Brazil's President Blames NGOs for Amazon Fires - <AUTHOR> https://latinamericareports.com/bolsonaro-blames-ngos-for-amazon-fires/2940/ <comment><USER3> Bolsonaro's government is a criminal regime. One of his first goals was to destroy the agencies that regulate the environment and disable the reporting mechanisms (which were "fake news" according to him). He personally fired the president of INPE, a state research agency, for publicizing a report about Amazon deforestation.

<comment><USER4> Criminal? As opposed to which other governments?

<comment><USER5> Upvoted. Bolsonaro's government is a criminal regime in the same way that every Brazilian government has been criminal. You basically need to commit crimes to get elected in Brazil and commit more once you're elected to stay in power.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Of course he blames the NGOs. They've been fairly vocal against his policies for opening up further territory for agribusiness, so now he's blaming them saying that they have set fires in order to discredit him. The end result is almost certainly going to be multiple attempts to ban as many of those organizations as possible on the grounds that they are some sort of eco- terrorists destroying Brazil's rainforest. It won't make much sense but making sense is not the goal. Getting those organizations out of his hair is the goal.

Watch what he does, not what he says.

</comment><comment><USER7> I live in BC where it's not uncommon for wildfires to consume a million hectares in one summer (as was the case in 2018 with a total of 1.3m hectares burned.)

...Typically we put out the fires first _then_ assign the blame, seeing as it doesn't really matter who's fault it is once it's started...

<comment><USER8> These fires are being set intentionally by agribusiness. They don't want to put them out.

\- [https://www.newsweek.com/pray-amazonia-brazil-jair- bolsonaro...](https://www.newsweek.com/pray-amazonia-brazil-jair-bolsonaro- forest-fires-lungs-planet-1455189)

\- [https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/22/americas/amazon-fires- humans-...](https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/22/americas/amazon-fires-humans-intl- hnk-trnd/index.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> There is a good interactive map: [https://www.windy.com/-CO-concentration- cosc?cosc,-12.555,-7...](https://www.windy.com/-CO-concentration- cosc?cosc,-12.555,-77.520,4)

<comment><USER10> Thanks a lot.

It's very hard to understand what is happening from the media (Brazilian or international). This map explains:

\- why it's so concerning even if the fires are overall smaller than the Amazon average for this time - because most of Acre and Rondônia are on fire, the average is down pushed by the largest, less populated states.

\- what is up with the national and Acre's governments fighting on TV - <USER2> of the fire is there.

\- How can the smoke reach São Paulo even though there's none of it here at the middle of the way in Brasilia - it literally took a turn at Bolivia.

The Bolivian and Peruvian people are probably not happy at all with the fires. I wonder why I don't see them complaining.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> According to this NASA report, this is a natural occurrence on this time of the year:

> As of August 16, 2019, an analysis of NASA satellite data indicated that > total fire activity across the Amazon basin this year has been close to the > average in comparison to the past 15 years.

Source: [https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145464/fires-in- bra...](https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145464/fires-in-brazil)

<comment><USER12> Interestingly, the URL used to have a different caption: [https://web.archive.org/web/20190822024248/http://www.nasa.g...](https://web.archive.org/web/20190822024248/http://www.nasa.gov/image- feature/goddard/2019/wildfires-in-the-brazilian-rainforest-creating-cross- country-smoke)

> Although it is not unusual to see fires in Brazil at this time of year due > to high temperatures and low humidity it seems this year the number of fires > may be record setting. According to Brazil's space research center INPE > almost 73,000 fires have been recorded so far this year. INPE is seeing an > 83% increase over the same period in 2018.

<comment><USER5> > 73,000 fires have been recorded so far this year. INPE is seeing an 83% > increase over the same period in 2018.

Number of fires doesn't seem like a good measure. A simple change in how you distinguish between two fires in close proximity can dramatically change the numbers. Higher resolution measurements can allow you to distinguish between two fires that might have looked like one in years prior.

A much better measure would be to look at the quantity of surface area on fire.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It is sad how Propaganda (repeated here in multiples comments) blames Bolsonaro, instead of finding out how the fires started and spread.

<comment><USER14> Well, could do your part by sourcing your allegation, instead of spreading FUD.

It seems like believing it requires that groups dedicated to preserving the Amazon's rain forests are burning it, and ignores Bolsonaro's long and well- documented track record on the issue [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jair_Bolsonaro#Environmental_p...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jair_Bolsonaro#Environmental_protection)

<comment><USER13> I don't see any long and well documented recored there, just a few declarations and an affirmation that Brazil "preserves more [rainforest] than anyone."

Blaming is bad for both Bolsonaro and the ones spreading the Propaganda.

One thing is clear: no one spreading the news will care in a week how it started and what can be done for preventing this happen again.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I see this meme pop up on social media all the time now about how the Amazon rainforest is burning and to spread the "awareness".

But really, what are you _supposed_ to do? Merely being aware of some tragedy occurring far away doesn't do anything. The people who perpetuated it don't give a damn. Are we supposed to go put out the fires? Are we supposed to go kill the people who did this?

If there's nothing I can do, then I'm better off not knowing. I have more relevant things to care about. The only thing this awareness campaign tells me is that Brazilians have done a terrible job of protecting their rainforest, and they should be judged accordingly in the future.

<comment><USER16> > _Merely being aware of some tragedy occurring far away doesn't do anything._

The first step on the long road of change is acknowledging that a problem exists.

Just because you can't imagine how you can effect change, doesn't mean it isn't possible. Problems of this scale require a sufficiently scaled solution. Economic sanctions and treaties would provide incentives for change. Hit Brazil's government and business leaders where it hurts: their wallets and their power on the world stage.

<comment><USER15> Just because change is possible, doesn't mean my awareness has any part to play in it.

<comment><USER16> Very few problems are solved by simply ignoring them.

General awareness of a problem is needed to mobilize political action. If the solution to the problem is political, awareness of the issue might inspire direct action, or at least voting for policy that effects change.

<comment><USER15> That might be a good statement for a motivational book but it isn't true. A massive amount of problems have been solved throughout my life without me even being aware of them. The key is that the people aware of those problems were exactly in the right position to do something effective about them.

<comment><USER5> This. I would go even further and say that, if anything, bringing attention to an issue in this day and age makes it highly politicized and increases the likelihood that those with an agenda on any side of the issue will try to manipulate perception, thereby making it harder to make an honest assessment of the issue.

A month ago I would have been more likely to find a more cut and dry factual assessment of these fires than I could today. The attention economy coupled with pandering to the lowest common denominator and the ROI of manipulating perception is paralyzing our ability to solve any problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The fires are in Bolivia, Paraguai and in the state of Amazonas and Rondonia in Brazil. Here is a picture of the emissions: [https://twitter.com/m_parrington/status/1163834182860247040](https://twitter.com/m_parrington/status/1163834182860247040)

<comment><USER17> No it's not. It's mostly in the state of Roraima

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'm still baffled that I didn't hear about this until about 48 hours ago....

<comment><USER13> I wonder who decided to start spreading the news and this narrative...

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Current situation map from INPE:

[http://queimadas.dgi.inpe.br/queimadas/portal/situacao- atual](http://queimadas.dgi.inpe.br/queimadas/portal/situacao-atual)

The [http://queimadas.dgi.inpe.br](http://queimadas.dgi.inpe.br) site also has links to a lot of raw data on wildfires in Brazil.

</comment><comment><USER19> where's Brazil's (or environmentalists worldwide) Lee Harvey Oswald when you need him?

</comment><comment><USER20> The same president who recommended pooping every other day [1] in order to protect the environment.

[1] [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin- america-49304358](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-49304358)

<comment><USER21> It was a joke. He does this kind of jokes on a daily basis during his morning interview with journalists.

<comment><USER20> I'm aware of that yes...</comment></comment></comment>


The Agency - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-agency.html?_r=0 <comment> B-Scan This Story was submitted few days ago. Previous discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9645369](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9645369)

<comment><USER3> Looks like the HN Submit script doesn't recognise the fact that $URL and $URL?$SPURIOUS_GARBAGE are actually the same URL...

<comment><USER4> If it didn't recognize them as distinct URLs, a significant percentage of links would be rejected as having already been submitted. Http://site.com/article.php?id=1234 and [http://site.com/article.php?id=5678](http://site.com/article.php?id=5678) may be two legitimately unique articles.

<comment><USER3> Then it's not $SPURIOUS_GARBAGE, is it?

My point is that it's not exactly rocket science to add an if/case statement in the Submit script that checks whether the URL being submitted is on a list of domains for which the '?' and anything after it should be disregarded.

'Twould also be great if it recognised that www.bbc.co.uk and www.bbc.com are effectively the same site.

<comment><USER5> I think you underestimate how hard this is, especially since your suggested solution would be a maintenance nightmare.

Also the problem isn't so bad to invest the non-trivial amount of time in it to fix it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I was voted down for pointing out that what Russia does is not exactly unique(except they're not really good at what they do since they're easy to spot)... so here are some links.

Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media Military's 'sock puppet' software creates fake online identities to spread pro-American propaganda

[http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy- ope...](http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation- social-networks)

Israel to pay students to defend it online [http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/08/14/israel-s...](http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/08/14/israel- students-social-media/2651715/)

HACKING ONLINE POLLS AND OTHER WAYS BRITISH SPIES SEEK TO CONTROL THE INTERNET [https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/07/14/manipulating-o...](https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/07/14/manipulating- online-polls-ways-british-spies-seek-control-internet/)

[edit] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State- sponsored_Internet_sockpu...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State- sponsored_Internet_sockpuppetry)

<comment><USER7> Reading your links, the known footprint between these governments seems quite different. Russia seems unique in its usage of these media. Faking a chemical disaster in the US, attempting to incite discord by faking a police shooting video, turning their own special LOIC on a NYT reporter...in comparison, the writeups on other nations' efforts (that we know about) leave a lot of room for this to be a false moral equivalence at this point. This NYT story is a pretty big deal in terms of providing evidence to that effect.

<comment><USER8> The more important distinction is that Russia's sockpuppet propaganda is aimed primarily at its own people.

<comment><USER9> Yes, but I wouldn't underestimate their foreign propaganda. It's very obvious in some countries, for example mine (Bulgaria), where trolls affiliated with Russia regularly flood articles with anti-EU and anti-US comments.

<comment><USER10> In USA, regular Americans do that.

<comment><USER8> Regular people are by definition not sockpuppets.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Ludmila Savchuk sounds very brave. I hope that the next time we hear about her, it won't be some news about her body being found in a dumpster.

That said, I'd be curious to know which countries do the same thing on a comparable scale. China is well-known to be one, but there were indications that the NSA/GCHQ were not above this sort of thing either.

<comment><USER12> Indications? Sorry, but there is absolutely no question that the NSA/GCHQ and indeed all the others of the Anglo-intelligence sphere have groups just like this operating, daily, to manipulate opinion and influence group dynamics.

No question about it: if your country has an Internet industry, it has government spy agencies involved in the Internet industry.

Spy Agencies - people who give themselves more rights and privileges than the rest of us in general, in fact - are a hidden society within every civilization that ever attempted to defend its right to define itself. Without a spy agency, you'll never quite know if you turned Japanese, for how will you know what a Japanese is, until you've become one?

Alas, this beautiful quandry seems to endear our species to its pitfalls, and we continue to allow classes in our societies to rule and dominate us by extending their privileges.

Were we to be able to turn off the secrecy bit - for all, and not just a few privileged - we may just find that we don't need to keep killing each other over the same things, over and over again, just because we don't really truly understand each other. All secrecy is a degree of none-understanding, held in place with force, to rule you.

<comment><USER8> So what you're saying is that there are US government-sponsored agencies putting fake people on Internet message boards inventing --- out of whole cloth --- disasters, industrial accidents, and misdeeds of foreign governments?

Can you cite a source?

<comment><USER13> The US has Operation Earnest Voice, and Britain has JTRIG. Whether they're inventing disasters is another matter.

It's a sad reality that all major state actors have or will get involved in this, but not surprising. Warfare is changing in part due to massively increased connectivity, and the military and policy wonks have been aware of that for at least a decade.

I personally recommend books by David Kilcullen if you're interested.

<comment><USER8> The Russian propaganda is aimed principally at the Russian people. That's illegal in the US, and technically when the US spreads propaganda overseas they're required to make English-language copies available to the US press.

<comment><USER14> >That's illegal in the US

WAS illegal in the US.*

Legalized with the enactment of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012. The reform effectively nullifies the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, which was amended in 1985 specifically to prohibit U.S. organizations from using information "to influence public opinion in the United States."[1]

[1] [http://www.businessinsider.com/us-domestic-propaganda- offici...](http://www.businessinsider.com/us-domestic-propaganda-officially- aired-2013-7)

<comment><USER8> The bill you're referring to is extraordinarily short. Its major section opens:

 _(a) IN GENERAL.—No funds authorized to be appropriated to the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors shall be used to influence public opinion in the United States._

Did you know that BBG, to which this act primarily pertains, is also one of the world's primary funding sources for security audits of open-source cryptography? That program is managed under the aegis of Radio Free Asia, and has put top-caliber researchers on virtually every open source cryptosystem you've ever heard of, and of course many you haven't.

Something tells me that NSA and BBG aren't closely coordinating.

Meanwhile, in Russia, which is what this article actually talks about, the country's largest social network was siezed and nationalized by the government.

Personally, and I know everyone won't agree with me on this, but I think we should all stop pretending that what the Russian government is doing is comparable to what the US and UK governments are doing. In the industrialized world, Russia and China are one kind of state controlled media, and everyone else is another. We should stop pretending that Russia and China are OK, or casting a pox on everyone else's houses. You'd rather have German media, or even US media, than Russian. Full stop.

<comment><USER14> I did not know that about the BBG. That is quite interesting.

I would have to agree that the level of media manipulation done by Russia and China is far beyond that done by the US. I think that's pretty clear. Frankly, I don't think any of it is "OK."

But third-world propaganda doesn't excuse first-world media manipulation either. Or maybe it does. I think it's fair to say that we're squarely in the realm of opinion here.

<comment><USER12> I don't think the level of manipulation is any different between Russia and the US. The only difference is the type of manipulation - US spooks need to found a company and use their connections to make influence - e.g. CNN - meaning they're more covert. Russian examples are more overt, because Russian culture simply allows for the embarrassment. Americans would rather not be confronted with the degree to which their government is oppressing them - <USER2> they hide it behind corporate entities designed to hide the true influence in the shadows.

<comment><USER8> What would be a convincing argument for people who _don 't_ believe that CNN is literally a front for the US Government?

 _Edited for clarity_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> These aren't trolls, these are the shills, the wu-mao, the JIDF. Trolls agitate discussion for their own amusement, shills push an agenda for another.

<comment><USER16> Sounds like they're doing both.

<comment><USER16> Wow I'm being down voted did you actually read the article? Faking a disaster is like mega-trolling.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> How is that different form United States Military Central Command's Operation Earnest Voice?

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Earnest_Voice](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Earnest_Voice)

<comment><USER18> And Operation Earnest Voice wouldn't be targeting US Citizens. Yes I understand they would still end up being part of it, but that isn't the primary goal, it also isn't being used in the same expressly political manner.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I'm pretty sure I can use this article to get funding in DC to make sure there is no _troll gap_. Being that we're America I'll of course go overboard and use machine learning, big data, and drones.

<comment><USER20> In the UK: I'd imagine some people from Cheltenham are having tea with some senior civil servants and a couple of dons in an Oxford college somewhere while chatting about the need to _keep our end up_.

And so it goes...

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> "Well paid trolls", hmm... the monthly salary of Savhuk was 37,000 roubles monthly after taxes (by her words) what equals to ~$750. This is not a lot in St. Petersburg.

And there's a lot of trolls around russian web resources (don't know, on salary or not), especially when some politic issues are being discussed. Actually, it is not possible to do a constructive discussion at any russian forum, no matter if this is pro-Russian or pro-West. So, I prefer to not visit any places where political issues are being discussed.

<comment><USER22> According to the article, driving "normal" people off political forums is one of the explicit goals of The Agency.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> What caught my eye in this article was this phrase:

"Today an ISIS supporter might adopt a pseudonym to harass a critical journalist on Twitter, or a right-wing agitator in the United States might smear demonstrations against police brutality by posing as a thieving, violent protester."

Are there really such "right-wing agitators" out there or it's just a hypothetical case? Any investigations, perhaps? Or is it just a usual political struggle? I noticed that the most favored comment also was against the conservative party.

<comment><USER10> False flag riot-inciting operations by police are extremely common at protests, at least. And police supremacy is a right-wing tenet, as far as the silly wing analogy goes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> They're doing a terrible job misinforming about fake terrorist attacks and so on.

However,Western media and forums end up becoming quite biased in their own PC. Different points of views are often ignored or nonexistent(strong herd mentality).

If Russians limited their actions to showing another side of the story, I don't think it'd be a bad thing.</comment>


Time Warner, Embarq Fight to Outlaw 100 Mbps Community Broadband in Wilson, NC - <AUTHOR> http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=14934 <comment><USER2> Well, to be fair, I really wouldn't expect anything else. Some of the more disgusting companies out there will do disgusting things, if we let them.</comment>


Razoring Ockham's Razor - <AUTHOR> http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2011/05/razoring-ockhams-razor.html

<comment><USER2> Ockham's Razor is suggestive, not conclusive.

It is most useful in choosing between two hypotheses where one is a subset of the other. If hypothesis A completely explains the data, and hypothesis A+ completely explains the data but includes extra axioms, Ockham prefers A over A+. One simplified argument that can be made is that A+ has a higher probability of containing wrongness, since it contains any wrongness that is in A plus any additional wrongness contained in +.

When choosing between two disjoint hypotheses, A and B, both of which completely explain the data, Ockham's Razor is significantly less useful. Whichever of A and B is longer has more places it can be wrong, but the probabilities of wrongness in any particular place are uncorrelated between A and B. Ockham (or Kolmogorov Complexity or whatever form of the argument you like) suggests a preference for the simpler of A and B, but it is not a very strong suggestion.

<comment><USER3> If A and A+ both explain the data and make the same predictions, then they have exactly the same probability of being wrong: If A is true then A+ is true and vice versa. The additional complexity in A+ does not correspond to additional information about the world, and this is why we can safely choose A over A+.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Ockham's Razor has two interpretations.

One says that if you have several theories that might explain what you're observing, the simpler one is probably right. It doesn't matter whether this is true; it saves time by letting you fail faster if you're wrong. This is the more popular understanding of the razor, but it's less useful because it can be wrong, and jackasses often use examples of its wrongness to claim that it never provides any information, in order to advance crackpot metaphysics or religion.

The other says that if you have two theories which both explain everything you're observing, then it doesn't matter which one you adopt, so you might as well adopt the simpler one. For example, if I hypothesize that E=mc^2 + u, where u is the number of invisible, otherwise-undetectable pink unicorn particles within three meters of Mars, this theory makes all the same predictions as E=mc^2, and is nondisprovable. It's Occam's Razor that says that we shouldn't bother with this pink unicorn version.

</comment><comment><USER5> "The obvious question to ask about Ockham's razor is: why? On what basis are we justified to think that, as a matter of general practice, the simplest hypothesis is the most likely one to be true?"

There is an argument from computational learning theory. Specifically, there are many complicated hypotheses, whereas there are few compact (simple) hypotheses.

If a simple hypothesis correctly models the observations, it is less likely to occur by chance than if we find a complicated hypothesis that can model the data. So, everything else being equal, choosing a simple hypothesis has less risk.

<comment><USER3> The Razor does not say that "the simplest hypothesis is the most likely one to be true". Obviously a more complex theory which actually correspond to observations is truer than a simpler theory which don't match observations as well.

Occams Razor says that if we have two theories _which both explains all the fact_ (and have the same predictive power), then we might as well choose the simplest.

An example: The Copernican and the Tychonian planetary models match and predict the same observations, but the Tychonian model was more complex. According to Occams razor, the Copernican system should then be chosen. But if the models actually differed in some predictions, then Occams razor would not be relevant.

Occams Razor is not a statement about the world. It is a tool for thinking.

<comment><USER6> I agree with the thrust of your post, but not with:

 _Occams Razor is not a statement about the world. It is a tool for thinking._

In a world where everything is best fitted by a fifth-order polynomial, scientists who encounter a seemingly linear relationship will think "Oh, what a coincidence. I bet that if we had better observations, those higher coefficients wouldn't be exactly 0." [1]

We live in a world that has:

\- Very simple fundamental rules

\- A ton of emergent complexity arising from those rules

That's why Occam's razor has a good track-record. Because the world is reducible to simpler laws.

[1] Similarly, Occam's razor does not hold in worlds where gods intervene, because every "coincidence" can have epic, Iliad-sized explanations in terms of Zeus getting mad at breakfast.

<comment><USER3> It might be that simpler theories are more often true due to the nature of our universe - but that is not what Occams Razor is about. So its really two different issues.

<comment><USER6> Ah, I did not know that the systems of Tycho and Copernic were the same.

I think that when most scientists (and bravura above) invoke Occam's razor, it's to pick one of two _non-equivalent_ theories. For instance, the Ptolemaic system made predictions that were, _given the limited accuracy of the instruments at the time_ , indistinguishable from the Copernician system. But I'm quite sure that scientists felt justified in "betting" on Copernic because the equations are simpler, and use fewer arbitrary constants.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Let's see if we can restate Occam's Razor in a way less susceptible to misuse. If anybody wants to improve on this, do so with my blessing:

 __Occam's Razor: __Since P(A and B) is always less than or equal to min(P(A), P(B)), hypotheses with smaller Kolmogorov complexity should be accorded a higher prior probability.

From there, update on evidence. If a hypothesis (no matter how simple) is contradicted by the evidence, then obviously your estimate of its probability should go way down.

The use of Kolmogorov complexity (or something roughly equivalent like Minimum Description Length) is important here. As explanations of combustion, "A wizard did it" sounds simpler than an explanation of the chemical reaction that actually happened, but a full model of each of these explanations (including the wizard and chemistry) would reveal their true relative complexity: the wizard is much more complex than a few simple rules about chemical reactions.

<comment><USER3> That is itself a hypothesis. Here is a simpler one: The probability of a hypothesis being true has nothing to do with its Kolmogorov complexity.

<comment><USER8> That's a valid hypothesis, but is empirically false.

<comment><USER9> Empirically, complexity(einstein's field equations) > complexity(newton's law), complexity(spherical harmonics) > complexity(electrons spinning around atom) and so on and so on. Complexity is not a criterion for truth

<comment><USER10> Except that those theorems explain things that cannot be explained by simpler theorems, thus they still satisfy the criterion.

<comment><USER9> Their validity has nothing to do with complexity though

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'd go so far as to say that Ockham's Razor doesn't say anything about whether the simplest explanation is _likely_ to be true, but merely suggests a way of attacking the problem. Pick the simplest hypothesis, test it exhaustively, and if you find some data which contradicts the hypothesis then you move right on up to the simplest hypothesis that also explains the new data.

There's always an infinite number of arbitrarily complex theories that can explain the data. Maybe that bump in the night was the hot water system. Maybe it was the hot water system _and_ the boogeyman. Maybe it was the hot water system and the boogeyman riding a unicorn being chased by a liger... but these hypotheses aren't worth entertaining until we have something other than a bump.

An example from my own field of planetary interiors: we've known the density and outer atmospheric composition of giant planets for quite a few years now. In the absence of anything else to go on, we tended to assume that the interior was chemically homogeneous (or maybe homogeneous plus a distinct core). But as our models and measurements improve, we get evidence that we really need a non-homogeneous model of the interior to explain everything. Does this make us stupid to have entertained homogeneous models? No, that was the right place to start, until we got evidence to the contrary.

</comment><comment><USER12> Aquinas covered this. "If the assumption is made, the sensible appearances are accounted for. But this is not strict proof since they also could be accounted for by different assumptions."

</comment><comment><USER13> The field of nutrition is rife with simple hypotheses that turn out not to explain the data or have predictive power. Occam's razor is not refuted. We have no reason to expect biochemistry or the universe to operate in a simple way, and they manifestly do not. But we have every reason to be parsimonious in our explanations. Humans are fanciful, superstitious creatures who eagerly trade in nonsense. We need that razor to trim off our fantasies.

</comment><comment><USER14> The idea is that the simpler hypothesis is more _likely_ to be true, given that it explains the data equally well. It doesn't mean it _is_ true. Also, I believe elliptical motion predicts the observations of planetary motion more accurately than circles.

A problem with defining "simpler" is that it depends on the language that you use to express it. If you lack the right concepts for it, it may seem more complex. And if these concepts are quite difficult to understand (require a lot of training), it's kind of cheating to say that a theory expressed in them is "simple". A bit like a 1k demo that uses multi-megabytes of library code.

And now, my conjecture for why Occam's Razor seems to work: it is because we pre-select simple theories. That is, there are lots of complex theories out there that are the truth, and some of them are so complex, that we actually can't understand or even conceive of them (and never will - they are not susceptible to hierarchical decomposition). Therefore, correct theories turn out to be simple (they are more correct than the slightly more complex theories they compete with; but are never compared with the actually true theories that are bizarrely complex).

Plus, our language (including mathematically) notation is constantly being refined for how we use it - by adapting it to what we know. So it is overfitted to our present theory (the first thing a scientist or mathematician does when confronting something too complex is invent a notation for it that makes it simpler - the notation absorbs some of the complexity, which it borrows from our massive stores of analogies and ideas - and sneaks complexity in via the back door).

 _The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences_ , Wigner, <http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html>

_THE UNREASONABLE EFFECTIVENESS OF MATHEMATICS_ , Hamming, [http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March02/Hamming/Hamming.h...](http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March02/Hamming/Hamming.html)

 _(these are perennial favourites relevant to the topic - not claiming they support my conjecture)._

<comment><USER3> It's philosophically problematic to say that one theory can be truer than another if they both explain the same facts and yield the same predictions. This would mean that there is a notion of truth which cant be verified or falsified experimentally, which really opens the door for all kinds of metaphysics.

<comment><USER14> Let's say I have a theory that can explain the complete works of Shakespeare so well, that an algorithm based on it (written in C) can generate the complete works.

Now, it turns out that my "theory" is just a printf with a loong string... containing the complete works of Shakespeare. You can measure how "simple" this theory is, by the information content.

What if there was another theory (algorithm) that could also generate the works exactly, but was shorter - would you say it's a better theory?

<comment><USER7> What predictions do those "theories" generate?

<comment><USER14> What the next character will be.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> MacKay makes an argument for Occam's Razor using logical probability: <http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~mackay/itprnn/ps/345.357.pdf>

</comment><comment><USER9> _On what basis ... the simplest hypothesis is the most likely one to be true?"_

Occam didn't say that. The true hypothesis is the one confirmed by experiments. One would use Occam's razor to choose among equally valid explanations. Now, when you don't have a valid explanation, don't expect William of Occam to fix that for you.</comment>


First Extraterrestrial Hydrothermal System Found on Saturn's Moon Enceladus - <AUTHOR> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/first-active-hydrothermal-system-found-beyond-earth/?ref=hn

<comment><AUTHOR> It's amazing how much we still have to learn about our own solar system, and staggering how long the research takes.

> Cassini is scheduled for three more encounters with Enceladus, including one > final plunge through a plume, before it is sent to a fiery death in Saturn's > atmosphere to avoid crashing into and contaminating the ringed planet's icy > moons.

Great that they're thinking in advance about this stuff. Would be a shame to contaminate our best chance of discovering microbial ET with spores from earth.</comment>


Is 'gamification' the future? - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-11/25/nesta-gamification-david-rowan

<comment><USER2> Gamification is simply the application of a ton of learnings (and in some cases, pure intuition) about how humans behave, what drives us, and how to keep us engaged. In terms of "stick badges on it and people will keep using your product", gamification is not going to hang around all that long, ruined by poor execution and over-exposure (as with any UX trend).

However, the trend of humanification -- _designing for and by humans_ , taking us away from an age of faceless software -- is well underway, and I don't think that's going away any time soon. I also think that's a Good Thing.

<comment><USER3> Agreed, Gamification as it's being executed now is pretty shallow but I believe that is going to change. We setup a small wiki for that very reason @ <http://gamification.org> to discuss the topic and open it up to collaboration and collective brainstorming.

<comment><USER2> Oh, interesting. I like the concept of open source game mechanics!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I strongly believe that Game Mechanics are going to be _huge_ on the order of magnitude of social or mobile.

Can you imagine what would happen if Zynga took their playbook and decided to build a weight-loss startup (the market for weight loss products in the US alone is $35 billion/year). Not to mentions the dozen of other billion-dollar self-help industries that can be transformed with game mechanics.

Sooner or later life is going to be like a MUD with standardized ways of measuring skills and comparing yourself against your friends. In a couple of generations time kids will grow up talking about "levelling up" in real life skills.

The application of game mechanics to real-life is only just beginning and it's going to have a huge transformative effect on how people live their lives.

<comment><USER5> Why would the kids of this generation or the next few prefer to play real life vs virtual life? If anything, technologies in the future will allow one to better enjoy the virtual experience, complete with realistic sensations and freedom to modifying their world and create their own adventure. All for $9.99 a month.

Remember, real life is tough. Clicking a mouse is easy.

<comment><USER6> Because nobody in real life is impressed by your level 160 elf mage.

<comment><USER5> Why do you need to impress people?

<comment><USER7> Much of our behavior in everyday life is driven by how we present ourselves to others.

<comment><USER5> Hmm. I would think the entrepreneurs on this board would not care what others think. Since they would appear to others to be losers who haven't had a steady income for 3 years and borrow money from parents and relatives to code the next game that would get people addicted on clicking on buttons.

<comment><USER8> They care what other entrepreneurs, investors, customers, etc. think.

When most people say "I don't care what other people think", it's not really true. It just indicates a mismatch with the audience under discussion.

<comment><USER5> I know lots of entrepreneurs who don't care what others think of themselves. And their client/customers/investors don't care as long as the product is good.

Look at Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg; you think they care what others think of themselves as a person?

<comment><USER9> _Look at Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg; you think they care what others think of themselves as a person?_

You mean like the zuck arranging to announce a $100M donation live on oprah a week before the social network hit theaters?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> What we are seeing is the backlash against the idea that just adding points and badges will create a compelling experience. This is no more accurate than if you replaced [your favorite game] with a series of menus and button presses and threw in some random point and badge awards. The experience itself must be rewarding.

That said, "gamification" techniques can be a wonderful thing. Points are a useful way to highlight positive interactions with users ("you did X, this is a good thing, these points help you realize that"). Badges are a good way of providing metagame elements, both at the beginning of an experience (to shorten the learning curve) and at the end (to provide extended engagement). This all relies on a compelling core experience, of course.

I think that Dennis has been clear that Foursquare is a social layer on top of physical locations, not a game. That people generally see it as a shallow game can be considered both an example of the compelling (and perhaps overriding) aspect of the gameplay elements and an indictment of the core 4Sq experience.

</comment><comment><USER11> Gamification for me, is like the Wall St of the internet.

A lot of hype, little real value.

Big difference between the gaming industry (PS3, Nintendo, Zynga... which are awesome) and attempts at trying to make the world a game.

<comment><USER12> Zyngas not quite there yet

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Badges/leaderboard for pushing a button != game. More like cheese for the caged rat.

<comment><USER13> Games only have value if you have emotional investiture in them. I have no investiture in Stack Overflow points at all, but I do like seeing my karma go up in HN (cue epic downvoting now) as I get some sense that I can hang with the cool kids.

People see World of Warcraft and say "it's just a bar going up", which is entirely true, but with investiture of that bar (say, for comparison, or sense of progress/reward etc etc) it becomes something else entirely.</comment></comment>


Why I broke up with Portland to build my startup… - <AUTHOR> http://siliconflorist.com/2011/03/14/portland-startup-broke-up-back-together/

<comment><USER2> Reminds of the time I wanted to start a startup in upstate NY. We were going to be purely web-based SaaS. I was working out of my home, and so were the other founders.

We approached the local IDA, because we were told that they would give grants to small businesses, especially in "high-tech". The gentleman I met said that he'd able to approve us for $30K. But, he wanted to know where our "manufacturing facility" would be. He just didn't get the concept of a web- based startup; he wanted to know where we would manufacture the software and ship it. Granted, this was 7 years ago. But that's when I decided to throw in the towel and move to the Bay Area.

</comment><comment><USER3> "What Portland doesn't have is capital. Founder friendly, fast moving seed capital."

The poster's site, COLOURlovers, apparently has over 500,000 registered users, ~195,000 UVs/month in the US (according to Compete) and a lot of engagement. It's not Facebook or Twitter of course, but it looks very solid for a niche community.

Which begs the question: why is outside capital needed here? Usage-wise, this site has enough scale relative to the niche that it should be able to monetize its popularity. This hardly seems like a case of needs-more-employees, needs- more-servers, needs-more-marketing -- things that capital is best applied to.

On the flip side, as a niche community play, COLOURlovers isn't exactly the kind of site with the kind of growth potential startup investors have traditionally looked for. So while there may be a lot of "founder friendly, fast moving seed capital" out there right now, so the fact that the founder "just raised a large seed round from some of the top VCs and Angels" demonstrates the fact that there are an awful lot of angels and VCs who are stretching to put their money to work. In the long-run, I'm not sure that benefits founders of sites like COLOURlovers even if outside capital provides some immediate comfort.

<comment><AUTHOR> We didn't start with 500k users. (And Compete's traffic numbers are utter garbage, btw.)

And we are bootstrap profitable, but we have some big things in the works... things that do in fact require more resources to tackle well.

There is fast moving, founder friendly capital... And yes, we were able to raise a round. But not from any investors in Portland. I live in SF now and raised the round there.

And I'm all for bootstrapping. I think you learn invaluable lessons when you're operating on your own dollars and needing to move quickly. With that being, said... we grew to a point where additional resources would better help us execute on a vision that we bootstrapped to clarity.

</comment></comment><comment> jim-greer I'm flattered that the author thinks that Kongregate is one of Portland's great web companies, but that's only partially true. Our headquarters are in SF, and our engineering team is (largely) in Portland. Our investors are all from Silicon Valley or Seattle.

Which is more evidence for the author's point - there's not much of an investor community in Portland. I've idly wondered whether that's an opportunity - so far all I've done is set up an angel.co profile that says I'll talk to Portland startups.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey Jim. I think it's worth it being a partial truth to include you guys as a Portland Startup :)

I in fact live in SF too, and most of our investors are in the bay area.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> _Coaches are on the same spectrum as advisors and investors… but not on the end you want. Paul Graham once cautioned me about advisors: "Be careful about getting advisors. An advisor is just somebody who doesn't believe in you or your idea enough to invest in it."_

I like this. However, it's not unfeasible to think that there are some people whose role is better as an advisor rather than an investor. Maybe they have the time and lack the money.

I think writing off advisors entirely to embrace investors is a bad idea. Mainly because there's a divergence of goals: maybe an advisor wants the best for a company in the long-term while an investor might be swayed to give advice that benefits his investment more in the short-term.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not writing off advisors... 2 paragraphs down I say:

"With that being said, we do have two official advisors. Both are active entrepreneurs who have a ton of amazing experience. They've continued to give me advice and support without asking for anything in return. In appreciation for their time and their continued support, we made them advisors. I also have dozens of fellow founders that I count as advisors. Which brings up another piece of wisdom: Get advice from people actively in the game."

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Not everywhere needs to become Silicon Valley. IT is well-trodden ground with established players and power centers now. Smaller cities like Portland would do better promoting emerging industries than trying to catch up to the web startup bus 15 years after it left the station.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't think everywhere needs to be SV. But, I do think that the power centers are less important in the web space. Web ideas can be built, launched and highly successful in very short periods of time. When that is possible, the actual location of the startup is less important... so long as they have a great community to support them. NYC is catching up to SF. Chicago / Austin / Boulder are having success growing great startup communities.

I'd just like to see Portland's scene improved.

And RE "Smaller cities like Portland would do better promoting emerging industries than trying to catch up to the web startup bus 15 years after it left the station."

It may have left 15 years ago, but if you run your ass off, you can still catch it.

<comment><USER6> You say you want to see Portland's scene improve, but I might suggest what you are really asking for is Portland's scene to _change_. I am a web developer here in Portland (been here for 10 years, love it). I do freelancing and don't run a startup, so obviously we're in different situations, but in my opinion what makes Portland Portland is its ease of living -- cheap rent, good cheap food, low traffic, mild climate, and most importantly: an utter lack of ambition. I grew up in the NYC area, and the difference is striking (it's subtle, but very pervasive) -- people just don't really care that much about achieving extraordinary things. And I don't mean this in a bad way at all -- I don't think there's anything intrinsically good or bad about being super ambitious, it's just a choice that we all make for our own goals and personalities. So it makes a lot of sense to me that Portland doesn't have a startup culture anything like S.V. -- and I feel that if it did, it would cease to be Portland.

BTW, this is coming from a place of respectful discussion and sharing of opinions -- I work downtown, if you ever want to meet up for coffee and discuss more, that would be fun (contact info in my profile).

<comment><AUTHOR> I definitely want a part of Portland's scene to change... Not the entire scene. I too love Portland for "cheap rent, good cheap food, low traffic, mild climate..." But I'm ambitious and have friends are as well. I realize that this isn't the main attitude (and I'm agreeing that being one way or the other isn't good / bad.) that Portland has. What I want is a better community for those in the web startup scene to be better supported to try and change the world.

Always happy to discuss. I'm in Portland every month or so. And I love coffee.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Put a bird on it

<comment><AUTHOR> Amen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I just moved back from SF, just spent 5 years in Portland. I love the city and the tech scene is awesome, but Portland has a capital problem like Darius mentioned.

</comment><comment><USER9> I just quit my job Friday. Should I move to SF, instead of Austin?

<comment><USER2> Not enough information.

But keep in mind that living expenses in SF are astronomical.

<comment><USER10> This is really important. Wish I'd known just how astronomical before I came out here (fortunately only for a limited time at first, but still).

<comment><AUTHOR> Also depends on where in SF / Bay Area you live. For example, my rent in San Leandro (45min BART ride into SF city) is half of what it was in SF Mission.

<comment><USER9> Cool. I was thinking about subleasing in the Mission. I'll have to check it out.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>