Ask HN: What percentage of your salary are you paying to health insurance? - <AUTHOR> I pay 17.6% of my salary to health insurance. And that doesn't include my employers portion. Are there any start ups with solutions? Am I the only one? <comment><USER2> We really cannot compare until we all give 4 sets of numbers:

1\. Amount your pay is docked for health premium;

2\. amount your employer pays for your share;

3\. total family deductible before insurance pay; and

4\. the percentage that your insurer will pay after hitting deductible.

Any thing short of that makes for poor comparative.

</comment><comment><USER3> ~1%. Not including employer's portion. Small non-startup company in NYC. High deductible plan via TriNet.

Last place (small startup) was 0%. For the PPO. Smaller startup. Also TriNet.

Maybe the employment market for engineers is tighter in NY than SF? Or the competition includes more traditional companies that are accustomed to fully covering insurance? Or more company founders/execs, instead of being fresh out of college, are older and have families and want their own insurance covered?

Or I'm a cheapskate and choose the cheap plan?

<comment><USER4> There is no "employer's portion". It's all your portion!

Part of the money you earn gets redirected (tax-free) to the healthcare industry.

<comment><USER3> Yes and no. I'm not getting that money either way, whether my employer decides to spend it on my health insurance or not.

Regardless, the OP was discussing percent excluding the portion the employer covers.

I'm not particularly interested in any particular discussion of why and how the American health insurance industry is a clusterfuck. We all already know that and the points would take all day to enumerate anyway.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> People who think you are paying such a low amount -- you're not. Your employer is paying it for you. That would have gone to salary instead. Check your W-2.

<comment><USER6> Is that like saying that payroll taxes that your employer pays would go into your salary instead too?

<comment><USER7> Depending on the relative elasticity of supply v demand, yeah.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I'm also not part of the health exchange. And my deductible is 2.9% of my salary. So, before the insurance company pays in 1 cent I'm expected to pay 20% of my salary to insurance. Something doesn't seem right about that. People are on here are looking for problems to solve. Well, here's one that needs a disruptive solution.

<comment><USER8> I don't understand. My deductible is also around 3% of my salary. But my insurance company pays in a _lot_ before I hit that point. Appointments, lab work, etc. are all partially covered, typically with a copay. GP costs me $20, specialist costs me $30, x-rays cost around $50-200 depending on the number and kind (and that's just the highest I've seen, I'm sure it can go higher). But my health insurer (BCBS) pays at least that much for each of those.

I'd look for a new policy. I once was offered a terrible policy by a contracting agency I worked for. It would've cost me around $10k/year, out of pocket with BCBS was around $2k/year and offered _much_ better benefits (I was around 25 at the time, ACA may have changed that baseline cost).

And to answer your question, I presently pay around 3.3% of my salary for medical, dental, vision coverage (3 separate policies, vision is almost free at ~$120/year, but I have terrible eyesight so the cost is worth it for me).

<comment><AUTHOR> I also have a family of 4. I fall into the worst possible category for subsidizing. I make just over median income for salary. My employer is a small business with lot of older workers. I have a family size of 4 which puts my in the family category but juts barely. I don't use a lot of medical in the first place.

<comment><USER8> Very different circumstances than yours, I see. I don't know what would happen to my costs in the same situation, though I do know they'd go up quite a bit.

I still stand by my other point, your insurance should be paying _something_ before you hit your deductible. If it's not, you need a new plan.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I work at a startup in SF. I get reimbursed 100% for my health insurance costs, which includes dental and vision insurance as well. It's about $550 a month, or $6600 a year.

We would have a company plan, but we're small enough as to where it's more cost effective to reimburse everyone.

</comment><comment><USER10> Like most people in Germany I pay 7.3% + 0.2% supplemental. I decided against private insurance due to the recent massive premium hikes, even though right now it would be cheaper for me. (It's hard to get out of private insurance and back into statutory insurance)

<comment><USER11> The rate is probably 15% with the employer paying the other half. The big German public health insurance companies compete with each other but have to offer a base catalogue of services so they're quite similar after all and the rate difference is 0.1, maybe 0.5% between them. It is capped at 6200 Euro gross, so the maximum amount you'd pay is 453 Euro/month (assuming 7.3% rate).

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> In the UK my national insurance contributions are about %8 but that does just go into the general tax pool and is not hypothecated to be spend on the NHS/health.

</comment><comment><USER6> In California I'm paying 3.4% of my gross pay for a high-deductible health plan covering myself and my spouse.

EDIT: that's for health, vision, and dental.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Not sure how it would work out but I think there should be cap on premium plus out of pocket that's capped based on income. I think Obamacare expects premium to be capped at 7% until your each median income. To me something like 7%(premium) and 10%(total out of pocket) based on income for everyone would be reasonable.

</comment><comment><USER13> I pay ~7.5% for myself and my spouse. We have four children covered by the state's expanded Medicaid provision. State and federal taxes and budgeting make it impossible to estimate not only how much I am paying for that portion, but how much anyone is paying for it... Probably not another 10 percentage points, though.

</comment><comment><USER14> I pay around 4,5% in the Netherlands, with the smallest 'own risk'. I don't know the English term for it, but if anything happens the first €350 in healthcare costs for the year are on me (excluding family doctor visits). I could choose to pay more for a lower monthly cost, but I don't.

<comment><USER15> 'own risk' based on your description would be called a deductible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Living in Australia, private health insurance, 1% of gross income, ~$1,000 pa.

This is a the cheapest plan at the time that was offered by this provider (NIB) and I only did it so I didn't have to pay extra tax as part of the medicare levy surcharge.

</comment><comment><USER17> I'm in the US and pay roughly 3.5% of my gross salary as my portion of the insurance premium. I opted for the cheaper HMO (Kaiser) insurance though. My employer pays the other 2/3rds of the premium. (I'm single, no kids)

</comment><comment><USER18> In Canada? Roughly 15%, which doesn't include much (no dental, no vision, etc).

<comment><USER6> Seems high, that's what you're paying for private coverage? (I'm basing off my experience in Ontario, I know other provinces are bound to be different, Québec especially.) Or did you get that number by looking at your income taxes vs government spending on health care?

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I pay under 2% pre-tax with another 2% exposed to the deductible. Employer covers around 80-90%. 401k + health insurance is pretty standard for devs. Sounds like you are paid under market and have meagre benefits.

</comment><comment><USER20> In Poland, it's free (i.e. covered by your taxes) as long as you have a taxable income. If you don't pay any taxes, you can opt-in for around $90 a month.

<comment><USER21> if it's covered by your taxes, is it really free then?

<comment><USER22> Americans pay more in taxes for heath coverage (combined) than anyone else...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Here in Uruguay I think its about 7,5% for the unified healthcare system, called FONASA

Then you affiliate to the health society you want(many privates and a public one)

</comment><comment><USER24> Zero. My employer pays 100%. Yes, they are awesome!

<comment><USER4> No! You pay 100%! You are awesome!

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> zero. I personally have yet to find a healthcare provider with a profit (or lack thereof) model that is sufficiently differentiable from rigged gambling such that I can in good conscience do business with them. in the meantime I build and maintain a savings account for medical expenses and also pay the Obamacare penalty.

</comment><comment><USER26> Did you have a choice to the type of health insurance that you can choose from? 17.6% is ridiculously high by any standards.

</comment><comment><USER27> Sweden, roughly 10.5% of gross. County council tax (out of which 76% goes to healthcare) and private insurance.

</comment><comment><USER15> OP, you should have requested people put their country in the comment.

</comment><comment><USER28> I pay 1%, though most people here pay 0% other than their income tax.

</comment><comment><USER29> 8.4%, my portion, NYC, for my wife and I.

</comment><comment><USER30> Almost 10%, for myself and a child.

</comment><comment><USER31> of my gross salary? <1%</comment>


22 years after Verizon fiber promise, millions have only DSL or wireless - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/06/22-years-after-verizon-fiber-promise-millions-have-only-dsl-or-wireless/ <comment><USER2> It looks like Verizon's lobbyists earn their pay in PA:

      "Telecom analyst Bruce Kushnick, who has been tracking telco company
      promises for years, wrote [...] that Verizon has gotten away with not
      deploying fiber throughout the state because officials have relaxed the
      requirements over the years, giving up on the "45 megabits per second"
      minimum and allowing Verizon to meet the obligation with wireless instead of
      fiber or other wireline technology."

</comment><comment><USER3> Alexandria, VA seems perfect for FiOS: highly educated people in the middle to upper class, living in dense suburbs. The city government even asked Verizon to bring FiOS. We never got it.

Verizon does not even offer DSL to my address anymore, despite the fact that I _already have DSL over Verizon lines_ via an old independent CLEC.

It's ridiculous, and the city is stuck with a Comcast broadband monopoly that underperforms. As a result the city council is now looking at municipal fiber.</comment>


The Tunnels of NYC's East Side Access Project - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2013/02/the-tunnels-of-nycs-east-side-access-project/100462/

<comment><USER2> If I were to ever leave the world of software, I would want to become a civil engineer so I could design and build projects like these. The maze of tunnels, access ways, pits, support piping and machinery amazes me every single time.

The freezing the ground technique was also used (pioneered?) on Boston's Big Dig for the tunnel under the Amtrak train lines. They also changed the supports for I-93 going through the North End, just like this project did, though I think it was on a larger scale due to the use of the slurry walls they first constructed.

The other massive works project that's been going on for decades in NYC is water tunnel #3 [1]. It's been going since 1970 and is scheduled to finish in 2020. It will be the longest tunnel in the world at 60 miles (97 km) when it's completed.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Water_Tunnel_No._...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Water_Tunnel_No._3)

<comment><USER3> The ground freezing technique is 150 years old: <http://www.burnsmcd.com/BenchMark/Article/Ground-Freezing>

I knew it was at least 30 years old since it was used in subway construction in Moscow around the time I was born but didn't realize it was quite that old.

<comment><USER2> Huh, I had no idea! Everything I read about the Big Dig's use of it implied it was new. Or maybe the idea just got stuck in my head. You learn something new every day.

<comment><USER4> Soil freezing wasn't new when it was used on the Big Dig, but it was either the first time it was used in the USA, or it was the first time it was used on such a massive scale in the USA (similar to the use of slurry walls, which had been used in the USA, but not at that scale - in fact the Big Dig had to bring over German & French equipment along with German/French workers to run the slurry wall diggers since there was no one in the USA qualified to run the machines).

One issue the Big Dig ran into with soil freezing was complications during the thaw process. The soil was frozen to that the project could horizontally "jack" precast tunnel pieces under existing Amtrak & MBTA railroad road tracks. When the freezing and tunnel jacking process was completed, the project let the soil "thaw", but the thawing takes _years_. During the thaw, there were settlement problems that caused the tracks to sink a noticeable amount. Nothing is ever as simple as it seems!

(worked on the Big Dig as a consultant from 1998-2001)

<comment><USER2> The extensive use of slurry walls was one of my favorite parts of the Big Dig. I remember reading about all the European equipment and people who came over. I have an awesome coffee table book about the Big Dig that was given to me by friends who still live in the North End.

Two of the highlights of my time in Boston were the tunnel walk beginning at the southern end of the I-93 table, and talking across the Zakim Bridge before it opened up. I've got 8mm tapes somewhere of video I took on those days. Who ever thought up that idea was a PR genius. :)

(BTW I'm jealous you got to work on the project)

<comment><USER4> _(BTW I'm jealous you got to work on the project)_

The great majority of my work was at night (nighttime noise patrols). Looking back on it, I learned a lot about construction in general and the Big Dig in particular, but at the time it was a pretty miserable experience. And Big Dig workers did tell me about Bova's in the North End which helped passed the time.

But I have stories. So many stories. However, none that I want to relate with my name attached. :)

<comment><USER2> Ahh, Bova's! I lived about 3 blocks from there. They had the most amazing pastries, plus these huge rectangular pizza(?) slices for cheap. If you walked by in the wee hours of the morning, the smell of the bread baking was intoxicating.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is really cool, I was unaware of it prior to this article. For those like me who were hoping for more info about the project, the wikipedia entry is pretty good:

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

Update: Just found _weekly_ photo status updates too -- wish all the larger government projects did something like this!

<http://www.flickr.com/photos/mtacc-esa>

<comment><USER6> The Second Avenue subway is also under construction (finally!): <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Avenue_Subway> . It's been in various planning stages since _1929_ , and its absence is keenly felt by those of us living on the east side (in my case, First Avenue).

If you're just interested in big works, take a look at the Highway 99 project in Seattle: [http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020537494_99tunnelpi...](http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020537494_99tunnelpitxml.html) .

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I ride into grand central every morning to work and it never ceases to amaze me. Dozens of platforms underground for departing and arriving trains, all built 100 years ago under Manhattan. Coming down the Park Ave tunnel you can glimpse the old 59 street station that's now just an emergency exit and its all so damn cool.

</comment><comment><USER8> The Gotthard Base Tunnel is also pretty impressive - under the Alps from Switzerland to Italy, at 57km it'll be the long rail tunnel in the world:

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

</comment><comment><USER9> Whenever I see a US worksite I'm always surprised by the state of work wear. Strapped on hobby lights, cotton based jeans and hoodies, insufficient pockets, substandard florescents etc.

<comment><USER4> Are you implying that there's something wrong with the state of work wear?

<comment><USER9> Not so much the state of work wear as how US worker are equipped. For comparison here's some pictures of a similar project in Sweden:

[http://www.flickr.com/photos/citybanan/7608571102/in/photost...](http://www.flickr.com/photos/citybanan/7608571102/in/photostream) [http://www.flickr.com/photos/citybanan/6146534872/in/photost...](http://www.flickr.com/photos/citybanan/6146534872/in/photostream) [http://www.flickr.com/photos/citybanan/7241248288/in/photost...](http://www.flickr.com/photos/citybanan/7241248288/in/photostream) [http://www.flickr.com/photos/citybanan/8293896234/in/photost...](http://www.flickr.com/photos/citybanan/8293896234/in/photostream) [http://www.flickr.com/photos/citybanan/4635119003/in/photost...](http://www.flickr.com/photos/citybanan/4635119003/in/photostream)

<comment><USER4> You see US workers in similar getups in certain situations (usually workers involved in wet or messy work like concrete/slurry pumping, drilling etc or working in cold environments). I for one (having spent thousands of hours on construction sites) would prefer "cotton based jeans and hoodies" to those outfits in all but really colt & wet environments.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Now if they could finally complete the 2nd Ave. subway...

<comment><USER11> This is a great blog to follow the progress on that project: <http://thelaunchbox.blogspot.com/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> yay, reblogging a flickr feed.

<http://www.flickr.com/photos/mtaphotos/tags/eastsideaccess/>

</comment><comment><USER13> Anyone seen anything similar for Crossrail?

<comment><USER13> Shouldh'a used the Google: <http://www.crossrail.co.uk/news/images/tunnelling/></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Raising VC – better to ask for more money or less? - <AUTHOR>

Strange question, but please bare with me.
We are raising VC money. We have traction, business plan and all that.  We understand our place in the dynamically changing market and want to be reasonable about raising. Hence our business plan is flexible.  We want to grow the company, product, userbase and make sure nobody loses so we evaluated minimum and maximum scenarios.  Our preconditions are:
1) We are aiming at 5-9M valuation. So that we feel safe about goals for  next round. 2) We don't want to over give up more than 20% equity for seed.
Now when we go to meetings with VCs there are 2 scenarios:
1) We ask for too little (say $1M) and are under the radar for VC funds - they say - interesting, but this is too little for us - our comfort zone is is $500k - $1m [at least] and we want more parties involved.
2) We ask for more ($3M). In this case VC says - the valuation (>$12M) is too high because it's early stage.
Our honest, direct answer to this would be to say:
"We can achieve our goals/ milestone on $1M (because we can convince team to boostrap a year longer) so we can honor your valuation expectations. Also we can overachieve our goals / blast past next milestone on $3M - and we can accept this responsibility, not because we are greedy, but because we want to work with you and understand that logistically that the number may suit you more."
Nobody wants to hear honest answer because it would seem we don't know what we want / do (which is wrong).
Now I am not asking what the valuation should be (ha), but rather:
Q: what is the best way to approach new VC in a scenario where the amount you want to raise is flexible? Ask for more and be ready to step down? Ask for less and have an explanation of why you step up? <comment><USER2> From your wording, it sounds more like you are trying to structure the amount you are trying to raise based on each VC you are meeting with. If this is the case, IMO, this is the wrong approach. Before you start meeting with VCs you need to figure out what the minimum and maximum you want to raise is. From there agree on a number internally and present that number as part of your pitch. You should then seek out potential investors that invest in that range, and that are more importantly a match for the type of business you are in. Don't fluctuate your raise solely based on the VC you are meeting with.

It also sounds like you are just scheduling meetings to have meetings, without really determining if the investor is even a good fit for your company at all. Look at previous portfolio companies and any press around them. Prior to scheduling a meeting do your own due diligence on the investor to understand what their range is and how they invest (are they a lead, prefer to co-invest with others, etc..). That way prior to even scheduling a meeting you are not wasting each other's time meeting with someone who only invests at X round or doesn't invest less than X dollars.

My recommendation would be to determine what the minimum amount you need to raise is based on a clear timeline and milestones. From there add a bit of a cushion, but don't over shoot the number enormously. In your pitch clearly layout how much you are raising and what that raise will get you too (what milestones and how long will that money last). If the investor is serious as you discuss further with them you may find your valuation changes slightly or the amount you are willing to give up changes slightly. Never ask for less than you need. The amount you ask should always be based on what that money will achieve as far as milestones. The investor wants to know what their money is buying. For example, will $1M get you to $10000MRR or will $1M only get you to $1000MRR.

Also, as a side note, your question in general comes off as skeptical about your whether your business can succeed down the road. Statements like "we understand our place in the dynamically changing market", "make sure nobody loses", are I am sure well intended, but at first glance raise a red flag (at least to me) about whether there is a chance the business will be viable in a year. This may be just me reading into your question, but if not you may want to be cautious with your wording in meetings.</comment>


Why I blog - <AUTHOR> http://www.gabrielweinberg.com/blog/2011/08/why-i-blog.html

<comment><USER2> I think people underestimate the learning aspect. As a blogger, you don't have all the answers, but you'll find out about many of them thanks to the conversation that will ensue. It helps you learn and grow. I always find this aspect of blogging to be freeing and enticing.

<comment><USER3> Yeah. Paul Graham mentions this in "The Age of the Essay:" <http://www.paulgraham.com/essay.html> . I talk about it too in this essay: [http://jseliger.com/2010/09/27/signaling-status-blogging- aca...](http://jseliger.com/2010/09/27/signaling-status-blogging-academia-and- ideas) , albeit from a slightly more academic perspective.

</comment></comment><comment> mkr-hn Writing on its own will bring your thoughts to the surface where you can really think about them. Doing it on a blog lets others help you think about them.

Blogging is crowdsourcing introspection.

<comment><USER4> _Blogging is crowdsourcing introspection._

I like that line. Often, the act of writing something forces me to commit to a particular thought rather than the Heisenberg-uncertainty haze that is usually bouncing around in my brain, and it is often the case that once the thought has been nailed down it looks a lot less compelling than it did when it was still a probability function.

<comment><USER5> _Often, the act of writing something forces me to commit to a particular thought_

This is the main reason I write things down. Writing something down forces me to commit _and_ defend a certain idea, even if only to myself. Writing it down for the world to see forces me to defend the idea to additional level of scrutiny. In short, writing something down helps me keep from BSing myself.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> 1) To improve my writing/skills. 2) To reach out people of different countries/skill sets (which would have never possible/tough with out a blog) 3) To contribute back to the community. 4) To build a virtual identity of myself (when I meet some people for the first time, they usually start with "hey.. you write that blog, right!?)

</comment><comment><USER7> _Blogging is a bit like public speaking, and people are scared of it for good reason. You are really putting yourself out there._

Totally agree. After my first blog post I woke up the next morning with the same feeling I get after a night of too much drinking, asking myself "what did I do?".

</comment><comment><USER8> I recently started out my first blog which has ever found any audience at all. The response has been amazing and it's been a very rewarding experience both personally and professionally, and I hope to keep it up.

I agree with most of the article's points, except when it comes to commenting. My thinking is that commenting systems often degrade into back-and-forth, one- on-one bickering and end up distracting from the main points being raised in the blog post.

The exception of course, would be technical blog posts, where comment threads often include more in depth tips, corrections, and tidbits of related information.

</comment><comment><USER9> I think the key point for me is committing to blog, rather than just starting one. No one wants to be another person with a blog last updated a year ago. This is great motivation!</comment>


Goatse.cx Is Reborn… As An Email Address Provider - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/28/goatse-cx-is-reborn-as-an-email-address-provider/

<comment><USER2> I would never use that domain, except as a suitably appropriate throwaway account.

</comment><comment><USER3> wow, who would ever use that for their email? I'd want a filter to send all of them to the trash "just in case"</comment>


Welcoming Mozilla to Matrix - <AUTHOR> https://matrix.org/blog/2019/12/19/welcoming-mozilla-to-matrix/ <comment><USER2> Comments moved to [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21835749](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21835749).

</comment><comment><USER3> Link to Mozilla's announcement: [https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/synchronous- messaging-at-moz...](https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/synchronous-messaging-at- mozilla-the-decision/50620)

<comment><USER4> Discussion of Mozilla's announcement also at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21835749](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21835749)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> New Vector ([https://www.vector.im/](https://www.vector.im/)) is actively hiring more designers to come work fulltime on Riot's UI and UX as they shift Riot's focus from being developer-led to design-led.

That's great news!

[https://apply.workable.com/new- vector/j/6CB817C79E/](https://apply.workable.com/new-vector/j/6CB817C79E/)</comment>


Crick, a time-tracker dashboard, goes open-source - <AUTHOR> https://tailordev.fr/blog/2017/08/02/crick-goes-open-source/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hi! I am Will, co-author of the blog post and tool(s).

A long time ago, we asked our intern to develop a time tracker as a CLI, given that we spend most of our time in the terminal and also to give him something fun to do. He designed a great time tracker that we now use daily: Watson ([https://github.com/TailorDev/Watson](https://github.com/TailorDev/Watson)).

Our business involves billing clients per days (7h a day). Watson was our source of truth but sometimes we needed to aggregate reports of different developers. Crick ([https://github.com/TailorDev/crick](https://github.com/TailorDev/crick)) to the rescue!

These open source tools were part of a much bigger project that never took off. Watson was open source per se but we thought we could maybe create Crick as a paying-product. We conducted interviews and decided not to do that: nobody really needed such a tool. Well. We needed it so we developed it and decided to open source it.

<comment><USER2> Hey would you mind providing some sort of demo of crick? After looking through the article, repo,etc and heading to app.crick.io I can't see what it looks like for the life of me...

<comment><AUTHOR> Good point! In a previous article, we do have a few Gifs: [https://tailordev.fr/blog/2017/06/07/le-lab-5-crick-a- backen...](https://tailordev.fr/blog/2017/06/07/le-lab-5-crick-a-backend-for- watson-time-tracker/).

Edit: I added a Gif on the (GitHub) README too: [https://github.com/TailorDev/crick](https://github.com/TailorDev/crick).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hi! We noticed that many users could not create "Teams".. It is fixed now, sorry for the inconvenience :(

</comment><comment><USER3> Slightly off topic and with respect to both the authors, and Philip Greenspun:

"Any sufficiently complicated time-tracking program contains an ad-hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of Org mode."

<comment><AUTHOR> Do you mean this? [http://orgmode.org/](http://orgmode.org/)

Can you track time with it?

<comment><USER3> Yes indeed you can "clock in" to your Todos as you work on them, and then generate a "clock table" to see what time you've spent where.

[http://orgmode.org/manual/Clocking-commands.html#Clocking- co...](http://orgmode.org/manual/Clocking-commands.html#Clocking-commands)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Watson reminds me of Timewarrior. [https://taskwarrior.org/docs/timewarrior/](https://taskwarrior.org/docs/timewarrior/)

<comment><USER5> Hi! Julien, I am a co-author of crick/watson. You are totally right, and you're not the first one to mention it. Note that some people have integrated taskwarrior with Watson, see [https://github.com/yloiseau/watson-utils#on- modify-watsonpy](https://github.com/yloiseau/watson-utils#on-modify-watsonpy)

Best.

<comment><USER4> Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The first link to "Crick" seems to take me to a "Page not found" page(It links [https://tailordev.fr/blog/2017/08/02/crick-goes-open- source/...](https://tailordev.fr/blog/2017/08/02/crick-goes-open- source/app.crick.io) probably instead of [https://app.crick.io/](https://app.crick.io/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, this should be fixed now!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Can it work without manually running start? Like automatically know when to start?</comment>


Tesco ban on shoppers in pyjamas (2010) - <AUTHOR> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8484116.stm <comment><USER2> Pretty much anything goes at Walmart:

[http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/](http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/)

<comment><USER3> Word of caution: this site immediately created at least 10 ad pages, some bocking (on a mobile)

<comment><USER2> Sorry if you were trying to access on mobile.

Many sites, including that one, are eminently viewable using the combination of Firefox and NoScript. I don't do much mobile browsing so I don't know the corresponding technique to use on a phone.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I just learned the word pajamas.

<comment><USER5> What word do they use for that in (I'm assuming) Tennessee?

<comment><USER4> Doh, my phone autocorrected! I meant "pyjamas".</comment></comment></comment>


I ditched my old consumer WiFi for an enterprise solution–and I'll never go back - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/10/review-ubiquiti-unifi-made-me-realize-how-terrible-consumer-wi-fi-gear-is/ <comment><USER2> I did the same long ago, and I do love Ubiquiti's devices...but this is a pretty brash vendor puff piece.</comment>


DrawChat, Chat App With Sketching - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2012/09/07/drawchat/

<comment><USER2> All I can say is good luck with that!</comment>


Paraguay tops the list of the world's happiest countries - <AUTHOR> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3005177/Do-live-one-world-s-happiest-countries-New-study-reveals-best-places-live.html

<comment><USER2> How these polls are made by the way?</comment>


Nintendo of America's Reggie Fils-Aime to Retire - <AUTHOR> https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190221005804/en/ <comment><USER2> I'm not sure I can think of another corporate executive as wholesome as Reggie.

I hope his retirement is seen as an example. Go live life while you can. If it's not fun, why bother?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Video message by Fils-Aime: [https://twitter.com/NintendoAmerica/status/10986663214730240...](https://twitter.com/NintendoAmerica/status/1098666321473024000)

</comment><comment><USER3> Can someone please tell me that Bowser running Nitendo of America is just a joke. That is one crazy coincident that a man named Doug Bowser would take over that role.

<comment><AUTHOR> Twitter has been having fun with it.

[https://twitter.com/jasonschreier/status/1098667495521771520](https://twitter.com/jasonschreier/status/1098667495521771520)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Geoff Keighley[1] frequently had Reggie on his Spike TV video game show and I was always impressed with his insights and take on video games.

[1] [https://mobile.twitter.com/geoffkeighley/status/109866172566...](https://mobile.twitter.com/geoffkeighley/status/1098661725660864513)</comment>


Deploying a real world application with Docker - Interleap-Tech https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxyCXneE7gE&t=7s <comment> Interleap-Tech This video covers how to deploy a real world application built using springboot, react, postgres and nginx.

Covers all the major topics one needs to get started with docker.</comment>


MacRuby 0.5 Released: A Significant, Stable Release - <AUTHOR> http://www.rubyinside.com/macruby-0-5-released-2951.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+RubyInside+%28Ruby+Inside%29 <comment><USER2> macruby is an awesome project, when the project releases a 1.0 release, they will show all the other ruby implementations that you can have a fast ruby implementation. And hopefully this will make its way to the iphone and ipad.

<comment><USER3> I really hope that MacRuby is the answer to "unsigned app execution" because the interpreter can be controlled to whatever issues arise (ie. bandwidth, etc.)

<comment><USER4> MacRuby doesn't run on an interpreter, it has several ways of running with JIT bytecode compiling as its default.

The biggest hurdle for MacRuby is that it uses garbage collection, which isn't available on the iPhone OS.

Applications will still need to be 'signed' to run on the iPhone.</comment></comment></comment>


Chinese Dominance of Rare-Earth Metals Threatens to Disrupt U.S. Manufacturing - <AUTHOR> https://globelynews.com/asia/chinese-dominance-of-rare-earth-metals-threatens-to-disrupt-u-s-manufacturing <comment><USER2> For about a month or two, after existing stocks have run down and before local refineries have started up...

China's not the only source of rare earth metals...just the only location currently willing to accept the environmental costs of _refining_ the ore to extract the valuable stuff. Within the past week, 3 mining companies have already announced plans for non-Chinese rare earth metal refineries, to be sourced from the Mountain Pass mine in CA that provided nearly all of the world's rare earth materials until the 1990s.

The mine is still very viable and was re-started several months ago. It was originally shut down because it wasn't feasible to run with environmental mitigation costs factored in...but now it's considered a strategic facility and so it can count on the federal government to provide any financial support needed on that front.

<comment><USER3> They can be refined in environmental ways, it just costs a bit more money. Domestic refiners shutdown because China underpriced them by not having sane environmental regulations.

<comment><USER4> _a bit more money_

Do you have any reference for how much exactly it would cost in less environmentally harmful way?

<comment><USER5> Using made-up numbers, the problem goes roughly like this:

Start with a million tons of rock. Process it. Now you have 999998 tons of very finely powdered rock, 1 ton of valuable product, and 1 ton of naturally occurring radioactive waste. You aren't permitted to mix the radioactive waste back into the rock, even though that is where it came from in the first place.

Among other things, you get thorium.

<comment><USER6> The thorium itself possibly becoming a valuable commodity if Gen III/IV nuclear reactors get built. It's a very stable isotope (age of the universe half-life so far) and doesn't emit hard gamma radiation (though its daughters do, but again very long half-life), store it up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> From what I've read, this looks like it's just posturing on China's part. There are plenty of other sources that can be brought online quicky. The bigger picture is what I'm trying to understand.

How real of a threat is the trade war to China? Could it cause a recession? Worse? Will it have long-term effects for them?

Which party is likely to suffer the least, or gain the most?

Is the US planning on strong arming China long enough for other countries to step in, eg. India, Vietnam, etc.?

What's the objective here? Is it to rebalance power, maintain the lead a little longer, permanently knee-cap them, ...?

<comment><USER8> It seems like once the old guards in the CCP rejected the reformist trade deal in late May that the inevitable path for both countries is disentanglement. Thus the 25% tariff hike on all Chinese imports possibly starting June 24. Thus the crackdown on Chinese tech with ties to the Chinese government, such as Huawei and DJI. We are now seeing the progression of complete separation of US and China, economically and financially. Between two completely different ideals: autocratic authoritarian, state sponsored economy vs republic, free market

<comment><USER9> I'd never thought about it like this... pretty scary. Our economic ties always calmed my anxiety about a US-China war starting

<comment><USER8> I wouldn't worry, China is no shape to start a war with US. It is currently facing 3 wars: political leadership - with Xi faction vs the old guards. Internal population, with unrests in Xinjiang, Tibet, Hong Kong, and economically suffering northeast and western region. And neighbors, with Taiwan, Vietnam, Indonesia, Philippines, and India, over South sea. The CCP doesn't have the financial or political capital to fight any of the wars currently.

A 4th war with the economic superpowers - US, EU, Japan would end with so quickly with simply an economic sanction.

<comment><USER10> OTOH, we can say something similar about the US.

Trump has been battling investigations and possible impeachment hearings since day one. Partisanship amongst voters is at a 40 year high. And the US is waging the longest war in its entire history, with no proper resolution in sight. Plus -- who knows? -- it might just start a brand new war against Iran.

The last thing the US needs is a military war with China.

<comment><USER11> A war with China won't be a war fought on the ground. It will almost assuredly be a war of navies and cyber. The US can handle both in perpetuity. Neither country wants to use nukes and the US has 0 interest in occupying China.

<comment><USER10> > The US can handle both in perpetuity

How can we be so sure?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Same thing happened in 2010. There were talks of restarting mining in the US but obviously it didn't follow through. Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2010/10/20/th...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2010/10/20/the- truth-behind-the-chinese-rare-earths-embargo/#1290595f7846)

</comment><comment><USER13> So i remebered reading about this a few times in the last decade and thought it would be good to give you clickety clicky links too:

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

[https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/02/a-vis...](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/02/a-visit- to-the-only-american-mine-for-rare-earth-metals/253372/)

[https://www.hcn.org/articles/the-u-s-s-only-rare-earth- mine-...](https://www.hcn.org/articles/the-u-s-s-only-rare-earth-mine-files- bankruptcy)

[https://www.hcn.org/issues/47.11/why-rare-earth-mining-in- th...](https://www.hcn.org/issues/47.11/why-rare-earth-mining-in-the-west-is- a-bust)

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-27/the- calif...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-27/the-californian- rare-earths-mine-caught-between-trump-and-china)

This is only a few miles away:

[https://www.viator.com/tours/Las-Vegas/Hidden-Valley-and- Pri...](https://www.viator.com/tours/Las-Vegas/Hidden-Valley-and-Primm-Valley- Extreme-RZR-Tour-from-Las-Vegas/d684-3501O0074)

[https://www.viator.com/tours/Las-Vegas/Hidden-Valley-and- Pri...](https://www.viator.com/tours/Las-Vegas/Hidden-Valley-and-Primm-ATV- Tour/d684-3501O0017)

[https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/125235906#map=11/35.5878/-...](https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/125235906#map=11/35.5878/-115.3496)

Feel like MadMax!

/me wonders if they wash off the dust with spraying water, or something like that afterwards for decontamination?

</comment><comment><USER14> Isn't it the case that some of these are waste materials of existing mining activity and that some mines could tool up very quickly to refine them, only it just wasn't economical to do so?

<comment><USER15> Not sure if it's waste material, but yes, the only reason there isn't non- Chinese supply is economics. If they ban export the economics changes quickly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> "However, a recent analysis of the current situation published by Barrons suggests that alternative sourcing and better management of supply chains in the rare-earth industry could help U.S. companies ward off a potential crisis"

Is buried at the end of the article as it undermines the whole clickbait premise.

</comment><comment><USER17> China is threatening to disrupt U.S. MANUFACTURING. If that's their response to the blacklisting Huawei they are looking very weak and should just throw int he towel.

<comment><USER18> i don't recall China repeatedly stating that he wanted a trade war, then unilaterally announcing tariffs on twitter leaving his own state department in the lurch. I think there may have been another party doing all that stuff.

<comment><USER17> Correct, China would prefer to continue to not live up to its commitments for 20 more years.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> don't mean to make an offtopic request, but anyone have book or podcast recommendations for learning more about the Chinese political situation?

<comment><USER19> I found Everything Under the Heavens to be rather enlightening.

[https://www.amazon.com/Everything-Under-Heavens-Chinas- Globa...](https://www.amazon.com/Everything-Under-Heavens-Chinas- Global/dp/0385353324)

<comment><USER9> thanks, I'll check it out!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I think this is really unlikely to happen, because all Trump has to do is put even higher tariffs on any goods that use said elements that are made in China.

The impact would cripple Chinese exports to the US, which could put their economy into recession - and a recession is the last thing that Xi wants to deal with.

My gut tells me that the rare earths will be more subtle - such as export slowdowns due to new paperwork requirements that magically appear. Much more effective, and China doesn't have to look like the bad guy.

<comment><USER21> You're assuming United States production facilities can just push a button and they all turn on. Or that you can take what's being produced in China and just automatically produce it here?

<comment><USER20> Neither actually.

I'm saying that if China bans the US for importing it that a trade war of unimaginable consequences will be started.

Right now it's just a scuffle.</comment></comment></comment>


The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences (1960) - <AUTHOR> https://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html <comment><USER2> Despite the author's argument, for me at least, there are an order of a priori "hints" which argue why Mathematics ought to be seen in the natural sciences.

In the beginning of mathematics, it was likely, if not definitively created to enumerate similar objects in a particular given set. In order to enumerate an object two things must happen. The object must be turned into an object: this means it must be reduced into some abstract concept which holds certain properties to belong in a set. Second, it must be mapped with a further abstract ID, the number. The most significant consequence of this is that the enumerated ID's and objects now hold the property of logic, because in our world all objects seem to exhibit properties of logic (most of the time). This would have begun as simple arithmetic, an early model of a useful description of our world. From this it becomes evident that you can now map any integer to objects, and perform operations on those integers which map onto the real world as if you were performing the operation on those very real objects.

Later, mathematicians would then become less concerned with the objects mathematics served to represent but more on the relationships in between them. In the logical manipulations of these objects, mathematicians began really exploring the very logical relationships between objects (the creation of variables would coincide here over strict numbers). They once represented an object, yet still can be used again to represent an object. It follows, that these objects should now follow these logical relationships.

From these concerns, I reduce mathematics further as a nice description of logical relationships; a derivative of our own model of the universe.

<comment><USER3> > because in our world all objects seem to exhibit properties of logic

This is the thing that needs to be explained. I get that math is just logic, but why should we expect the natural world to follow logical rules?

<comment><USER4> What sort of logical rules would we even consider logical if they didn't manage to explain anything about the natural world?

<comment><USER2> Exactly.

>I reduce mathematics further as a nice description of logical relationships; a derivative of our own model of the universe.

The rules of logic are the behaviors of objects that we experience and observe. In a differing reality, objects may have properties which could be illogical to the perspective of someone in our own; yet if we move to that strange reality, our brains would slowly process the information into a new model of reality with the ~new logic~. However that ability is mostly pointless as any group of mostly consistent behaviors will have either more but never differing logical relationships as any other reality with mostly consistent behavior (this is also why we see something called duality in mathematics).

The further consequence of this, in our studies of natural sciences, we hold our brain's model of reality as supreme. We don't consider something to be ~true~ until at least its conclusions can be witnessed and perceived. The consequence and perhaps also the cause of this, is all of mathematics and natural sciences are mostly attempts to formalize as well as quantify our own brain's unified model of reality.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's worth re-reading this a few times to understand what Wigner was actually getting at:

He's specifically saying we have no a priori reason to expect that mathematics should have predictive ability in the real world, but it seems to do so (I'm not sure I buy this), and we should be thankful.

<comment><USER6> I can readily understand the perspective, at least as far as the a priori reason being hard to discern or articulate. But I don't hold the perspective. Like Tegmark, I believe the reason math works is that the universe is math. (And it follows that mathematicians who believe their work is unconnected in principle from the physical world, are being myopic or escapist.)

Working on a rather advanced procedurally generated game world for a long time has only strengthened this belief. The world looks quite natural, but it is literally a visualization of an ordinary integer hash function being computed many millions of times. Exploring the Mandelbrot set intensely, has the same effect on me, and that math is much simpler. I'm not trying to assume these analogies are tautologies, but when I'm inside the game world and it looks both totally natural, and also exactly like my hash function, all I can say is it's very suggestive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> A counterpoint to this is Derek Abbott's "The Reasomable Ineffectiveness of Mathematics." Personally, I think domains with low-N (dimensions and sample sizes) and high complexity remain beyond the optimistic expectations of Eugene Wigner. [https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/462d/7b6b1ee8243b6aa8897be3...](https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/462d/7b6b1ee8243b6aa8897be3cf306239fb43c6.pdf)

<comment><USER8> Also: A naturalist account of the limited, and hence reasonable, effectiveness of mathematics in physics - Lee Smolin

[https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.03733](https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.03733)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> >It is true, of course, that physics chooses certain mathematical concepts for the formulation of the laws of nature, and surely only a fraction of all mathematical concepts is used in physics. It is true also that the concepts which were chosen were not selected arbitrarily from a listing of mathematical terms but were developed, in many if not most cases, independently by the physicist and recognized then as having been conceived before by the mathematician. It is not true, however, as is so often stated, that this had to happen because mathematics uses the simplest possible concepts and these were bound to occur in any formalism.

That last point is unconvincing. Maybe they aren't the simplest possible concepts, but it surely must be the case that had we evolved in any universe, we would have sought to understand it and would have formalized that understanding. That's not all that math is, but it has led to several popular branches of it. Surprising? Unreasonable? Not at all.

</comment><comment><USER10> No mention of Frege here, and only a cursory quote from Russell. While I can't comment on the author's perspective based on this article alone, it is consistently shocking to me how little scientists and mathematicians are interested in in reading and engaging with philosophy related to their fields.

<comment><USER11> I, for one, would be happy to read mathematical philosophy. The problem is that there is so _much_ of it, and lots of it contradicts lots of other bits of it. As a mathematician attempting to find out about the philosophy of mathematics, I want a source of truth and correctness. In order to find it (assuming it even exists), I also have to wade through reams of falsity.

The additional problem is that philosophy, like any field, has a steep learning curve. It takes a _lot_ of effort to go from "I want to learn about the philosophy of my field" to "I know a little bit about the philosophy of my field".

<comment><USER12> There is no consensus as to what is the true and correct philosophy of mathematics. People are going to disagree about that, just like they disagree about almost every other part of philosophy. But there are books which give you a survey of different views, such as Shapiro's "Thinking about mathematics" — which surely will bring you to "I know a bit about the philosophy of mathematics"-level.

During my time as a master student in mathematics we used to have a joint seminar with students from philosophy where we would take turns reading and presenting topics from philosophy of mathematics. I think it was useful for everyone, and it wasn't difficult to organise and didn't take much time (2 hours per week during one term).

<comment><USER11> > There is no consensus as to what is the true and correct philosophy of > mathematics.

This is part of the problem. I start reading; I see something "obviously false" which is endorsed by lots of people; I see something "obviously true" which is endorsed by lots of people but is contradictory to the obviously- false thing; I see a case which contradicts both of those and isn't obviously true or obviously false; and I give the whole thing up as non-rigorous and/or tedious. But I'll look out Shapiro and see if it helps.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Well before we tried explaining the world with mathematics - the study of riddles and games and money.

Before we tried that, we tried explaining the world with gods and spirits - the study of the _personalities_ of the forces of nature.

I just like to keep that in mind, that mathematics was our second attempt.

</comment><comment><USER14> I dunno. We have spent a couple of millennia trying things and taking whatever is effective. It may be unreasonable that something is effective, but I can't convince myself it is so.

</comment><comment><USER15> For a different take on this, see Dan Shanks' "The case for pythagoreanism" starting on pg. 130 in his classic text Solved and Unsolved Problems in Number Theory:

[https://archive.org/stream/SolvedAndUnsolvedProblemsInNumber...](https://archive.org/stream/SolvedAndUnsolvedProblemsInNumberTheory/Shanks- SolvedAndUnsolvedProblemsInNumberTheory#page/n139/mode/2up)

</comment><comment><USER16> "Math" is just a language designed for deductive logic. Lots of science is now being done in other (programming) languages that can fill the same role. Is "math" still special?

<comment><USER17> The physicist Max Tegemark claims that the only real properties are mathematical properties. Notice how much physics relies on math. What are the properties of an electron? An electron is understood mathematically.

<comment><USER18> Yeah, mathematics seems rather meta. If the universe/multiverse we live in turns out to be a simulation, if every scientific discovery turns out to be incorrect, etc....set theory remains. There is something incredibly powerful and beautiful about that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I highly recommend Hamming's response, which was very influential to the way I think about mathematics and physics:

[https://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Hamming.ht...](https://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Hamming.html)

Edit: a teaser:

"Let us next consider Galileo. Not too long ago I was trying to put myself in Galileo's shoes, as it were, so that I might feel how he came to discover the law of falling bodies. I try to do this kind of thing so that I can learn to think like the masters did-I deliberately try to think as they might have done.

Well, Galileo was a well-educated man and a master of scholastic arguments. He well knew how to argue the number of angels on the head of a pin, how to argue both sides of any question. He was trained in these arts far better than any of us these days. I picture him sitting one day with a light and a heavy ball, one in each hand, and tossing them gently. He says, hefting them, "It is obvious to anyone that heavy objects fall faster than light ones-and, anyway, Aristotle says so." "But suppose," he says to himself, having that kind of a mind, "that in falling the body broke into two pieces. Of course the two pieces would immediately slow down to their appropriate speeds. But suppose further that one piece happened to touch the other one. Would they now be one piece and both speed up? Suppose I tied the two pieces together. How tightly must I do it to make them one piece? A light string? A rope? Glue? When are two pieces one?"

The more he thought about it-and the more you think about it-the more unreasonable becomes the question of when two bodies are one. There is simply no reasonable answer to the question of how a body knows how heavy it is-if it is one piece, or two, or many. Since falling bodies do something, the only possible thing is that they all fall at the same speed-unless interfered with by other forces. There's nothing else they can do. He may have later made some experiments, but I strongly suspect that something like what I imagined actually happened. I later found a similar story in a book by Polya [7. G. Polya, Mathematical Methods in Science, MAA, 1963, pp. 83-85.]. Galileo found his law not by experimenting but by simple, plain thinking, by scholastic reasoning.

I know that the textbooks often present the falling body law as an experimental observation; I am claiming that it is a logical law, a consequence of how we tend to think."

[..]

"But if you do not like these two examples, let me turn to the most highly touted law of recent times, the uncertainty principle. It happens that recently I became involved in writing a book on Digital Filters [8. R. W. Hamming, Digital Filters, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ., 1977.] when I knew very little about the topic. As a result I early asked the question, "Why should I do all the analysis in terms of Fourier integrals? Why are they the natural tools for the problem?" I soon found out, as many of you already know, that the eigenfunctions of translation are the complex exponentials. If you want time invariance, and certainly physicists and engineers do (so that an experiment done today or tomorrow will give the same results), then you are led to these functions. Similarly, if you believe in linearity then they are again the eigenfunctions. In quantum mechanics the quantum states are absolutely additive; they are not just a convenient linear approximation. Thus the trigonometric functions are the eigenfunctions one needs in both digital filter theory and quantum mechanics, to name but two places.

Now when you use these eigenfunctions you are naturally led to representing various functions, first as a countable number and then as a non-countable number of them-namely, the Fourier series and the Fourier integral. Well, it is a theorem in the theory of Fourier integrals that the variability of the function multiplied by the variability of its transform exceeds a fixed constant, in one notation l/2pi. This says to me that in any linear, time invariant system you must find an uncertainty principle."

</comment><comment><USER20> > We now have, in physics, two theories of great power and interest: the > theory of quantum phenomena and the theory of relativity. [...] The two > theories operate with different mathematical concepts -- the four > dimensional Riemann space and the infinite dimensional Hilbert space. So > far, the two theories could not be united, that is, no mathematical > formulation exists to which both of these theories are approximations. All > physicists believe that a union of the two theories is inherently possible > and that we shall find it. Nevertheless, it is possible also to imagine that > no union of the two theories can be found.

Yes! Perhaps there's a meta-law which says any Universe in which Consciousness exists can not be fully explained by one single mathematical formulation. After all, Math ultimately originates in the conscious Mind. Perhaps only a Universe that requires two or more distinct Mathematical models to explain it (for us, GR and QM) can host Consciousness within it.</comment>


Using machine learning to detect deficient coverage in colonoscopy screenings - <AUTHOR> https://ai.googleblog.com/2020/08/using-machine-learning-to-detect.html <comment><USER2> This sounds like it might be applicable in the near future - the regulatory barriers to a system that checks if you've missed any areas are probably far lower than any kind of tool that provides an actual diagnosis.

<comment><USER3> This really resonates with where I feel a lot of these systems are headed first. Having a system that aids the reader/user or augments their own abilities are far more palatable to a system with tons of regulation. Imagine a chest xray scanner that highlights places that are typically missed by radiologists, or enhances the opacities in that area. If I'm not mistaken, philips or siemens have a program that does just that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> As it seems pretty much feasible to use automatic objects detection/classification to spot possible tumors during the colonoscopy, wouldn't it be the next obvious step to replace the normal camera (well suited for a human observer) by several cameras in particular on the sides, or even a 360° camera (with the corresponding spotlights)?

This would help get 100% coverage with no effort.

</comment><comment><USER5> Chadwick Boseman dying from colon cancer at 43 makes me think we need better non-invasive testing.

Sounds like he developed his cancer before he was 40.

<comment><USER6> Indeed. In Chadwick Boseman's case, the onset was at _such_ a young age that it suggests (total speculation) he might have had a hereditary cancer syndrome or some other familial risk factor. More widespread genetic testing may help people like him in the future.

<comment><USER7> I would be curious if anyone knows his cancer family history. The guidelines I've seen recommend screening at age 50 or 10 years before a the age at which a first degree relative was diagnosed (whichever is sooner).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Wow this is really interesting and a project I'd really like to work on. My grandmother passed away from colon cancer in her late 50s and as a presently 32 y/o I'm definitely thinking about getting a colonoscopy soon. I wonder if they could give me the raw video data to experiment with?

<comment><USER9> I wonder if a better starting point would be consulting a well-regarded oncologist or gastroenterologist.

That might be your best resource for assessing your personal risk profile, and developing an early-detection strategy. That also might be the fastest way to persuade a gastroenterologist to perform the exam, if appropriate.</comment></comment>


Build a house for less than $5000 - <AUTHOR> http://ciracar.com/build-a-house-for-less-than-5000 <comment><USER3> I love the look of that house, seems extremely cosy and well-designed.

But it's pretty hypocritical to present it as cheap and frugal.

The cost of a house is land + labor + material. Land costs depend on where you want to live, but can be the biggest factor. He mentions 1500 hours of labor, which, if you were paying somebody to do it, would be somewhere around 100000 USD (full cost of a skilled craftsman is around $60/hour). And even the 5000 dollars for materials is a fool's calculation, since he mentions using scrap materials, i.e. stuff that somebody else had to pay to produce.

If you want something truly sustainable, i.e. not something pseudo-green and feelgood-ecologigal, but something that anybody can afford, you'd unfortunately would have to go with a mass-produced high-rise block of flats.

Not a fan of the do-gooder hypocrisy here, but as an example of an architectural style that blends into nature it's adorable and looks fantastic.

<comment><USER4> A used shipping container is about $2,000. You'd want to check it for chemicals. It's closer to $10,000 if you want them fitted out as something you can live in, though. I'm not sure about the charm factor.

<comment><USER5> Shipping containers are always proposed as the ideal solution for someone else. Nobody would actually choose to live in such a shithole if they had other options.

<comment><USER6> One can make some surprisingly beautiful houses out of shipping containers. I can't find the link at the moment but one such company advertises in dwell magazine. Hopefully I can find it.

<comment><USER5> For houses featured in _Dwell_ , shipping containers are merely a fetish incorporated into million dollar+ dwellings.

Shipping containers are uninsulated and have stressed skin construction - <USER2> require a lot of work to be used as a thermal envelop, or when incorporating fenestration (not to mention blowing out a whole side.

With the economic downturn, the glut of shipping containers is long gone and prices for used containers have risen significantly over the past several years.

A lot of those buildings which are featured in glossy architectural rags are actually built with custom modules, not actual containers because the dimensions of a standard shipping container are suitable for...well, shipping, not human habitation - 7'-10" inside height before interior ceiling and wall finishes are added (and that's if your insulation is exterior).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I remember reading about this a long time ago. The builder's own website on the subject is a much better link, which presents the hows and whys: <http://www.simondale.net/house/>

The OP is nothing more than a copy-paste job, though given how old it is, there might be some interesting discussion in the comments.

I believe from what I've read in the past that this was more of an exhibition piece than a long term place to live.

</comment><comment><USER8> What bugs me about projects like this, is that they're being presented as 'sustainable' while they're the antithesis of that. If everybody would want to live like that, there wouldn't be enough room, let alone large, undisturbed areas for forests or agriculture; plus this house may have cost the builder only 5000 pounds (if you don't count the land), but that's only possible when it's a one-of-a-kind project. If you'd have to take into account the supply network needed to build a house like this, and live in it, to a reasonably comfortable standard (meaning, at the very least: warm, dry, no vermin inside, access to sewer and running water), it would become a lot more expensive, if not downright impossible.

<comment><USER9> I get the room part, but it cost him 5000 pounds because he built it out of logs and straw bales. There's not really a massive supply network needed for that sort of thing.

Also, your idea of a decent house is (obviously) not necessarily his idea of a decent house (eg. he has a composting toilet), but it looks pretty warm and dry and vermin free to me.

<comment><USER10> roel_v is saying that a house like this does not scale in terms of production, materials and land required when _everyone_ would be building one.

<comment><USER11> anthonyb is saying that logs and stray bales are available in large quantities. And he's right, there's no issue of scale here, other than labor. I have family who have built straw houses and they're cheap, straw is _very_ plentiful, and you really can't tell the difference from a traditional drywall/fiberglass insulation home (it wasn't stylized like this one).

The only thing I see being an issue with the house from the article is the composting toilet. However, running a sewer to this style of house is no different than running a sewer to a traditional house.

<comment><USER12> It's more than just the building material. I live in a 65 story building..8 units per floor (I'm sure it thins out near the top though). How many people per sqft of _land_ do you think we take? How much would be taken by free- standing (single) homes?

How much do you think we save in heating and cooling given that only 2 out of 4 walls are exposed (and in some apartments, it might be 1/4)?

If I wasn't tired, I'd look it up, but I have to imagine that apartment-style "dense" living, is way more sustainable than almost any type of house.

<comment><USER11> It seems your issue is with the concept of single family homes and urban sprawl, not this particular method of building. That's a bit of a different issue -- many people don't want to live in the middle of a city (such as myself: I'm on a rather large lot in a 4 bedroom home)

It's true that high density housing is efficient, but if you are going to build a single family home, strawbale is a great way to do it.

<comment><USER12> I don't mean to rant on you, but I do like having this conversation :)

I don't think limiting what we view as sustainable to only the things we want is being reasonable. Sure, there's degrees of sustainability, and we can talk about it in those terms. But, when I look at the world, I no longer believe that we are necessarily entitled to things that we want. Greeks, for example, would like to continue living well beyond their financial means. Should they be allowed to simply because they wish for it?

We have a good system to measure the financial cost of thing. So, at the very least, what you want is something you need to be able to afford (although that plays to the disadvantage of the truly poor). However, there are few checks in places for the social costs, and even fewer for the environmental cost.

So while you want to live in a big house, and you can afford it, do you have a greater social responsibility? Or, put differently (and possibility unfairly), what impact would it have if the considerable number of people who lived in such a dwelling moved to something more sustainable?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> If your interested in cheap housing. Yurts are worth a look. They are used by half the population of Mongolia, and can be very warm. They make a great cabin retreat, but they are not quite as nice a normal american home without the added expense and convenience of plumbing, electrical, etc...

However, in there base form, they cost around $5000. See the link below for pricing:

<http://www.yurts.com/products/default.aspx>

(I am not affiliated with anyone selling any yurts, I just happen to like them).

<comment><USER14> Shipping containers are often used, which can be had for half this used. Usualy a much better idea IMO. Refrigeration units offer good insulation, often alongside partial burying of them. They can also look fairly like the western norm inside.

Heres an example built with 2; [http://thechive.com/2011/07/26/unbelievable- home-built-out-o...](http://thechive.com/2011/07/26/unbelievable-home-built- out-of-two-shipping-containers-39-photos/)

e: also, a more aspirational one.. obviously more expensive and more containers required; [http://www.lowimpactliving.com/blog/2009/07/07/affordable- sh...](http://www.lowimpactliving.com/blog/2009/07/07/affordable-shipping- container-house-in-quebec/)

<comment><USER15> I love the idea of the shipping container home, especially when fixed up like this - though I lack the skills/patience to DIY like in that link you posted.

There was an amazing compund a guy in Texas built from shipping containers, shown on the show "Doomsday preppers" on TLC the other day.

[http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/doomsday- prepp...](http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/doomsday- preppers/prepper-bunkers-stockpiles-pictures/)

This guy used NINE containers for his thing.

I like the idea of prepping, but it still takes a good deal of resources to be able to do stuff like that..

<comment><USER16> Here's a mid-rise made from shipping containers: <http://www.citycenterlofts.net/>

And homes:

<http://zerocabin.com/>

Pretty impressive, given the basic template they're made from.

<comment><USER15> Looks like you'd still need a fair bit of structural steel to support that citycenterlofts building. I would say the engineering skill needed is fairly non-trivial, although straightforward -> i.e. not a low-cost DIY type of structure.

I'd be interested in seeing the construction costs of that though, as compared to a similar design not based on shipping containers.

I forgot about zerocabin - I had seen that site before. Thanks for the reminder.

<comment><USER16> >Looks like you'd still need a fair bit of structural steel to support that citycenterlofts building

That's likely, to conform to building code. Still, they stack those things full of goods 7-8 high on shipping vessels.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> While the house cute and quaint, cozy and cheap, methinks most of us are more fond of modern straight-line homes than "hobbit" habitats.

For some time now I've been digging for info on building ultra-cheap housing, starting with an interest in log homes and branching into "tiny houses". Goal is to get my kids to earn and move into paid-off real estate by graduation.

To keep it short, here's some interesting links:

Tumbleweed Houses - <http://www.tumbleweedhouses.com/> (plans starting at $20; in one notable case, house built for $10K)

MIT $1K house project - <http://web.mit.edu/1khouse/> (seems defunct, but a noble start)

Tiny House Blog - <http://tinyhouseblog.com/> (ongoing reviews of small and/or inexpensive options)

Cheap houses - <https://www.google.com/search?q=cheap+houses> (there is a lot of dirt-cheap real estate out there if you're flexible)

Free land - <https://www.google.com/search?q=free+land> (some jurisdictions will, in fact, give you land free if you'll build a house & live there a while)

<comment><USER18> I couldn't find anything regarding the free land you've mentioned. Do you have any more leads?

<comment><USER17> Maybe Google gives us different results. One relevant link is [http://realestate.yahoo.com/promo/7-towns-where-land-is- free...](http://realestate.yahoo.com/promo/7-towns-where-land-is-free.html)

...BTW, I understand sections of Detroit are super cheap, and a motivated developer might be able to leverage that.

<comment><USER19> As a Michigan resident who has tried buying property in Detroit... many of the cheap plots of land come with huge fines and back taxes attached. The owner stopped paying taxes, and when the fines added up they skipped town. If you buy that land, it's now your responsibility.

Not saying not to buy land in Detroit, there are lots of businesses making good money on cheap land (and there are quite a few startups, especially around Woodward Ave, see: Dan Gilbert). Just make sure to do your research to keep away from any nasty surprises. That $25 half-acre with a plant already built might actually cost $100,000 up front.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Such things are built in the woods of Southern Oregon, and in my hipper days I had the pleasure of living in some of them, and helped to build or refit a few others.

It's all good until the roof fails catastrophically.

</comment><comment><USER21> Here in the UK we have a show called Grand Designs on Channel 4. Its a show about self builders. One of the episodes featured a guy called Ben Law(S09E13). He is a woodsman who worked woodland in a strict conservation area. He wanted a home in his woods, and did a similar thing but on a bigger scale. For electricity, he had solar and wind power, feeding submarine batteries. He collected and purified water. Waste waster was, IIRC, fed in to a reed bed. He also had internet sorted out, cant remember how.

I cant find a decent site that shows the build, but for any one interested, it worth a google. Ben has a website, but there is not much detail there. There are also various vids on youtube.

For any one vaguely interested, this project is well worth look up.

<comment><USER22> Ben-law.co.uk

this was such a wildly popular (for channel 4) programme that they did a follow up. He had built an extension for his new family (single originally, and let's face it the project was a form of therapy) and was / is now making a small income teaching others how to do it.

My concern, and only real defence of the construction industry, is there probably are not enough hillsides and trees to go round. But as one living opposite a building site, yes, the construction industry can stand to learn one or two sustainability lessons

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> The original link (has more detail): <http://www.simondale.net/house/index.htm>

</comment><comment><USER24> In Germany: After digging out the first stone, the neighbors called the building authority and declares a full stop to your efforts until you hand in hundreds of papers and plans done by an architect and approved by a constructional engineer -.-

</comment><comment><USER25> German version: File your application for a construction permit for less than €5000 (SCNR).

<comment><USER26> I've been around the Internet for a long long time and that's the first time I've seen "SCNR". As I had to search to see what it was I'd suggest you expand it in future usage.

You are right in the point you make though, continental Europe is awash with ridiculous red tape and pompous bureaucrats. Although I have to say I am surprised that the he "got away with it" in the UK as it's not much better there.

<comment><USER27> Of course, your comment wasn't any help, either.

It seems to stand for "Sorry, Could Not Resist".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Did the house need to pass inspections / safety?

</comment><comment><USER29> Should be titled, live like a hobbit for $5000.

</comment><comment><USER30> +1,000- 1500 man hours @ say 15$ / hour = a total of around 20,000 - 27,500$ + land costs.

Which, is still great for such a cool house IMO.

</comment><comment><USER18> I like what he's done and I'd love to do it if I could somehow work around a few issues such as: I have a job, I can't build a house 8 hours a day for 30 weeks (1500 hours) and I can't get the land deal he did.

I'd be really interested in seeing an easily repeatable solution that doesn't come down to living in squalor.

<comment><USER31> _I like what he's done and I'd love to do it if I could somehow work around a few issues such as:_

 _I have a job_ :

Go down to 50-60%, adjust living expenses accordingly

 _I can't build a house 8 hours a day for 30 weeks (1500 hours)_

So go a bit more than 30 Weeks. Let's assume you work 3 days a week (60%). If you average 4 hours a day on the days you work and 8 hours on the days you don't, you'll be done in 60 weeks. Also there is nothing that says you have to work on the project alone. If you have just one person helping you 50% of the time, then you're down to 45 weeks.

 _I can't get the land deal he did_

Have you tried? Sure you probably won't get land next door to where you're living right now, but if you're willing to relocate finding cheap or even free land is far from impossible.

No one said that it was easy, and I'll be first to admit that it's not for me and I'm not even going to try. But I'm also sure that for someone who really wanted to do it and was willing to make the necessary sacrifices it's certainly an option.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> How long is this house expected to last? did they remember to coat the wood? termites and woodlouse are going to be a pain in the ass in that location...and then there's the rain... and cold...

There's a reason we use modern materials, like bricks, modern insulation and tiles, to build modern homes. They work and have proven robust (although mass production has also lowered price on some less desirable materials). Nice little project though.

<comment><USER33> Woodlice may be a problem, but we don't have much in the way of termite infestations here in the UK.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> [http://www.ciracar.com/img/weird/build_a_house_for_less_than...](http://www.ciracar.com/img/weird/build_a_house_for_less_than_$5000/build_a_house_for_less_than_$50004.jpg)

If it rains enough, I expect that the house will collapse.

Also what about Electricity, Water and Internet (ok there is wifi) but electricity and water needs their proper setup. Gas is important too, if it gets too cold, and I expect they want to cook something.

<comment><USER9> Strawbale walls + wood heater. Did you read the article at all?

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Legendary ! that is pretty awesome. I guess there are conditions on where you can do that and thinking about it now i cant think of anywhere near me where i could do that if i wanted/could do it.

Though if i went back to where my parents came from in south east asia i could think of alot of places where that would work.

</comment><comment><USER36> Reminds me of a Tony & Faith Wrench, who have done similar things a few times in West Wales: <http://thatroundhouse.info/> Interesting couple.

</comment><comment><USER37> I feel like you'd need to know a lot of engineering to be able to design the thing, and still be able to sleep at night knowing it won't collapse on you.

Also how does something like this work with county inspectors?

<comment><USER38> Well, you might be impressed.

Think about these massive Middle-Ages cathedrals done before we had Newton's Laws and modern notions of engineering. How did the architects do it? Well, they were hackers with a large budget. The architect usually had never built anything on this scale before and had no idea how their much-smaller-scale building experience would scale up. In particular, the fact that arches create sideways stresses which tend to bulge a large, open building outwards wasn't necessarily well-known by many of these architects.

So what did they do? They just tried it and saw what worked. They hacked it together. If it doesn't start buckling and collapsing in the first month, it could probably last for a couple hundred years, maybe more if the ground doesn't shift in unexpected ways. The walls started bowing out? Then we'll build structures to buttress them back in. There's a dangerous sagging happening between these two columns? Well, place a third column in there!

Of course, wood offers a lot of questions as a building material, since it's got a lot of energy in a bioactive form which lots of critters and cellular lifeforms might enjoy eating, and therefore needs to be treated in ways that might tend to prevent these critters from using it as a food source. Keeping it not-wet is an important first step which isn't discussed very well in the article.

But for what it's worth, this was the way you built houses before we had engineering. You just went for it and spent a bunch of the year working on it, and it better be successful because you've got to have a place to sleep this winter.

<comment><USER39> > Think about these massive Middle-Ages cathedrals done before we had Newton's > Laws and modern notions of engineering. How did the architects do it? Well, > they were hackers with a large budget. The architect usually had never built > anything on this scale before and had no idea how their much-smaller-scale > building experience would scale up. In particular, the fact that arches > create sideways stresses which tend to bulge a large, open building outwards > wasn't necessarily well-known by many of these architects.

That's a fascinating thought. I'd like to read more about this "hacking" aspect -- can you point me to any references / citations?

<comment><USER38> Unfortunately the links I have are not of professional research quality, and it might be better to email an academic who specializes in architecture from before calculations. I have a couple saved bookmarks from when I first heard about it several years ago. Here's an article in /The Caius Engineer/ vol. 17 nr. 1, a student publication from kids at the Gonville & Caius College of the University of Cambridge:

[http://babylon.acad.cai.cam.ac.uk/students/study/engineering...](http://babylon.acad.cai.cam.ac.uk/students/study/engineering/engineer05/ceengdes.htm)

And here's a short book review about a book which might describe a dome that was hacked together on a budget:

<http://www.reedsblog.com/?p=85>

I was reintroduced to this by a recent BBC series on architecture, though, and I can't figure out which one it was! It could have been _Climbing Great Buildings_ , which had some moments where they would sneak underneath these great cathedrals and see what little bits had been "swept under the rug". But it might have also been _Churches: How to Read Them_. (I vaguely think it's the first because I have memories of some reference to Durham Cathedral partially collapsing, but memories of this form are notoriously unreliable.)

Conclusion: we should develop ways so that we learn less by osmosis. When you learn by osmosis, it's very hard to track down actual sources for the crap you've learned, and you basically have to get lucky.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Has anyone read anything on Zach Klein's cabin in NY? Very curious how he went about designing and building it. <http://beaverbrook.com/>

</comment><comment><USER41> Reminds me of Super Adobe by architect Nader Khalili.

<http://calearth.org/building-designs/what-is-superadobe.html>

</comment><comment><USER42> Sure hope he used galvanized nails on that or he's in for some surprises in a few years.

And how would you get something like this past a city inspector?

</comment><comment><USER43> And then the council comes and knocks it down because the plans were not approved by the central bureaucracy!

</comment><comment><USER44> You can get similar bang for your buck by firing your own bricks for a masonry house. Nice project!

</comment><comment><USER45> There's no bathroom/toilet.</comment>