet Person": I don't know. I would much more prefer some artist, director, politician and not another "internet activist".

<comment><USER21> Niel DeGrasse Tyson? I don't know his position on SOPA, but I'd imagine he's against it. John Hodgman? He's a writer for Wired, been on Diggnation, Attack of the Show, and TED, and works with Jonathon Coulton. He's got a ton of 'net- cred and is frequently on TDS.

<comment><USER20> I would much more prefer seeing one of the household names in the "old" media see speak out - some of the more expected opponents like Al Gore, Mc Hammer or Aston Kutcher would give the issue a better face and show that the opponents are not just some people from the internet who want to "to kill our beloved music and movie culture".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I don't want to play down the clip as it was humorous, but the actual sopa content was from :17 - :35. Out of a 6 minute clip, I was thinking that there would be more.

</comment><comment><USER23> "This content is unavailable from your location"

Oh, sweet irony...

</comment><comment><USER24> Stop posting comments where they will never see them, go and post this on their facebook pages, do it en masse and they will not be able to ignore it...

<comment><USER25> I am surprised this has not been done by anti-SOPA activists. This would be using the tools Internet has created to save it shows well it's reach. This I think is the easiest way an individual can get attention of the regular public, after he is done talking to his friends.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Not sure I understand the headline chosen for the HN submission. "at last"? Jon Stewart is a comedian, it's a disappointing reflection of news, media, and political informedness that we're desperate for Stewart to cover an important political issue.

<comment><USER27> I think that people are looking for someone to put a good, satirical spin on the whole pro-SOPA movement. The Daily Show is good at that. Most political writers not so much.

If The Daily Show can use humor to point out the absurdity of the pro-SOPA position it will definitely sink in with their viewership.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> It would surprising if Viacom allowed anyone in their empire, even a fake news program, to engage in commentary that is critical of SOPA/PIPA.

They're one of the largest proponents of this bullshit legislation: they couldn't win at the judicial level so they've shifted the attack to the legislative branch where they can buy the support.

<comment><USER29> The colbert report has done two segments on SOPA.

This one calls out the bogus FBI theft numbers. [http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report- videos/40346...](http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report- videos/403465/december-01-2011/stop-online-piracy-act)

This one has Danny Goldberg & Jonathan Zittrain giving their viewpoints on the legislation. [http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report- videos/40346...](http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report- videos/403466/december-01-2011/stop-online-piracy-act---danny-goldberg--- jonathan-zittrain)

<comment><USER28> Thank you; I stand corrected.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> It's telling that someone like Stewart (and Al Gore for that matter) waited this long to speak up (after SOPA is already dead). Scary.

<comment><USER31> How is SOPA dead? Am I missing anything?</comment></comment>


The Fallacy of Premature Optimization - <AUTHOR> http://ubiquity.acm.org/article.cfm?id=1513451 <comment><USER2> Maybe it's because I've been working with computers for so many years, but as I was reading this paper I was thinking of all the exceptions to the points that it was making.

I've seen too much time spent optimizing a product that was destined to never find a market, and too little time spent optimizing a product whose poor performance doomed its market entry. And, having spent literally months dedicated to optimizing code, I've also seen that some code could have been easily optimized "up front", while other code would have been impossible to optimize before it was applied to real-world use cases.

Maybe, for me, the real answer is experience. It takes experience to recognize that the market you are in, and the particular problem you are solving, and the approaches you are taking to solve the problem cannot be underestimated - they must be understood as much as possible because they ultimately determine the definition of "premature optimization".</comment>


Finding new physics will require a new particle collider - <AUTHOR> https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2020/01/02/finding-new-physics-will-require-a-new-particle-collider <comment><USER2> As a (non-practicing) physicist, I've always disliked the penchant of some in the HEP community to say what this article says. They (the HEP community) tends to equate physics with HEP physics.

It's not.

When this is pointed out to the people espousing this odd viewpoint, they usually respond with some passive aggressive comment. I've seen/experienced much of this during my time in research.

New physics not requiring an accelerator would include quantum computing; the real stuff of entangled qubits, and the pseudo-quantum stuff of adiabatically cooled circuits. More generally quantum mechanics interpretation and meaning. There are some unsettling things within QM, such as non-locality, and how to understand them.

There are many other examples, just listing 1 for brevity.

Basically, any text that begins with "the set of all physics is HEP physics" such as this article implies, is, pretty much by definition, incorrect.

I recall while the SSC was being built in Texas, that when the NSF asked for more money for researchers not involved in SSC, they were told that physics folks were getting enough. I remember my thesis advisor's grant that I was funded on, getting cut to help fund other things.

Equating the new physics with new HEP physics is, as Wolfgang Pauli once said, not even wrong. We don't need accelerators for most new physics.

<comment><USER3> So, what other types of physics is not well understood and requires funding to further research. We know F=ma, things in motion stay in motion, blah, and so on. We know a current flowing down a path will generate a magnetic field. We electrons moving to a lower energy path will release energy. We know light bends in a lens, and how to make that useful. Essentially, the funding for pure research and discovery is going to be more exciting than how to take a current understanding of physics into a way of making money. Plus, that kind of research should be undertaken by private investment.

<comment><USER4> Super conductors, semiconductors, cosmology, qm (including computing), and optics to name a few. There's still significant research to be done in all these fields, and more.

<comment><USER5> > semiconductors

even after decades of massive use ?

<comment><USER4> Oh yeah. In fact, that's exactly where there needs to be more research.

<comment><USER6> Get superconductivity working at say 0 deg C and you will be able to pick your accolade and price. Get it working at 100 deg C and you will have won the world.

<comment><USER7> I'll take 77 K any day of the week, especially if you can run a magnet with it at that temperature.

Note for the wider audience: 77 K is liquid nitrogen, vastly easier to produce and handle than liquid helium.

<comment><USER6> Quite right. The day when you can engage Heston Blumenthal to do your super conductivity experiment, is the day you have won!

(HB is an experimental chef who uses quite a lot of liquid N. Liquid He is probably not indicated for food prep)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> My personal opinion (and I might be biased since I'm not a collider guy) is that it's time to take a break from the energy frontier and put our efforts into other kinds of physics. There's a whole world out there besides "fixing" the standard model.

I'm having a hard time finding it, but there's a quote from a famous physicist along the lines of "we already have a theory of everything we encounter in daily life, it's just that we can't apply it to practically anything". For instance, we still have no idea how unconventional superconductors work. Of course, they're completely described by plain old quantum mechanics without even using field theory. However, that still doesn't mean we understand them because the theory is too complex.

I'm personally interested in the rising complexity frontier of physics where increased computing power and new methods of approaching problems will help uncover emergent phenomena. Plus, there's other accelerators besides colliders that are essential to this field (x-ray light sources for instance).

We should come back to the energy problem experimentally when we can affordably make a revolutionary accelerator (like x100, not a factor of 2 or 3). That will come when we have mastered advanced acceleration techniques like plasma and wakefield.

<comment><USER9> The field of x-ray light sources seems to be pretty well developed, lightsource.org lists 30 of them world wide, so adding one more doesn't look like it's going to critically impact anything except maybe the local community getting the extra jobs.

There was at one point truly a fight about the relative importance of the various fields, but the condensed matter people won that. Just look at lightsources.org again, that's _30_ facilities worldwide, with 24000 users in _Europe alone_ over the last five years. CERN has basically 1 facility for HEP, with maybe 9000 users _worldwide_.

At this point these call for shutting down particle physics for a few generations while the technology magically develops feel more like jealousy that protein structure isn't as sexy for the public as the search for beyond the standard model physics.

<comment><USER8> > The field of x-ray light sources seems to be pretty well developed, > lightsource.org lists 30 of them world wide, so adding one more doesn't look > like it's going to critically impact anything except maybe the local > community getting the extra jobs.

And that's based on what? The number of lightsources in the world? There's dozens of research groups studying quantum computing. I guess they should just pack up and move on to less developed fields.

In reality, there are huge open problems with synchrotron light sources that people are spending their careers on (and I don't think they're jealous of HEP). What I'm more interested in, however, are university scale sources of xrays and matter for atomic scale physics. Even though there are a few dozen facilities around the world, all of them are oversubscribed. Many times if you apply for time on a synchrotron you'll be denied because there just isn't space for you. Even companies that pay for time (and yes these machines don't just impact local job counts) don't always get a slot. It would be transformative to take some of these techniques (and more advanced ones) to a wider audience.

<comment><USER9> That's based on you calling for HEP to be defunded in favour of X-ray sources, pretty heavily implying that CERN somehow blocks the x-ray field.

I'm just pointing out they it seems to be doing pretty well for itself, three dozen international facilities with commercial customers doesn't sound like particularly lean times.

If mere over-subscription is to be given such weight, then I call for x-ray sources to be fully commercialized and the public money going to build medium energy gamma ray satellites! We ain't got even _one_ of those flying at the moment so we basically don't know what happens in the sky at those energies. Hows that for reasonable?

In reality the HEP people mostly actively chose that field in competition with atomic and molecular physics et al, and if you kill HEP for generation most of the new students will keep choosing something else.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> A counter point by Sabine Hossenfelder: [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/23/opinion/particle- physics-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/23/opinion/particle-physics- large-hadron-collider.html)

<comment><USER11> > I still believe that slamming particles into one another is the most > promising route to understanding what matter is made of and how it holds > together. But $10 billion is a hefty price tag. And I'm not sure it's worth > it.

When is it worth it? They tested many theories, and many of them were proven wrong, and some were proven right. What price can you attach to having this knowledge? Is there a maximum price tag for potentially knowing more about the universe?

<comment><USER12> > Is there a maximum price tag for potentially knowing more about the > universe?

Yes. On the extreme end, there's a finite amount of useful work that can be done before the heat death of the universe. An energy budget the size of the combined output of all power stations on the planet is much smaller than that, but also too much. At a more realistic scale, human knowledge is only valuable in so far as it improves the human condition in some way, now or in the future. Other research areas could be more important to progress right now and we only have so many scientists available to do the work. Allocating those scientists to research areas is an incredibly hard task, but it's a necessary one.

Even if we accept that pure physics knowledge is a worthy goal in itself, diving straight into another megaproject isn't necessarily the best way forward. Maybe it's more valuable right now to find uses for the great theoretical leaps we've already made, for instance. Or maybe we should be focussing on training theorists so that we can have a better idea of what the next piece of giant scientific equipment needs to be. Or maybe we need to raise the global literacy rate so that we have more scientists available.

<comment><USER13> > Other research areas could be more important to progress right now and we > only have so many scientists available to do the work. Allocating those > scientists to research areas is an incredibly hard task, but it's a > necessary one.

That's not really how it works. People work on things they're interested in, not what they get _assigned_ to.

<comment><USER14> > That's not really how it works. People work on things they're interested in, > not what they get _assigned_ to.

You have no idea how management and funding of large-scale research projects works.

<comment><USER13> At the level of picking a field, people absolutely work on what they are interested in (and have expertise in). You're not going to get particle physicists working on organic chemistry just because you've "allocated" them there (and they wouldn't be trained in it anyway).

<comment><USER14> > You're not going to get particle physicists working on organic chemistry > just because you've "allocated" them there

If I consider what kinds of crappy jobs some excellent physicists who could not find a position in research had to take, I am not so sure.

The truth in my opinion thus rather is: Because, as you wrote, "they wouldn't be trained in it anyway", they _won 't_ be allocated for "organic chemistry" in your example.

On the other hand, if they _were_ , I really believe that they would prefer this job over the one that they had to take.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Nima-Arkani Hamed likes to point out that particle colliders _aren 't_ getting more expensive at all, in relative terms. The price tags are going up for just the same reason that you can't buy a loaf of bread for a nickel anymore, but as a fraction of GDP, the next big collider has always been about 0.01%.

In fact, if there's any identifiable trend at all, it's that this fraction has been _falling_. The LHC, for instance, was slapped together after the last would-be supercollider was defunded, and reuses the LEP tunnel (built in the _1980s_ ). If you're wondering why we took so long to find the Higgs boson, it's because the field has already been shrinking under the pressure of declining funding for 40 years.

</comment><comment><USER16> People have failed to mention the fact that the LHC has turned out to be kind of a failure, at least it hasn't given the populist soundbites needed to support its' success. Nothing really 'new' came out of it and it was very expensive.

People seem to be ignorant that everything has a populist aspect, and very expensive things always do.

The politicians who foot the bill are thinking "We just spent bazillions and what did we get? Now we have to convince the proles to spend billions more?"

If LHS gave us some really fundamental new insights, the Round B would be easy. But right now it's like a startup with no 'product market fit' it's going to be hard.

<comment><USER17> When you fund a huge project using state money, not just physics projects but anything, it's as much about all the side-effects. A 10 year $10B project.. I mean, those $10B will not go into a bank account, they will be used to funnel work (both in related physics and engineering) down the years. It's amazing how they pushed some manufacturing methods to build LHC and I'm sure those methods will be used for some other good, for example.

<comment><USER18> You're literally talking about the benefits of employing people to dig holes in the ground. That could be a larger program; it doesn't have to be limited to particle accelerators.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> More likely than not the next collider will be build in China, quite a few particle physicist luminaries have already made their case there. I for one am glad that I stayed clear of the siren call to join the 3000+ grad student workforce at CERN. Sifting through the heap of data that was assigned to you is about as fun as it sounds I think. You get to look for the J/Psi, Pomeron, Dark Matter how exciting! In reality most of the detectors are barely functional, Alice for example doesn't produce useful data for most of the runs.

<comment><USER20> That's just the nature of the machines. You spend so much effort to get to the nuggets, but you still get the nuggets.

Does China have experience making particle colliders? I've seen their magnetic confinement fusion research devices. Even in the design stage, there are lessons yet to be learned that are well documented in other machines. That doesn't mean the people working on them are dumb, or that all fields of large- magnetic-confinement-machine-building physicists are in the same position, but I think we should be pretty sure whoever builds the next big particle collider is actually up to the task.

<comment><USER21> These don't get built by countries. They get built in countries. The home country matters and they'll need to put up funding, but it's an international workforce.

<comment><USER22> > The home country matters...but it's an international workforce.

Given the current state of the world and the trajectory of the West's relationship with the Chinese government, it may _have_ to be built _by_ China if it's going to be built _in_ China.

<comment><USER23> China has a lot of STEM expertise, I'm confident they could probably figure it out.

<comment><USER22> There's a difference between theoretical and practical expertise.

I don't know much about particle accelerators, but I do know a bit about advanced manufacturing and I think you might be surprised at the degree to which Chinese industry is still functionally dependent on foreign machinery and expertise.

This is a country that, until about two years ago, couldn't successfully produce an entire ballpoint pen using fully domestic processes.

<comment><USER18> If you believe that there is a country that could, seems to me you would be taking it on faith, and in my opinion, ignoring uncountable foreign inputs. Unless you wanted to argue North Korea?

<comment><USER22> There probably is a country that could go from rocks to finished pen entirely domestically (Germany?) but that wasn't really my point.

I was trying to illustrate the broad chasm between theoretical and practical expertise. Just because someone "knows a lot of STEM" doesn't mean they can actually produce a useful _thing._ China already had perhaps the most highly concentrated amount of manufacturing engineering expertise anywhere in the world, yet still they needed help with what most people would consider a basic item.

This is fine! Most countries, as you noted, are in the same position. It's a desirable outcome of globalization.

It becomes problematic, though, when your goal is to build an incredibly complex machine that requires expertise beyond your own (like a particle accelerator, perhaps) and the people and countries whose help you require are unwilling to work with you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> [https://archive.md/tCzip](https://archive.md/tCzip)

</comment><comment><USER25> Here is some reasoning for funding -- i.e., US Congress funding -- high energy physics (HEP), e.g., the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), I didn't see mentioned here:

(1) The Russians, EU, China, Japan might pursue HEP so the US does not want to appear to _fall behind_. So in part, the funding is "a matter of national pride".

(2) The funding has a _constituency_ and keeps it and the university physics departments going. The US does want healthy university physics departments if only to teach physics for all the roles all of physics can play in national security, NASA, the economy, other sciences, e.g., medicine, engineering, e.g., computing, etc.

For the power of _constituencies_ , notice that a lot of physics laboratories were started during WWII and are still operating. One way and another, somehow they keep getting funding.

(3) In the Manhattan Project the world, the _power elite_ , all of civilization were surprised, shocked, felt blind-sided, afraid. The lesson they took was: It's a big, complicated universe out there; a good guess is that not nearly all of it is well understood (true or not); so we must pursue physics, at least _keep up_ as _insurance_ against another shocking discovery.

(4) The US likes to claim to have the best country, economy, culture, human rights, standard of living, roads, bridges, public health, Internet, ..., cars, hamburgers, milk, pizza, etc., basketball, Olympic athletes, pop music, etc., nearly the best of everything, in particular the best universities. So, can't have a great university without at least a good physics department, and very much want a great physics department.

Short version: The US wants to be the best, e.g., be the first to put a human with a flag on Mars, the Stars and Stripes.

<comment><USER15> These arguments were indeed used 30 years ago, but shortly after the USSR fell apart, the American Superconducting Supercollider was defunded midway through construction. The US was satisfied to become 2nd to Europe in this field then, I don't see why the US wouldn't be equally satisfied to be 4th to Europe, Japan, and China a little while later.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> The interplanetary space is probably the best place to build a particle collider - you won't need compensation fields and giant tube[s].

<comment><USER27> I believe the vacuum inside particle accelerators is actually much higher than your average cubic meter of solar system space.

<comment><USER28> And the vacuum in LHC is not THAT big as a problem. The real problem are the magnets.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> At some point, elementary particle physics will actually die as a field and the people who persist in building particle accelerators as if there is some new electroweak theory right around the corner will have to find something else to do. Of course, they'll probably continue with their pyramid building for decades after the subject has actually died.

</comment><comment><USER30> Complete physics moron here, is there no way to use particle/anti-particle annihilation to drive collision energy up?

Also, i think if we invested the money for a new collider into an effort to develop what we've learned so far into a useful technology that inspires the general public, the funding for the next collider would take care of itself.

<comment><USER31> LEP was annihilating electrons with positrons; LHC does not, as it only accelerates protons. FCC will have the option to do both: the plan includes two separate pipes in the same tunnel, one for protons, one for electrons.

This however does not increase the collision energy significantly: a single electron-positron pair has the (rest) energy of ~1MeV -- this is what is released during the annihilation, but the energies we want to go to at the next collider go up to 10TeV, so 10^7 times larger.

<comment><USER32> LHC smashes protons together, and for comparison the rest mass (energy) of a proton[1] is just shy of 1GeV.

So that's still 4 orders of magnitude below the collision energy of the LHC.

[1]: [http://pdglive.lbl.gov/DataBlock.action?node=S016M&home=BXXX...](http://pdglive.lbl.gov/DataBlock.action?node=S016M&home=BXXX005)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I was surprised by the possibility (raised by the article) that the Higgs could turn out to not actually be the Higgs, but just another particle with the right mass. Is that a real possibility?

<comment><USER34> Sure, it's not like the particle stuck around long enough for us to test any of its other properties. We just know that its decay products add up to a plausible energy level. [https://arstechnica.com/science/2011/12/rolling-the- dice-und...](https://arstechnica.com/science/2011/12/rolling-the-dice- understanding-how-physicists-hunt-for-the-higgs/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Finding new physics will require removing a lot of dust on the politics of that field, and a vast re-evaluation of why and how people get funded. How important the is science versus everything else in the matter.

It's not going to happen overnight, but it's good that people are opening their eyes. Let's reevaluate in 2040 and see if we've moved the needle in fundamental physics even just a little compared to what was achieved in the first half of the 20th century.

</comment><comment><USER36> Wait, so fusion, solar panels, semiconductors, and anything practically important is not considered physics anymore? Well, people in HEP will necessarily use the definition "Physics=HEP" to get more funding. You can't have a meaningfull argument if your well being depends on its outcome.

</comment><comment><USER37> Time to resurrect the SSC? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Super_Collider](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Super_Collider)

<comment><USER38> What physics needs is a revolutionary (not evolutionary like the SSC or the LHC) particle accelerator.

There are promising works with high-powered lasers, for example: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcGgaa2mFc4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcGgaa2mFc4)

But it seems the "spin particles really fast in a very long circular tube" is reaching the end of its life.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Article is paywalled for me so I don't know if it's mentioned, but it's a shame the one in Texas was never finished. Was supposed to be 3x more powerful than the LHC.

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

</comment><comment><USER40> Quantum computers, fusion, free electron lasers, or particle accelerators, where would you put $100 000 000 000?

</comment><comment><USER41> Sounds like the particle collider people are having tunnel vision.

"1 after the new particle collider": Guess what? we need an even bigger particle collider.

What we really need is to build one on the moon.

<comment><USER8> It is not tunnel vision when the problem they're tackling is literally stuck in a tunnel. Bigger and bigger colliders are the only direct way we have to study high energy phenomena. It's not that physicists are lazy, it's that the problems they're studying are hard.

I'm also seeing a lot resentment for the price tag of colliders in this thread. My personal opinion is that we shouldn't build a new one, but I'll point out that colliders are incredibly cost efficient.

The whole LHC (which has been running and providing jobs to people for 12 years) costs a similar amount as just two B-2 bombers. The US owns like 20 of those and that money went somewhere into huge defense contractors profits as opposed to knowledge and tech which is now accessible to the whole world.

You might not know this, but a lot of the technology developed during the construction of the LHC is now used to improve medical imaging and power transmission to name a few applications. These all have a direct impact on the quality of our every day life. That fancy PET scan you received to diagnose your cancer was literally funded in part by the LHC.

<comment><USER42> Comparing the cost against defense spending, which has a reputation for waste, doesn't convince me. If the cost is similar to two B-2 bombers and one thinks that the B-2 bomber is overpriced, one would probably also think that the LHC is overpriced.

To me, bringing up that the WWW, fancy PET scans, etc. came in part from HEP and therefore we should be grateful is missing one major point. In the WWW case, in an alternative history it seems likely to me that some other project would have developed something similar around the same time if the funding were allocated differently. As for the other benefits, I think if the money were allocated towards research in those areas it would have been more effectively spent.

Ultimately I think the worst "cost" for HEP in general (not just colliders) is that it encourages something like brain drain on other fields. I think that people interested in certain mostly non-practical areas of physics like HEP would do the world a lot more good if they instead got a PhD in some field of engineering or CS, or at the very least a more practical area of "physics". Here I refer to physics in the descriptive sense which doesn't align well with the prescriptive definition of physics. E.g., I don't understand why fluid dynamics is not "physics" in that it's rarely researched in physics departments (unless studied indirectly in chaos theory or plasma physics). Must be too Newtonian for people to care. (For what it's worth I'm at the end of a PhD in mechanical engineering studying fluid dynamics.)

<comment><USER43> I think GP is saying that the value of LHC is greater than the marginal value of 2 bombers when you already have 18.

LHC would be one way to use that some of that "waste" in defense spending more wisely.

Regarding "practical" study-- Where you see value in the output of engineering work, those guiding the work of engineers see value in the output of scientific work. If we had more people of the latter type that appreciated the value of scientific work, we might have more productive engineers and developers.

<comment><USER42> Defense spending _is_ inefficient, but why should that money be spent on HEP rather than something else? I'm not even convinced that projects like the LHC are a net positive for humanity for the last reason I mentioned.

As for your final paragraph, I'm not really sure what you're getting at. If you believe I have misunderstood you, I'm interested in learning how. Most physicists I've met seem to severely underestimate the amount of _scientific_ research conducted by _engineers_. If you get a PhD in engineering, you're typically doing primarily (if not exclusively) science. The main difference is that this research keeps in mind the applications. That's what makes it useful. I think it's a shame that so many very smart people choose to study HEP rather than engineering where they would do better in the world. And I don't think people working in HEP (for example) make engineers or programmers more productive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Finding some physics

</comment><comment><USER45> Is there a non-paywalled link?

<comment><USER46> [https://outline.com/aVuwpX](https://outline.com/aVuwpX)

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> Let's step back an perfect the physics we know. Perfect fission and fusion first! The short and long term benefits of that is more important the verifying for example the next Higgs boson.

While verifying the Higgs is nice there are no practical applications for the knowledge.

<comment><USER48> Yes, let's "just" do that. But I guess we should make some restrictions:

1) Can't use the any of the theorists or experiementalists who had anything to do with the useless research of the LHC.

2) Can't use any of the hardware research required to make that discovery (all apparently useless):

       2a) superconducting magnets
       2b) high performance fpga computing
       2c) particle detectors

3) Understanding of background physics (i.e. perfecting understanding of physics we know)

<comment><USER2> Superconducting magnets were in use well before their use in HEP colliders.

FPGA computing was in use in industry well before it was in use in HEP colliders.

Particle detectors have existed for more than 100 years. When was the first collider built?

Seriously, this is one of the issues I take with HEP advocates claiming that their field yielded all of these advances. Works well with politicians they have to lobby for funding their stuff. Doesn't work so well with other physicists.

HEP has utility, as all science does. Investment in it generally turns out useful items, even if the science is esoteric, and not applicable to problems in the world now.

However, and this is the crux of the problem, we have many items of significant priority. Which means we have to triage our expenditures. Is HEP and collider physics one of these high priorities right now?

In short, no. It shouldn't be.

<comment><USER48> I never said these were invented by HEP, just that envelope pushing research was done as a byproduct of collider/detector requirements.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> i'm skeptical because that was the promise of the LHC.

<comment><USER32> One of the main goals[1] of the LHC was finding the Higgs, which it has done. Another goal was to look for the matter-antimatter asymmetry, where it has[2] and will likely continue to find interesting things.

So as such it has had decent success I think.

Another goal was to look for supersymmetry. While the LHC so far has excluded large sections of the possible parameter space for supersymmetry, I don't think it was unreasonable to think at the time LHC was designed that it had a decent chance of finding evidence for supersymmetry.

However given how things are looking currently, maybe effort should be focused on the areas where we know there's something weird, such as neutrinos[3], as well as astronomical searches such as LIGO[4] which can constrain Beyond Standard Model physics.

[1]: [https://home.cern/resources/faqs/facts-and-figures-about- lhc](https://home.cern/resources/faqs/facts-and-figures-about-lhc)

[2]: [https://home.cern/news/press-release/physics/lhcb-sees- new-f...](https://home.cern/news/press-release/physics/lhcb-sees-new-flavour- matter-antimatter-asymmetry)

[3]: [https://www.quantamagazine.org/neutrino-evidence-could- expla...](https://www.quantamagazine.org/neutrino-evidence-could-explain- matter-antimatter-asymmetry-20200415/)

[4]: [https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/what- gravitational-...](https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/what- gravitational-waves-can-say-about-dark-matter)

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> Of course it does. They finished the LHC, it's time for another white elephant to keep the gravy train rolling.

</comment><comment><USER51> > A minifigure, 3 blocks high, is repesentative of an average American adult, > at 1.753 meters tall

Shouldn't it be the height of an average adult from Denmark? At 1.672m (edit: closer to 1.8) it's a big enough difference to matter. The inaccuracies in this article are disgusting! This is a serious matter that has numerous implications, and is definitely not a joke.

Edit: I meant to post this somewhere else. Sorry.

<comment><USER52> I think you've misspelled '9' as '6'.

<comment><USER51> I accidentally grabbed the number for average female height. ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Used to be breakthroughs could be made by a lens maker accidentally discovering micro biology or the president of the treasury thinking through the mathematics behind his observations and discovering the law of gravity or a patent clerk resolving contradictions between data and theory in his spare time to discover relativity or a barely employed artist describing in detail inventing concepts that would not be created until centuries after his death.

Now we need billions of dollars and all the best minds to even hypothetically make progress.

Maybe something is wrong in the state of scientific research.

<comment><USER54> What you've said makes no sense. Why shouldn't new tech be required? You're not even comparing similar science topics to modern physics. When you're pushing the boundaries of our knowledge of the universe, there's no human perception that can itself detect anything new.

<comment><USER55> Math and humans modeled the Higgs before technology "found it"

IMO like with space ships this is just not a useful engineering endeavor in general

We probably could iterate on engineering AI and nanotechnology so future people could programmatically build specific machines

But let's go on a whim and prematurely optimize a machine to maybe produce new insights at scale that, unlike with the Higgs, we're still trying to find consensus mathematics to define

We're putting the cart before the horse this time and the fact the LHC hasn't produced much else even with all the mathy theories has shown on paper we're so off the mark a giant new machine would be built just to titillate a generation that is addicted to being titillated

Maybe we could just get our own imaginations back for a bit before we keep following the imaginings of yesterday

Not sure if you've noticed but pandemic life is making building such a thing a non-starter. How do you design, plan, and assemble such a thing when groups of people have to work on a basement?</comment></comment></comment>


The email diary service that PG requested has existed for years - <AUTHOR> https://ahhlife.com <comment><USER2> Not the page title.</comment>


Writebox – Syncs with Dropbox. Chrome, iOS, Web - <AUTHOR> http://www.writeboxapps.com/ Similar to TextDrop, but free (as in beer) and without some of the handier NV-like features. <comment><USER2> Looks cool. I corrected some of your spelling and grammar errors. Many US customers distrust sites that have poor English in their copy. Hope it helps.

ID and Password

We don't store your Dropbox and Google Drive passwords. (We cannot access this information.)

We store your OAuth token for Dropbox and Google Drive in our server.

We store a cookie in your browser.

We store your e-mail address for Dropbox and Google Drive in our server. This is for you to identify what account you use on Writebox.

File Contents

We don't store your file contents in our server, but save in your local cache.

We don't read your file contents, we just convert file encoding to show characters correctly.

We store the filepath of the thing you last opened in Writebox in our server. This is for syncing the last edit of the file across devices.

Logging

We collect analytics data through Google Analytics when you using Writebox. This is for the purpose of service improvement.

We don't track individual users.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks but also sorry, because I should clarify—it's not my app, I just found it last night while looking for just this for a new Chromebook. I'm a heavy NValt user and there's sadly no Dropbox support on ARM as yet. Also saw that no one had posted to HN yet so thought I'd share.

Dev is a Japanese fellow on Twitter @kazuhiroshibuya, I'm sure he'll appreciate new users and any kudos. It's really well-designed and like others who commented here, I'm very glad for the prominent privacy disclosures on the homepage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Probably not spelled right... but funny.

We don't store your file contents in our server, but save on your local for cash.

Need to change cash to cache maybe?... or maybe not. Nice biz model. :)

<comment><USER4> Came here to say this. There'd be a lot more developers on the Dropbox API if you could exchange saving file contents on someone's Dropbox account for money...

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Chromebooks out of the box lack any kind of straightforward text editor which will edit local files and/or files on Google Drive. (Google Drive is much more convenient to use on chromebooks than Dropbox.) Writebox looks as if it might be a candidate to fill this void, for it loads and saves files on Google Drive, even though 'distraction-free' tends to be code for 'featureless'.

Unfortunately, it's got a serious bug, fatal for my usage, which the developer promised to fix over a month ago but which has not been fixed yet. If you edit and save a web page (i.e. an .html file) on Google Drive, Chrome OS no longer recognizes the file as a web page to be viewed in the browser, but only as a text file, to be viewed as text or edited.

Eventually, this might be a good app. In the meantime, if you need a text editor for a chromebook, put it in developer mode, install Ubuntu 'cli-extras' with the Crouton script, and 'sudo apt-get install nano'. (Vim is also automatically installed by Crouton.)

</comment><comment><USER6> This looks brilliant. I agree with Kluny's first comment; if someone has an email for @kazuhiroshibuya, please tell him there is currently a spelling and grammatical error on the landing page. Suggest the second sentence be changed from: "Writebox helps you to concentrate to writing and seamlessly sync your wiring text accross all your devices." To: "Writebox helps you concentrate on writing and seamlessly syncs your text writings across all your devices."

</comment><comment><USER7> Definitely a nice app in a crowded market though. What do you offer that say something like Draftin.com doesn't?

</comment><comment><USER8> I really appreciate the prominently placed policies about credential and data storage.

</comment><comment><USER9> This is awesome. I've been looking for a web-based simple text editor (an iA Writer for the web) and this is the best one I've seen yet. Will definitely be using it.

<comment><USER10> The fact that iA have decided not to release a version of iA Writer for the web says something about this product.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> This looks great. I appreciate your efforts to keep the editor minimal but effective. Congrats!

I would like to request a feature to sync with Evernote.

</comment><comment><USER12> To save on Dropbox you have to give it access to your _entire_ dropbox? Maybe that's a dropbox limitation, but no thanks.

<comment><USER13> yeah, that is a dropbox limitation. O'reilly and other sites offer dropbox integration, but they are actually given permission to the entirety of dropbox although they just create a root folder and deposit files normally.

<comment><USER14> Ehh when integrating with the Dropbox API you're given a choice of "full Dropbox" or "app folder", the latter option creates a folder in your Dropbox which is all your app can access. For an app like this "full Dropbox" is probably more useful (so that you can edit existing files), but in O'Reilly's case it seems they should have chosen "app folder".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I would love this if it had markdown hinting support (impossible to escape in a hacker news comment...)

<comment><USER16> Is 'markdown hinting' just 'markdown' or is it something new markdown related that I might enjoy?

<comment><USER15> I mean, since this is single window (so no side-by-side source and compiled) that when you surround with asterisks, the asterisks are still visible, but the whole word is italicised. it is often performed by markdown syntax highlighters - if you're on OS X, try textmate 2 with the extension ".md" to see what I mean (it makes a wonderful job of semi-previewing my octopress blog entries.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Simplenote's reliability hasn't been so great lately. This looks like a nice alternative.

</comment><comment><USER18> It says Chrome - does it not work properly in firefox?

<comment><AUTHOR> Haven't tested in Firefox. I assume the webapp works just fine, but there's a dedicated Chrome extension.</comment></comment>


Using Django Tastypie And Backbone.js To Create RESTful URLs - <AUTHOR> http://blog.mathandpencil.com/using-django-tastypie-to-create-RESTful-APIs/

<comment><AUTHOR> Author here - just a note the purpose of the article was not to convince users to use Tastypie over Django's RestFramework - both frameworks work well - <USER2> just use Tastypie because I made the decision before Django's RestFramework existed.</comment>


Is Microsoft Turning the Corner in the Consumer Space? - <AUTHOR> http://blog.pluralsight.com/2013/02/21/is-microsoft-turning-the-corner-in-the-consumer-space/

<comment><USER2> I am replacing my lady's Samsung Galaxy II with a Lumia 920. She loves her Surface RT.

I was doubtful of the Lumia at first. But, I spent a good while playing with the device at the store. It is super smooth. The screen and camera are great. The only thing missing is the Square payments app. Which we use for our business. The app ecosystem makes the transition difficult.

But, overall using Skydrive has been great with the Surface. I look forward to seeing it work in conjunction with the Lumia.

Personally, I was thinking of moving from the Galaxy Nexus to Nexus 4. As much as I like using a clean version Jelly Bean, the Lumia hardware is calling my name.

As for Microsoft turning a corner, It still has a long way to go. Specifically, in its communications. Many of the features, I like about Surface do not get mentioned. The dancing commercials do not communicate functionality. For example, I use the microHDMI cable to connect Surface to a monitor. Then I can use Excel on a monitor and the web on the Surface. The USB port alone, has been a godsend on the go.

</comment><comment><USER3> I've never seen one of these supposed "Smartphone of the Year" Lumia 920s in the wild, so I'm guessing the answer is "no". Perhaps they are turning the corner in stuffing online "Smartphone of the Year" polls.

edit: from the same blog yesterday: [http://blog.pluralsight.com/2013/02/22/video-unleash-the- pow...](http://blog.pluralsight.com/2013/02/22/video-unleash-the-power-of- coldfusion-for-your-website/)

I wonder if ColdFusion was the "Engadget Reader's Choice Web Framework of the Year".

<comment><USER4> Microsoft has lost all possible credibility by astroturfing. I'm doubtful of any bit of positive feedback that I see about their products.

<comment><USER5> losing objectivity and going all for prejudice seems a bit over the top if it's based on just the astroturfing

<comment><USER6> The boy who cried wolf comes to mind.

Really the proof is in the pudding. I'll know Microsoft's mobile products are worth not comprehensively ignoring when there is a general consensus among trustworthy people that they've achieved at least ~20% overall market share. And if Microsoft has to try double hard to get there because of general suspicions about their past behavior then bully for them -- let it serve as a lesson to others that we have long memories and ruining your own reputation has consequences.

<comment><USER7> So are you saying its worth comprehensively ignoring OS X and Linux? They have never had anything close to 20% of the personal computer market.

<comment><USER6> They have never to my knowledge paid anyone to surreptitiously lie to me either. That's what happens when you lie, in the future no one believes you.

Also, isn't that what people do in reality anyway? I don't see an official version of e.g. Photoshop for Ubuntu, which I have to imagine would exist if it had >20% market share. And OS X does have >20% market share among those who use Photoshop, whereas pick your favorite non-web based line of business software and chances are it isn't available for OS X or Linux. Isn't that why everyone always says they aren't worth considering for business use? No software? Not enough market share?

<comment><USER7> Well, here is an example of a blatant lie that Apple put in a newpaper magazine a long time ago: <http://i.imgur.com/qq19rcD.jpg>

The famous "we invented the first personal computer system". I guess nobody can never believe anything they say again.

Steam should probably stop selling games for OSX and Linux, as they don't represent anywhere near 20% of the market.

Or should we just cherry pick some stat where they are over 20%? Let's do that with Windows Phone 8 too then. I'm sure they are over 20% usage of something, or will be soon. >20% usage of One Note?

Or we could just judge technology on its merits, and take everything technology sites say about all of this stuff with a grain of salt.

<comment><USER3> Is there an argumentative equivalent of "damning with faint praise"? Because if the best you can do to prove that Apple lied is pull out some black and white scan of a 30 year old newspaper ad where they _might_ have taken a bit of license with the very fuzzily-defined term "personal computer", then you actually make it look like Apple is the most scrupulously honest corporation in the history of the world.

<comment><USER7> I used that as an example, because it is a very famous lie that they told.

Parent comment didn't even bother giving any examples.

Would you like to write up an encyclopedia of lies that Microsoft has told, or should I use your logic to assume that they must be more honest than Apple?

Personally I don't think either of them are trustworthy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The 920 is really a beautiful device -- if you haven't gotten your hands on one you should try it out. It's the first phone I can't stop fiddling with since the original iPhone.

<comment><USER9> I have the 900, and while I really like the OS, the form factor is slightly unwieldy for me. The 920 is even bigger, so I'm looking at the 820 instead. Pity about the lower pixel density on that one.

<comment><USER10> Nokia introduces some new phones on monday at MWC. Based on rumors: 520, 720, and maybe a new slim aluminum 920 called Catwalk.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Aren't Pluralsight biased though? their courses are mainly focused on the MS stack.</comment>


If I'm not happy with life, should I commit suicide? - <AUTHOR> http://www.quora.com/If-Im-not-happy-with-life-should-I-commit-suicide <comment><USER2> Sometime miracle is just around the corner ...</comment>


Alchemist v1.3.1 Is OUT Elixir Tooling Emacs Integration - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/tonini/alchemist.el/releases/tag/v1.3.1 <comment><USER2> Let's use an otherwise meaningless post to ask:

Vi(m) users, when did you concede to emacs and why?

<comment><USER3> Considering the popularity of Evil Mode, Vim emulation for Emacs, the idea of Vim conceding to Emacs is like the notion that the parasitic Alien in the movie of the same name conceded to Sigourney Weaver's shipmates.

<comment><USER2> Don't fight this with reason. Let it gently smother you with Emacs. Emacs. Emacs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Great to see this coming along, looking forward to working with the new release

<comment><USER2> They're really smoothing out the edges. I could see myself advocating for this the next time we're shopping but I'd like to see an option to set a limit on response time.

Great project!

Edit: - apology :D</comment></comment>


Coronavirus: 18% of U.S. workers have lost jobs or hours, poll finds - <AUTHOR> https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-03-17/coronavirus-layoffs-work-hours-jobs <comment><USER2> Why not break this into:

N% have lost jobs

N% have lost hours

We don't have N% have dead or infected with cv, do we?

<comment><USER3> Because they want you to think the worst, i.e. 18% have lost jobs, because the title is clickbait.

<comment><USER2> If cv is very bad ( I really hope it is not ) many boomers will pass away. Who then will read newspapers? They are just utter garbage now.

This is one of many changes CV will bring, IMHO.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm hearing that companies are facing sudden cash flow problems, where due to the outbreak orders are cancelled last minute en masse. these companies guarantee 50-100% refunds no matter when you cancel, so orders are sitting on loading docks that have been paid for with no one to go, and the revenue has suddenly turned into costs.

I have no idea why markets turned higher today. Shit is hitting the fan. Work is being stopped, layoffs are going on across small margin businesses, and people are not going to have money to pay their rent or mortgage in two weeks. And the only thing I've seen from the Government is talk - zero policy, zero decisions.

And this isn't just your neighborhood cafes laying people off. It's companies up and down the supply chains and B2B manufacturers that don't operate on high margins and don't have vast reserves of cash.

When the quarantines and shutdowns half, it's going to be a bloodbath of consolidation.

</comment><comment><USER5> Since 2008, most of the jobs created have been service jobs. The low unemployment everyone keeps on about is covering up the fact that the people who got employed got shittier jobs.

This thing is going to be a bloodbath in the US. We'll probably see a Democratic wave in November.

<comment><USER6> > We'll probably see a Democratic wave in November.

I'm still on the fence about this.

It's certainly conceivable that the Trump Whitehouse will throw excessive amounts of money at the problem - i.e. going downright socialist by giving millions of citizens $1,000 to $2,500/mnth welfare cheque through the spring.

The almost certainty is that Trump (GOP et al) will do anything possibly to remain in power come November.

<comment> tj-teej I think this is a very interesting analysis. I think it's more apt to say there could be a Populist wave in Nov, which could be very positive for whichever party adopts a populist stance. Looking at the current state of the Democratic Primary it doesn't appear it will be the Dems which push that agenda.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> wife's job is "firing" people so they can collect unemployment, and will rehire them later. I don't know the legalities around this, it's definitely odd. and you have to take the business' word for it...

<comment><USER4> It's not odd, that's pretty standard practice in dire situations like this. The company doesn't have the money to pay your wife or her colleagues, and since the government hasn't done anything special (yet) to help out businesses the only way they can guarantee she gets a portion of her salary is through layoffs.

If they furloughed your wife instead, she would not get paid anything by anyone until the government decides what the relief effort looks like.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> BLS data is going to look crazy. Surely, there'll be a jobs report where unemployment jumps from <4% to >10%. And then in a few months, it'll jump back down again.

<comment><USER9> How far will it jump back down?

A lot of small and medium sized businesses are pretty marginally profitable and exist because of legacy momentum. I'm starting to think that a lot of these businesses will never re-start after the pandemic ends.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> If there's any saving grace, it might be that this is spring-break time. Perhaps some workers were planning on spending cash on a vacation, that money can be used for essentials.

Wishful thinking, probably. But I'm really looking for ways this will all work out. (As it inevitably will.)

</comment><comment><USER11> In related news, 90% have either coughed or died suddenly.

Losing hours and losing jobs are two very different things, conflating statistics like this is counterproductive to understanding.

<comment><USER12> Grouping related things together isn't necessarily conflating.

I don't think the article is trying to say "18% of workers have basically lost their jobs!!!", but rather to give a sense of how many people's incomes are impacted.

<comment><USER13> If they weren't trying to conflate them the headline would have been "Coronavirus: 18% of U.S. workers have reduced our or lost jobs"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> For many, losing a job maybe preferable so they can collect unemployment.

Edit for what I thought was obvious context:

If you had a full-time job and where forced to go to meager part-time hours, it might be better to just get laid off and collect. I had a friend in this situation. It would have been better for him to have been laid off.

<comment><USER15> Loosing a fully paying job is never preferable to unemployment in the US.

E.g. " If you are eligible to receive unemployment, the weekly benefit rate in Indiana is 47% of your average weekly wage (to come up with your average weekly wage, divide your total wages during the base period by 52). The weekly benefit rate is subject to a minimum of $50 and a maximum of $390. You may receive benefits for a maximum of 26 weeks."

<comment><USER16> But it could be a temporary thing. Service workers can be laid off temporarily and hired back. Essentially offloading them from the company's payroll and adding them to the states'. Instead, if there's an option for states to provide unemployment without actually getting fired - disability? - for anyone affected not just those with the virus could also help in these times.

There are a ton of businesses that operate on thin margins - restaurant and service industry in general - and it makes sense for the government to step in.</comment></comment></comment>


End-to-end differentiable learning of protein structure - <AUTHOR> https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/02/14/265231 <comment><USER2> It would be cool if machine learning researchers would start participating CASP and CAPRI. If you crack Go, you get fame, but if you crack protein prediction, you get Nobel price and completely revolutionize biochemistry and medicine.

[http://predictioncenter.org/](http://predictioncenter.org/)

[http://www.ebi.ac.uk/msd-srv/capri/](http://www.ebi.ac.uk/msd-srv/capri/)

edit: Why there is no XPRICE for protein folding?

<comment><USER3> DeepMind and others are trying. "Hassabis said the company is now planning to apply an algorithm based on AlphaGo Zero to other domains with real-world applications, starting with protein folding."

[1] [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-18/deepmind-...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-18/deepmind- s-superpowerful-ai-sets-its-sights-on-drug-discovery)

<comment><USER4> That doesn't make any sense unless I'm missing something, A0 is suited for a completely different problem than protein folding...

<comment><USER5> The AlphaZero algorithm (monte carlo tree search with value estimator trained by reinforcement learning) works on any environment you can simulate during play time, single player or not.

<comment><USER6> Any environment with finite action and state-spaces.

<comment><USER5> No, the key requirement which makes it difficult to use on real-world tasks is that you must be able to do a forward rollout of your environment in your decision-making process.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I work on protein structure, albeit not from a computational standpoint, and it struck me as odd that none of the work from the Baker group (Univ Washington) e.g. Rosetta ([https://www.rosettacommons.org/](https://www.rosettacommons.org/)) was mentioned. Rosetta can be used to predict tertiary structure from amino acid sequence. Does anyone familiar with the field know how the methods used by software like ROSETTA differ from those presented in this paper?

<comment><USER8> Hi! I'm the author of the paper. Not sure why you say Rosetta isn't mentioned? It's extensively referenced throughout the paper, discussed in the discussion section, and is one of the top 5 CASP servers compared to in the results section.

Also as for how it's different from what's described in the paper, that's the topic of the introduction of the paper. Rosetta uses both fragment assembly and co-evolution methods.

<comment><USER7> Oops I seemed to have skimmed it a bit too quickly. Thank you for the kind reply.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is a very interesting approach. Clearly a lot more work to do but the robust prediction of protein structure from sequence would be an absolute game changer for biomedical science so I hope that this opens up new strategies.

</comment><comment><USER4> What are the real-world applications of protein folding (preferably, some specific example)? I always hear that it's really important for drug design and biotechnology but have a hard time imagining something concrete.

<comment><USER8> Re drug discovery, often times in "rational" drug design, medicinal chemists try to make small molecules that bind snuggly into a binding pocket on the protein. Having the structure of the protein aids greatly in that process.

<comment><USER10> Yes! And I'd also add that there are others that come into play...

* Elucidating function by identifying similarity to other known structures

* Finding novel signaling mechanisms (see work on PHinder)

* Modeling co-receptor/ligand dynamics

* Identifying function of orphan receptors

* Working with ancestral genes by identifying descendant structure

* Classifying and clustering proteins based on solved structure

* Learning new biochemical mechanisms through active vs inactive state structures

...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Cool method! Are you planning to participate in the next CASP? Do you plan to open source the code?

<comment><USER8> Yes! Certainly on the source code, and hopefully on CASP13 too.

<comment><USER11> Thanks for the answer! I hope then to see you in CASP (and CAMEO too, it is a great tool to test/refine your method). I was discussing a paper with a co- worker of mine (we also work on psp, we work on RBO Aleph). We had a hard time pinpointing the thing that made your method finally work. You have mentioned in your blog post that you have been working on it for years now, and I guess a lot of other people had the idea of using deep learning for psp. But what was the insight that made it all work, using LSTM? or was it many small refinements and hacks?

<comment><USER8> I would say the biggest thing is obviously the architecture, coupling LSTMs with the geometric units that spit out the actual 3D structure that can then be directly optimized via the dRMSD loss function. That's the biggest point of distinction from everything else out there (no contact map prediction, etc.) So it really is about end-to-end differentiability IMO, which hasn't been done before.

As for why it took so long, it is and it is not fine-tuning. Getting RGNs to train _at all_ was a rather difficult process, and required a lot of finicking around. But since I got them working, I haven't actually spent all that much time fine-tuning them, and so I expect there to be a lot of low-hanging fruit in terms of optimizing performance (starting from the baseline I found.)</comment></comment></comment></comment>