USPS gets into the SPAM business - <AUTHOR> https://www.usps.com/business/every-door-direct-mail.htm

<comment><USER2> If we didn't want them to do the most obvious thing they could to monetize their business, then we shouldn't have practically cut them off from public funding. Frankly, I'm on the USPS's side on this one.

<comment><USER3> I think we should just privatize it.

<comment><USER4> We did. USPS doesn't receive any public funds, but it's still technically owned by the United States government. It also has near-crushing prepaid pension debt.

<comment><USER5> > It also has near-crushing prepaid pension debt.

Prepaid is the only way to do pensions.

If you don't pay pension obligations as you incur them, you're going to run into trouble if there's any biz contraction. And, if it's a long-lived organization, you don't actually reduce your cash-outflow by not paying when you incur.

Run a scenario where you under pay by X%. When folks start collecting, you have to come up with the difference out of then-current revenues. Steady-state with stable revenues, you end up paying exactly the same amount, but you've got debt. Now cut the revenue (and current expenses) by 25% because the world changed. Your revenue can't pay the debt.

<comment><USER6> That's funny, sounds familiar.

How do we finance social security again?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If anything, this is healthier for people's personal information.

Companies seeking such a service typically resort to purchasing homeowner information in bulk from other services. With such a USPS service, it decreases the demand for such databases, and with it the incentive to create such databases.

It is unlikely that the USPS will _overwhelm_ homeowners. Presumably the USPS will limit received promotions to one per day. That can potentially give the USPS an additional $60/year in revenue per household, at marginal cost.

</comment><comment><USER8> This is a pretty good product actually for those that have small businesses. Wouldn't you rather receive a flyer in the mail than have a dodgy flyer guy putting it under your car windshield? Royal Mail (UK) has offered this for years and it's certainly less irritating than the flyering of takeaway menus and such I'd get all the time in SF.

<comment><USER9> The only problem with the UK system is that there are multiple routes for opt- out.

Mail Preference Service deals with addressed mail.

Royal Mail deals with "Door to Door" unaddressed mail delivered by Royal Mail.

Nothing stops people just shoving junk mail through your door.

(<http://www.mpsonline.org.uk/mpsr/>)

(<http://www.royalmail.com/you-home/controlling-your-mail>)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Is there such thing as a "do not mail" list? If it is possible to opt-out of private (tele)marketing and block spam, then logically it should be possible to opt out of this service too.

<comment><USER11> There is: <https://www.dmachoice.org/>. It took quite a while (several months) until I noticed any changes, but my (very subjective) impression is that the (spam) mail volume decreased over time.

Another thing I'd suggest is <https://donotcall.gov/>. Registering there seems to have had a positive impact on the number of spam calls I receive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> USPS has been in the spam business for decades.

</comment><comment><USER13> I already get tons of fliers from nearby restaurants stuck in my door every week. Might as well be in my mailbox.

It should be a very effective marketing tool for local businesses and it helps the USPS stay in business. If they would just add opt-out there would be nothing to complain about IMHO.

</comment><comment><USER14> In the UK the Royal Mail works similarly:

<http://www.royalmail.com/marketing-services>

</comment><comment><USER15> This is just like receiving grocery store ads in the mail, is it?

</comment><comment><USER16> Why not hire out us gov and DOD ip ranges to the highest bidder?

</comment><comment><USER17> it's like mailbait round two.</comment>


Content moderation became an industrial process - <AUTHOR> https://logicmag.io/04-the-scale-is-just-unfathomable/ <comment><USER2> [http://www.shirky.com/writings/herecomeseverybody/group_enem...](http://www.shirky.com/writings/herecomeseverybody/group_enemy.html)

"So there's this very complicated moment of a group coming together, where enough individuals, for whatever reason, sort of agree that something worthwhile is happening, and the decision they make at that moment is: This is good and must be protected. And at that moment, even if it's subconscious, you start getting group effects. And the effects that we've seen come up over and over and over again in online communities."

Clay Shirky, _15 years ago_

</comment><comment><USER3> _Because social media platforms operate at this scale, we as a society are being asked to tolerate the fact that even content as universally abhorred and clearly illegal as child pornography can be and is available on our favorite platforms, if only briefly._

Being asked by whom? The same person asking us to tolerate the presence of homeless people? Clearly said content is not so universally abhorred if it continues to be produced and made available. What we are actually being asked is to confront the fact that these things exist in our society and that we can't expect them to be kept neatly swept under the rug for us.

<comment><USER4> Child pornography and homeless people are not comparable. Homeless people have a right to shelter, whereas pictures do not have rights. We take down child pornography not because we wish to "sweep it under the rug", but because the pictures are inherently and irredeemably harmful.

<comment><USER5> Can you describe what that harm is? If a picture is copied to 100 recipients, does the harm multiply by 100 times also? How is that information communicated to the victim?

I can imagine this being the case for defamation. 100 people being told "Johnny is a thief" might cause 100 times as much harm to Johnny's social interactions as 1 person being told that. But how does it work for child porn?

<comment><USER4> Consider it as if you were a child victim. Imagine coming across these pictures of your abuse, or your family coming across these pictures. Or your coworkers. Or strangers. The pictures reenact the crime, invoking shame, dread, and helplessness. Here are some stories: [https://redd.it/8af7io](https://redd.it/8af7io), [http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/a-victim-of- chi...](http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/a-victim-of-child- pornography-doesnt-get-to-forget/2156937).

As a moral principle, it should not be legal to share these exploitative pictures. In terms of information, every copy of a picture increases the probability that it comes back to haunt the victim.

Finally, many viewers of child pornography find the pictures horrible or even traumatic. Many people are unfazed, but some experience nightmares or severe anxiety, especially investigators and moderators: [https://www.wired.com/2014/10/content- moderation/](https://www.wired.com/2014/10/content-moderation/).

<comment><USER6> To the first part, it's hard to imagine someone "stumbling across" child pornography by accident. The first post you linked is more realistic, in that she's talking about knowing the images still exist, are still in collections and in that sense she's still victimized. Unlocking some phones isn't going to change that, nothing will. She's not seeing it herself, she just knows that since it was distributed, it's impossible to take it all back.

I agree that it shouldn't be legal to possess or share child pornography, but I don't think it's a justification for mass invasion of privacy either. When someone is detected with child porn they should be in legal jeapordy, but we don't need to kill crypto to make that happen.

<comment><USER4> Many victims try to find out how their pictures are being shared, as in my second link, because they feel that knowing is better than not knowing. And considering how awful it must feel to know, I think that really says something.

Privacy rights are also important, and I agree with you that police should respect those rights when investigating child pornography, just as with any other crime.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Everything old is new again! Centralization can only ever lead to censorship - the edges inherently disagree, and at the very least the centralizing entity doesn't want to get caught in between. Never mind the power that comes with setting the zeitgeist for a large number of people.

I can only hope that the resulting milquetoast is boring enough that the median user actually puts forth the effort to use freer next-gen technologies rather than settle for this technically-lazy "web 2.0" promulgated by Surveillance Valley.

<comment><USER8> Good luck getting a large population of users from varying backgrounds and age ranges to want to hang out in a completely unmoderated place where anyone can be attacked, harassed, or shown obscene content.

<comment><USER7> You're mixing together separate issues, then using the balled up uncertainty in support of a (too) common assumption that only a benevolent central entity (eg God) can sort it out.

Reddit _itself_ was designed around the idea of multiple communities simultaneously existing on its site, with a low barriers for interacting with a plurality at a time. So "backgrounds and ages" is moot.

As far as _unwanted_ communications, then it's not like Reddit et al are actually currently preventing such things, and not for a lack of trying! This is an edge concern, and in fact can only be fully solved at the edges. Any central solution necessarily relies on post-facto punishment, which necessarily relies on attribution to immutable top-down-imposed identifiers (and if you think this sounds like a good idea, then we really have no common ground!).

I don't expect to be able to convince you, as all I am essentially saying is that the easy answers _are not answers_. As I said, I just hope the inevitable mediocrity that comes out of centralization is boring enough to drive most everybody to seek out places that are not centrally controlled. Or at the very minimum, that the minority willing to tolerate _unsafe speech_ will be free to go their own way.

<comment><USER9> You assume that the majority of people are unhappy with a subjective term such as "boring."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The thing is the "moderation" that's being discussed just bare content filtering, more or less one step past the scripts and neural nets.

Which brings up the point that good moderation is something entirely different. Good moderation involves a person actually emphasizing civil discussion and providing an alternative to argument by shock.

Of course, some fair portion of larger social networking systems today might well be described as "what happens when you remove all moderation" in multiple senses of the term. With that situation actually spilling over into a lot of society with attendant problems (as well as the more invisible problem that real problems get ignored).

Some systems now seem to be aiming for an opposite to this. Kialo is one effort but their approach to debate seems to rigid. A more "personal" approach where the debate is open but assumption of reasonableness is simply implicit would work better imo.

<comment><USER6> In essence it's the difference between what's done here on HN, and the travesty that is Twitter.

<comment><USER11> Don't fall into the trap of thinking that HN is good. All societies are biased in various ways, and there are plenty of bigotries and stupidities uttered here on a daily basis.

What you are doing is drawing an us-vs-them distinction. It's not healthy for discourse.

<comment><USER12> HN is objectively better _at content moderation_ than Twitter is. Not perfect, but better.

<comment><USER11> "Objectively?" Could you please define your metric and then carry out a measurement, hopefully in a preregistered and reproducible manner? If not, why so confident? Because your tribe, the HN tribe, is _objectively_ better than the Twitter tribe?

<comment><USER12> HN has guidelines, which are explicitly stated. Twitter (I gather) has guidelines or standards. So you measure content moderation by the number of posts that break the guidelines that are not moderated out.

<comment><USER11> Your metric is not scale-invariant.

It is trivially gamed by malicious actors. It does not reward higher-quality discourse. It rewards overzealous moderators. It rewards edgy or controversial discourse which does not break the guidelines. It rewards users who contribute a bare minimum of information while punishing users who write longer, more informative or interesting posts.

Worst, by what objective measuring device can a post be compared to the guidelines? There are many extremely-subjective suggestions in HN's guidelines alone:

* "Don't say things you wouldn't say face-to-face."

* "Assume good faith."

* "Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say." (Wanna give us a list of flamewar topics, mods?)

* "Please don't use Hacker News primarily for political or ideological battle." As I write this, there is an ideological battle between JS frameworks on the front page.

* "On HN, users should have an identity that others can relate to."

Could you write a script that measures whether an HN post breaks the guidelines?

<comment><USER12> > It is trivially gamed by malicious actors. It does not reward higher-quality > discourse. It rewards overzealous moderators. It rewards edgy or > controversial discourse which does not break the guidelines. It rewards > users who contribute a bare minimum of information while punishing users who > write longer, more informative or interesting posts.

To the best of my ability to determine, every single thing you said in this paragraph is false. Could you explain how you think some of that works? Because, quite frankly, your comments here look like you just want to complain about HN.

> Could you write a script that measures whether an HN post breaks the > guidelines?

No. I could evaluate a bunch of posts, though, and I suspect that my evaluation of that bunch of posts would not be statistically different from others' evaluation of them (assuming fairness and no malice on all the evaluators' part, of course).

It's not automeable, and it's not perfect. But it's also not rocket science.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Why are the platforms this big? Why can't a small community run its own software like it runs Wordpress, but for social apps and police itself?

A village knew whether someone was yelling obscenities. HN is a smaller community, with its own software.

I think the answer is that there is no good open source software for this.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZ1O_gmPneI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZ1O_gmPneI)

<comment><USER5> That already happens but they're small communities so you don't have much awareness of those that you're not a member of. Anyone can join privately run forums with like-minded people and sensible moderation that they agree with. There's no problem to be solved. When you want small communities, you have forums, when you want lowest-common-denominator drivel, you have Facebook, and when you want to feel tribal warmth by sharing your political opinions with people who agree with you while also being protected from opinions you don't agree with, you have Twitter.

<comment><USER14> > _when you want lowest-common-denominator drivel, you have Facebook, and when > you want to feel tribal warmth by sharing your political opinions with > people who agree with you while also being protected from opinions you don > 't agree with, you have Twitter._

That's not exactly fair; you can customize Twitter (to some degree, if you use a third party app) and Facebook (to an even smaller degree) to actually get content you care about. (e.g., there's no small forum I can join that'll get me Charles Stross's musings _and_ a video game developer whose updates I like _and_ a podcast's funny tweets.)

RSS used to be great for that sort of thing, but it's been largely superceded by Twitter, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Or just let it go completely unmoderated.

<comment><USER16> If that was ever an option, it isn't now. It would just be a bot war drowning everyone else out, and that's not free speech either.

<comment><USER15> It's not about free speech. You are trying to tame chaos, it isn't going to work and you just wasted millions of dollars on nothing.

<comment><USER16> Go to Reddit, then go to Voat. It makes a difference. You can't completely win, but you can definitely lose.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Why cant i scroll properly on iPad on that site. Never thought I'd notice!

</comment><comment><USER18> It is sad to see sites like reddit turn into police states.

Any bit of skin or bad word and content is marked NSWF.

Other topics not on paar with the main stream is banned or deleted by moderators. Topics that back a few years ago would have sparked a good and healthy discussion.

Now people live in a filer bubble. Reality is too scary...

<comment><USER19> What's wrong with marking content NSFW? Its not censoring it, simply providing a warning to those who may be in a place where their screen is visible and that might not be appropriate.

<comment><USER20> I have seen this abused on sites like Twitter, where images with purely political content have been marked age-inappropriate.

<comment><USER21> Reddit doesn't block anyone from seeing NSFW content.

<comment><USER20> Right, it's not quite the same because it's the submitter in reddit and the community on Twitter. I'm not trying to agree with the top parent comment about reddit.

Twitter doesn't fully block NSFW content, either. They each have a system requiring a click to unveil or profile setting.

The effect is to obscure the content, so that people just scrolling by won't see it. Someone has to notice it's hidden, trust that it something they do want to see and not a disturbing gore or porn pic, and then click to see it. That has the effect of reducing the reach of the media. It's similar to how people would make messages on the craigslist RnR forum disappear by abusing flagging.

On Reddit, people opposing your message can use voting rings and automation to abuse downvoting, which has the effect of hiding content.

They can complain that your image needs to be NSFW, and ask the moderators to change it. I believe moderators can set it for content, but if you are posting in their sub, you are at their mercy anyway.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


My Life with Tourette's Syndrome - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/23/opinion/my-life-with-tourettes-syndrome.html <comment><USER3> I have mild Tourette's as well, mainly in the form of body and facial tics. While I had some challenges growing up (nobody knew why I did the things I did) I can't say it was as bad as this recounting. I am a bit younger though (33). I do agree that most people just think of Tourette's as uncontrollable swearing since that's mainly how it's represented on TV. It sucks, but I'm lucky that it's relatively mild and people I know don't seem to be bothered by it. I think it's very hard for many people to understand because it's so hard to put into words. Many people think it's involuntary, but when you tell them that it's in fact voluntary, but compulsory they tend to downplay it and wonder why you just don't stop. Anyway, great article cheers.

<comment><USER4> >when you tell them that it's in fact voluntary, but compulsory they tend to downplay it and wonder why you just don't stop

It sounds like you should find another way to explain things. "Voluntary" and "compulsory" are in their usual meanings contradictory, muutually exclusive, impossible for one action to be both. So it's no wonder that people get confused when you tell them it's "voluntary". I understand what you experience may be hard to put into words, but maybe you could find some way that at least avoids this confusion.

<comment><USER5> Someone described something similar as "like sneezing". You know when a sneeze is coming on, and you can delay it, but it's hard or impossible to actually stop the sneeze. Is that a good analogy?

<comment><USER6> Regarding sneezing: next time you feel your nose itching squeeze the top portion of your right ring finger real hard. I have no clue why it works but in most cases (say 90%) it works for me.

Then again I sneeze when ever I look up at a clear blue sky so it might just be my wiring. :)

<comment><USER7> Just cover your nostrils with the side of your pointing finger. That usually stops the sneeze. My theory is that it stops the flow into your inner nose of whatever is causing you to sneeze; most likely some type of micro particles.

<comment><USER8> Breathing out through my nose works for me. Seems to quiet the sneezing "itch".

Breathing in through my nose intensifies it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I think I was 10 or 11. I was having a rough time in school. Little in regards to friends, rather a lot of mocking behaviour. My Tourette's was mild, but it got worse with stress. It almost completely disappears in nature and the garden. So around age 10-11 I decided that I would not have any of this ticks and unwanted movements of hands, head and compulsiveness. I started exercising breathing and paying attention to my limbs during what I did not really understand for what it was at the time: meditation. It brought awareness that I lacked before, something that no-one has taught me about. I overcame much of my Tourette's during those years. Some remain, but it is mostly restricted to times of stress and tiredness.

I don't really know what I'm trying to say with this post. I cried a bit during that video, understanding how worse people have it than I do. I feel for you. I wish you the best, and I wish I could just give you people a hug during the hard times.

<comment><USER10> I was able to get through a lot of my childhood tics this way - <USER2> blinking, hand flapping, and a skin-folding movement of my thumb that left a open wound at the edge of my hand. Not all of them though. I've still got a bunch of large muscle movements that won't go away. Maybe I should try meditating again.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Thank you for posting this.

As a 20-something year old with Tourette's, I always like to read about older people with Tourette's Syndrome. I recently found out a coworker has Tourette's Syndrome at our office and being able to be open about it with someone else like that - even though the tics are different - has helped a lot.

Seeing someone that is older and isn't as self conscious about their tics as I am gives me more hope for the future.

</comment><comment><USER12> I was amazed to stumble across a few case studies on YouTube of a doctor treating Tourette's by adjusting the resting position of the patient's jaw.

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

I assume there are different types of Tourette's with different causes and different treatments, but it was really amazing to see this link to the jaw.

<comment><USER13> That's super interesting.

I have no medical background at all, but I wonder if this could be related to the dopamine hypothesis of Tourette's. [1]

Bruxism and other mandibular issues can be associated with dopamine dysfunction. Normally I wouldn't think that the jaw could actually _cause_ the problems, but perhaps there could be some kind of feedback loop there tied to dopamine.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_and_origins_of_Tourette...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_and_origins_of_Tourette_syndrome#Pathophysiology)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> > A young man approached me. He said, "I know you're faking it because I am an > actor." And then he acted like someone acting like they have Tourette's.

As a sufferer of Tourrette's, this makes my blood absolutely boil. I grew up among relatively supportive individuals, so I never had to experience this level of blatant, ignorant naiveté. Never did I realize that sufferers still have to deal with this unnecessary torment. You'd think that social media would expand peoples' knowledge, open mindedness, etc, but clearly we have a ways to go.

<comment><USER15> > You'd think that social media would expand peoples' knowledge, open > mindedness, etc, but clearly we have a ways to go.

Ohh how I wish...

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I was diagnosed with Tourette's in elementary school, but I've had tics for as long as I can remember. Similar to the author, I had a lot of negative experiences early on with people (both adults and other kids) mocking and telling me that I "did not have Tourette's". Starting around high school though, people seemed to become more open-minded about it, which I can only assume is due to people finally considering me old enough to be a credible source about my own health. I'm much younger than the author though (currently only 22), so I can only imagine how much more difficult it would have been to have to deal with ignorant people 30 years ago. I sometimes wonder what would have happened to me if I were born several decades earlier; with the combination of my Tourette's, OCD, ADHD, and anxiety, I can't imagine I would have been able to get the support and help I needed to become the self- sufficient adult I am today

</comment><comment><USER17> I have mild Tourette's, which has thankfully gotten milder in adulthood. It was the most pronounced in grade school. Minor facial tics, the occasional head jerk, and some subvocalized echolalia that took me years to be able to notice myself doing. I'm kind of shocked it's still so misunderstood by society at large.

</comment><comment><USER18> Very interesting....

Karaoke Chicago 'If you leave me now': [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqI3xsPrtq0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqI3xsPrtq0)

Chris De Burgh ' Lady in red': [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHfo8zwYFUo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHfo8zwYFUo)

</comment><comment><USER19> Well, I also know people who think they have fibromyalgie. I believe in tourettes, but I can understand why people don't believe in some illness.

<comment><USER16> I suppose it might be possible to tell when someone is incorrect about a perceived medical condition if you know them well, but I can't imagine meeting someone for the first time and telling them that they don't have a medical condition that they say they have (which has happened to me countless times over the years with my Tourette's). Given that I've been diagnosed by multiple doctors, this either means that they don't trust medicine or they think that I would lie about a medical diagnosis (again, without having met me before). Maybe you can understand why some people think it's reasonable to tell compete strangers that their medical diagnosis a sham or that they're liars, but I definitely can't.

<comment><USER19> I think there are differences

IfI just met you, and you say you got a real condition, like tourette, I will probably believe you, because I think tourette is real.

But if you would tell me you had fibromyalgie, I wouldn't believe you, because I don't think it's a real condition.

This has nothing to do with how long I knew you.

<comment><USER19> Why the down-votes?

Do you also believe a person that tells you homeopathy healed them?

Just because someone believes in something doesn't make it more real.

<comment><USER16> I don't believe in homeopathy because there's no scientific or medical evidence that it works. Fibromyalgia is a documented medical condition that actual doctors diagnose. I'm sorry, but I don't really see a parallel here.

(That being said, I didn't downvote you; even if I wanted to, I don't have the karma for it)

<comment><USER19> There are many doctors who prescribe homeopathy.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Norman Borlaug - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug <comment><USER2> Ah, not Borlaug again.

Look, selective breeding and using fossil fuels for agriculture did increase output per unit of land. But the genetic specialization has weakened the previous genetic diversity of food.

Rendering our food supply more brittle, because we've created plants which need a very precise, artificial environment filled with external inputs.

Now, we've added GMOs, which have decreased genetic diversity even more. (Massive monoculture plantings all with the same genes, with even more artificial needs.)

The reason sexual reproduction succeeded was it creates as diverse of a genome as possible. By reducing that process, and substituting what we think of as "better", and then making it so 80% of our food supply shares the same genome, we're really setting ourselves up for a fall.

The mythology of Borlaug is that there are these scientists silently saving the world off in a corner, our own super hero nerds to look up to.

But, we're talking about massive systems here, things we really don't have a clue about. Can we outrun the adaptations of biology with our own GM technology? Can we keep using fossil fuels to outpace what we should be getting out of food?

And with genetic modification, we're always taking something away when we substitute something else. There is truly no free lunch there.

The point being, don't believe the mythology, and don't think this is a solved problem. Yes, we created a lot of cheap food using fossil fuels and brittle plant genomes, but what comes next?

<comment><USER3> _using fossil fuels_

Can you explain what does fossil fuels have to do with this?

 _And with genetic modification, we 're always taking something away when we substitute something else_

What does this mean? Really. I don't understand this at all.

 _Rendering our food supply more brittle, because we 've created plants which need a very precise, artificial environment filled with external inputs_

Can you name examples of this "brittleness", how it is caused and how it has affected the food supply when compared to another way of farming (and what that other way exactly is)?

 _making it so 80% of our food supply shares the same genome, we 're really setting ourselves up for a fall_

Can you explain how having 80% of our food supply sharing the same genome is setting ourselves up for a fall?

<comment><USER2> Sure thing!

Here's a link from Oregon State giving a brief overview of the usage of fossil fuels in agriculture: [http://people.oregonstate.edu/~muirp/fossfuel.htm](http://people.oregonstate.edu/~muirp/fossfuel.htm)

Basically, we use nitrogen fertilizers derived from oil, pesticides derived from oil, harvesters which run on oil, herbicides derived from oil, irrigation which runs on oil, and the transporting infrastructure to delivery all of that food.

As for the taking away something when we substitute something else:

Biological organisms have a general amount of energy their capable of taking in and processing. Whenever you substitute another gene "part" into an organism, you lose your net output of energy. It means that "cost" of energy is spent in producing that side effect, and not elsewhere. IE not in defense against other organisms.

As for the "brittleness" of genes:

The entire point of sexual reproduction is to make it so there is as much diversity in the genome as possible. This makes it so one bacteria or virus can't unlock the genome of an entire species and wipe it all out.

I think this also explains the last piece. We're exposed to a virus getting the code for a specific piece of that gene and wiping out all of that system very rapidly.

<comment><USER2> Being downvoted for not enough citations, I guess:

For the energy load incurred by adding to the gene sequence:

[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/07349750950...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/073497509500004A)

Brittleness of genes:

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

Potato famine in general.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Whenever I lose faith in the naive goodness of humans, I look up Norman Borlaug again. The sacrifices that man has made for the greater good might look trivial in the books of history but it saved a billion people from certain starvation. Mexico, India and Pakistan would have fallen to anarchy long ago if not for him. I agree corporations like Monsanto took his line of work to evil proportions, but I am grateful that the first hands to wield the weapon of GM crops were of Norman Borlaug. His legacy will never be forgotten and will always be a guiding light to states and statesmen for centuries to come.

</comment><comment><USER5> I don't want anyone to starve, but lets not go overboard on the hero worshiping.

Increasing carry capacity of the land can "save" people in the moment, but once the population catches up to the new carrying capacity we run into the same problems again unless something has changed in the meantime. Except that all the problems are worse because the new carrying capacity is

* more brittle (as other commenters) have already pointed out

* borrowed from unsustainable approaches such as converting fossil fuels to fertilizer

Arguably many of the countries that implemented these approaches have been able to slow populations growth, possibly with the help of temporary food security from these approaches.

I am just hoping for more intelligent conversation on the issue that helps people realize the true heros are those implementing sustainable technologies.

</comment><comment><USER6> The headline seems to be invented from whole cloth. Wikipedia doesn't have propagandistic headlines.

<comment><USER7> Yeah, if you do a search for "Borlaug saved a billion" you'll find a lot of editorials with that title. There is a documentary too on YT. He is lionized for his contributions to agriculture in the developing world. I don't know the source of this sentiment, but it may well be deserved.

[http://yellowmagpie.com/norman-borlaug- about/](http://yellowmagpie.com/norman-borlaug-about/)

[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1213295/Norma...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1213295/Norman- Borlaug-father-green-revolution-saved-billion-starvation-dies-aged-95.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> If you are dying of hunger would you eat a Snickers bar? How about if you had to survive for a week on only Skittles? Would you die, leaving a note that says that you refuse to eat processed food?

Is average life expectancy longer or shorter as a result of his work? Is quality of life better or worse?

</comment><comment><USER9> I hate all these "saved people" bits. Every person ever still dies. Nobody gets "saved" from death, we get _prolonged life_ or _happier / healthier life_. We could talk about reduced suffering. That stuff matters but just be accurate. There's no billion people saved, there's (arguably) billion people suffering less. Which isn't belittling anything.

</comment><comment><USER10> This post is a thinly veiled argument for GMOs and large scale agribusiness. Did it save billions? Obviously. Is it free from criticism because of that? Not a chance.

<comment><USER11> But GMO and agribusiness also gets a lot of flak it doesn't deserve, based on faulty argumentation and outright lies.

<comment><USER10> I agree 100%. I fight that daily. My brother is staunchly against genetics manipulation and agribusiness in general. I'm just for using science and having some peer oversight myself :D

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Although this might seem great on paper, he just created more intractable problems for future generations to have to deal with. Instead of focusing on the quantity of life, we should focus on the quality. Educate people instead of helping them make more children that will lead sad lives.

</comment><comment><USER13> So, he is to blame for overpopulation? Thanks very much!

<comment><USER14> Yes, he impregnated every woman who wasn't already pregnant.

<comment><USER13> [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2419858/Africas- popu...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2419858/Africas-population- set-double-2-4billion-2050-better-medicine-improved-health-care.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> You are really believing that a man who supports GMOs and the increase of the consumption of wheat cereals saved a billion?

We are in an era where people are trying to avoid GMO products and also trying a "gluten-free" diet because of the health damage of those 2 things.

<comment><USER16> ..yes?

For people dying from famine, the hipster nutrition trends are not on the radar.

<comment><USER17> Well, mankind didn't eat wheat for around a million years. Then after eating wheat for around 10,000 years we've only been eating Frankenwheat during the last century.

So the "hipster fad" is actually the eating of wheat. It's not a natural food for mankind to be consuming.

<comment><USER18> "Natural" food is not necessarily good. "Unnatural" food is not necessarily bad.

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


Suburban Housing Costs Are Stretching Families to the Brink - <AUTHOR> https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/03/suburban-housing-costs-are-stretching-families-to-the-brink.html <comment><USER2> Don't forget insurance, cable/cell bills, food.</comment>


Apple's Schiller says kids with Chromebooks are "not going to succeed" - green-eclipse https://iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/19/11/13/phil-schiller-offers-scathing-critique-of-chromebook-calls-it-cheap-testing-tool <comment><AUTHOR> The best tool to challenge children is a Raspberry Pi. They can build an entire computer from scratch for less then $100 and an old TV. Price is not what makes a tool great.

</comment><comment><USER2> This is just a marketing tactic. Microsoft basically said the same about Apple 30 years ago.

Chromebooks also you to install Ubuntu naively which opens up a world of options.

<comment><USER3> Chromebooks in schools are enrolled in a corporate enrollment, even replacing the (small) SSD won't enable you to run an alternative OS unless you reflash coreboot or get the corporate administrator to release the device.

This manageability that is omnipresent, very hard to bypass and included for free is why Chromebooks are so popular, despite the ridiculously short 3 to 4 year software support lifespan of each Chromebook.

<comment> m-p-3 That, and I don't see Apple with any services similar to Classroom [1]

[1]: [https://edu.google.com/products/classroom](https://edu.google.com/products/classroom)

Also, students aren't always delicate with the equipment, so having a cheap device that can be easily replaced with the least amount of friction possible (most user settings will follow across devices, and if the device is already enrolled then policies are applied automatically)</comment></comment></comment>


Declaraoids – Declarative programming on steroids - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/Matsemann/Declaraoids <comment><USER2> I can't remember the last time a code example made me laugh out loud.

This is brilliant, and also horrifying: all the laconic elegance of SQL fed through a blender and intravenously injected into Javascript.

<comment><USER3> This comment made spending my whole Sunday on it worth it.

The idea came from an example from a talk [1] I attended, and I wanted to see how far I could take it.

[1]: [https://github.com/mikaelbr/proxy- fun/blob/master/examples/g...](https://github.com/mikaelbr/proxy- fun/blob/master/examples/generate-api/math.js)

<comment><USER2> Your Sundays are more productive than mine.</comment></comment></comment>


Rich enough to care about UX? - <AUTHOR> http://www.funkykaraoke.com/2011/12/rich-enough-to-care-about-ux.html

<comment><USER2> Check out Maslow (pronounced "MASS-lov") Hierarchy of Needs: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs> A lot of thought has been put into how people's priorities change as certain needs are met. Of course studies have progressed form that particular model (see "Criticisms" on that page), I'm just pointing out that this can get very complicated :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. I am aware of Maslow's Hierachy of Needs, but I wanted to approach the problem from the economic theory perspective.

It is indeed a quite complicated problem and one blog post is not going to explain the matter fully :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I disagree.

Imho: There are two types of services. Thr one solve a pain the other provide pleasure. First is described in the article. Second relies by its nature on UX

<comment><AUTHOR> Providing pleasure can only be achieved after a basic need has been met and you have the resources to easily afford that solution.

Here is the challenge - why would someone buy Evian or San Pellegrino when they can buy a gallon of "normal" water for a fraction of the price?</comment></comment>


Amazon treats its employees the way it does because of us - <AUTHOR> http://qz.com/481235/amazon-treats-its-employees-the-way-it-does-because-of-us/

<comment><USER2> "Amazonians are expected to be available during holidays, pay for business calls and other expenses out of pocket, and are timed as they pack goods for shipment to ensure the highest productivity. There's also the nightmare stories of cancer patients accused of low productivity, of the mother of a stillborn child made to leave for a business trip straight after the delivery, of managers crying at their desks."

Wow. I've been passing over all the unfair amazon practices article, but now that I read this I see why people are upset. Guy gets cancer and is called out for being not as productive as everyone else, like his life isn't hard enough as is....

</comment><comment><USER3> I refuse to be made to feel quilty because Amazon treats their employees like crap.

If Amazon charged more for their products, they wouldn't treat their employees any better than they do now. It's a cultural problem (or a bad management problem), not a revenue problem.

Amazon treats its employees the way it does because it chooses to do so, not because of it's customers.</comment>


Ask HN: Great candidate but company needs more time to make decision - <AUTHOR> So I applied on a startup and passed all interviews including technical. However, after a follow-up email regarding the status of my application, one of the founders told me that they might need more time (2 weeks) to make a decision, but considered me as a great candidate.
Btw, this is a remote job. So, I need your advice if I should just wait or look for other jobs because this might still be far-fetched.
Thanks! <comment><USER2> I'd bet $50 you're their second choice but their first choice hasn't given them a firm yes yet, so they're keeping you in reserve. I'd carry on looking in that situation.

<comment><USER3> I agree with the recommendation to keep looking for a job (since this is a promising low-likelihood opportunity); there are other likely scenarios:

\- They hope to find someone better and/or cheaper, and they can afford to wait. Presumably benign.

\- The advertised position isn't certain; factions within the company might not want to spend money for a new employee (or for someone else's employee in particular).

<comment><AUTHOR> I was thinking the first one since the founder told me they had a frontend dev from Russia and said they're really "cheap".

I had this in mind on the final interview, but I didn't want to lowball my compensation because of the fact that the position is remote.</comment></comment></comment>


UK orders Heathrow to suppress evidence of customs queues - <AUTHOR> http://boingboing.net/2012/04/29/uk-border-authority-orders-hea.html

<comment><USER2> Data Point: I just got back from the rugby sevens in Hong Kong.

The queue at _Hong Kong_ was two hours long. On return to Heathrow the queue was 30 minutes.

Even in his article Cory was told there would be a 5 hour wait and had under a 2 hour wait.

This sounds less like a cover up and more like the operators of Heathrow are angry that the government ordered them to sell Gatwick etc. they're arse covering with a revenge twist.

</comment><comment><USER3> Should we be surprised?

This is just another example of the serious flaws of the UK immigration agency. They are getting better at controlling the borders but numerous public errors have been embarrassing for Government.

One recently was where not all passengers travelling into London on the Eurostar did not have their passport checked. So effectively a smart immigrant looking at creeping into the UK could have just hopped onto the Eurostar one stop after Paris.

<comment><USER4> I been in and out of the country three times in the last ten years with no documentation, not for any nefarious reason, but more just because I am a bit lazy and couldn't be bothered with sorting out the paperwork.

So is equally useful for us smart emigrants creeping out of the UK as well. Personally, I could care less about immigration. I don't view it as a major risk and think that trying to link travel to terrorism is ridiculous. The people most likely to have the means, motive and opportunity to commit a terrorist act in a particular country are the people who have lived there all their lives.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I went through a few weeks ago and the queues for non-EU were pretty long - nearly an hour. This 26 hours after I left home.

Welcome to England!

To be fair in Doha the queues were almost as long, just to transit.

Back in Australia, 5 minutes and we were on our way. (Same queue for foreigners and Australians).</comment>


Facebook silencing Tunisian cyber activists involved in Revolution - <AUTHOR> http://takriz.com/press/24-1-2011-english.txt

<comment><USER2> > TAKRIZ asks his members, friends, followers and readers to stop relying on > Facebook and to disperse and follow TAKRIZ Twitter account > twitter.com/takriz and check <http://degage.tv> publishing the latest > videos.

Everyone is doing it wrong. Wikileaks, now these guys...

Facebook and Twitter are companies. They have no obligation to help you out, and if you cause them any inconvenience they'll drop you. The Internet and the Web are open and free platforms. Dissidents should buy their own domain names, host _themselves_ in different countries and stop trusting a single company to help you in a REVOLUTION. Something so important as a revolution should not depend so tightly on a single US company with a 20-something hip nerd as CEO.

Edit: okay, they get some credit for the degage.tv site. That's pretty awesome. But don't be surprised if the twitter account disappears.

<comment><USER3> Put yourself in the shoes of an activist in Tunisia or elsewhere. You want to reach friends, acquaintances, and neighbors. You want a feed that people can follow from an account they check every single day. You want people to be able to find the latest information from their mobile phones. You have no money to spend and if you try to start an open source project or a company you'll probably be arrested.

To me, Facebook (etc.) looks like a pretty good option in that situation.

What alternatives would you suggest?

<comment><USER4> Someone should package a distribution of Diaspora for easy hosting on the Amazon cloud with a utility for someone to indirectly export their friend network through Yahoo. There would be an email link going to a page which would ask for a password _distributed by a secondary channel_.

One instance of such a site would be fairly easily penetrated by a government. However, if you divide up your organization based on strong personal relationships, you can require an adversary government to penetrate dozens or hundreds of such sites. (cells?)

EDIT: Add Rackspace and Linode and whoever else can provide low-cost hosting. A government might shut down one hosting provider. Shutting down the top 10 might cripple an economy.

EDIT: Also, use Google Voice as an SMS forwarder so that those without smartphones can at least have obfuscated comms. Or maybe a custom app with Twillio?

<comment><USER3> I agree that a distributed, secure, privacy-respectful social network would be very useful here for the activists to work together and am looking to the point where Appleseed, Diaspora et. al. are ready for it. It doesn't solve the same problem, though. Facebook is all about reaching people who aren't the core activists -- 600,000,000 people in the Diaspora universe yet.

<comment><USER4> Yes, but have them switch to something that Facebook or another single company can't shut down at the behest of some government.

Another idea: Have such sites continually back themselves up to Amazon S3. This way, if a government does try some knucklehead move like banning Linnode, then people an just resurrect the site on another provider. (And chances are, a government besides the US won't be able to block network between that provider and S3.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Perhaps access to the NYT or other American news sources (or even HN?) is difficult in Tunisia, but what exactly gave a dissident political group the idea of hosting a "group" page on Facebook? Did it seem like a good idea because IPs get logged? Because everything is sent and hosted unencrypted and in the open? Because group membership is easily accessible with a subpoena, along with a list of your friends and family, and the locations they last logged in from?

In this case, I'd say it's probably in their own interest that Facebook is "silencing" them...

<comment><USER3> why do you think you have the knowledge to judge what's in their best interest? the protestors in Tunisia forced the dictator to flee the country and have gotten the government to life its Internet censorship, at least temporarily. they know what they're doing.

<comment><USER5> I don't claim to know anything about their interests, but I'm fairly certain that hosting political dissent of any sort on Facebook is not in anyone's interest (well, except the authorities and the people you're um...dissenting against). Why do I feel that way? Because dissent, by definition, pisses some people off. If you _are_ the authorities or the majority, it wouldn't really be dissent. If you're not, then you're essentially putting your Facebook members at risk, whether the information is gained by diplomatic pressure, subpoenas, or with the little keylogging Javascript monkey that the Tunisian government most recently tried.

<comment><USER3> > I don't claim to know anything about their interests, but I'm fairly certain > that hosting political dissent of any sort on Facebook is not in anyone's > interest

a) the second half of this sentence contradicts the first: you're claiming you know something about their interests

b) you're wrong. Facebook is an extremely effective tool for activists in general, even in repressive regimes. in the Tunisian protests, it's been used to share vidoes, update people on news from Al Jazeera and other outlets that aren't controlled by the government, get word out about protests, and see the final status message of Mohamed Bouazizi -- the guy who killed himself in Sibi Bouzid and touched off the revolution.

tens of thousands of people are putting their lives on the line by going out in the streets where police are firing live ammunition -- over 60 have died in the protests. by those standards posting something on their Facebook profiles isn't risky at all.

<comment><USER5> > tens of thousands of people are putting their lives on the line by going out > in the streets where police are firing live ammunition -- over 60 have died > in the protests. by those standards posting something on their Facebook > profiles isn't risky at all.

When you're going out on the street, you're putting yourself at risk. When you use a service like Facebook for dissent, you're also putting family and friends at risk (and likewise if your family or friends use it). The specifics may vary according to the situation, but the principle doesn't.

<comment><USER3> when somebody is photographed at a street action, they're putting their friends and family at risks. everybody knows it. as you say, it's a general principle: repressive regimes will target the friends and families of anybody who gets their attention sufficiently.

but the risk profiles are very different:

\- go out in the street: risk getting killed, or bashed with a nightstick, or photographed (in which case you wind up on a list and they may target you, your friends, and your family

\- share a link on Facebook: risk winding up on a much much longer list (so they're less likely to have the resources to target everybody on it, let alone their friends and families)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's times like these, I wish I could move faster with Appleseed. It's quite functional, but I wouldn't feel comfortable recommending it to someone in the context of a revolution, yet.

<comment><USER3> I was thinking much the same. You're certainly doing the right thing by setting people's expectations that it's not ready yet ... but it'd be great to use this energy to help accelerate the process.

Have you thought about a presentation or blog post on "the promise and challenges of distributed social networks for human rights" (or something along those lines)? the timing could be very good ...

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This morning we saw this article at HN's top <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2134542>, now this one... I don't understand who's to be believed nor what is Facebook's true position.

</comment><comment><USER8> Maybe there was some kind of automated system that locked down the page/account when other people outside of Facebook tried to repeatedly log into it and hack it?

</comment><comment><USER9> A long time takriz follower here. Welcome to HN.

</comment><comment><USER10> You know most China citizens that need access to western news or websites for business reasons, etc can figure out how to get a VPN account somewhere..

FB and twitter are the last place any revolution should take place on as than you have adversary using same service to out the victims to dictator authorities..</comment>


Leaked ICE Guide; an Unprecedented View of Asset Forfeiture Tactics - <AUTHOR> https://theintercept.com/2017/10/13/ice-hsi-asset-forfeiture-handbook/ <comment><USER2> This article appears to be lacking any link to the source document. Am I suffering from semantic blindness? An introductory article is great but without access to the primary source it's not delivering much real benefit to the readers.

In the meantime, here's the 2016 version of the DoJ's manual on the subject, which is probably highly similar.

[https://www.justice.gov/criminal- afmls/file/839521/download](https://www.justice.gov/criminal- afmls/file/839521/download)

</comment><comment><USER3> Please define ICE, HSI. You left that out. Also John Oliver did a good segment on this: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks)</comment>


China moves to shut spigot on rare earths in escalating trade war - <AUTHOR> https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/Trade-war/China-moves-to-shut-spigot-on-rare-earths-in-escalating-trade-war <comment><USER2> That will spur the development of many alternative sources...

<comment><USER3> Ditto for US semiconductors.</comment></comment>


How to quit a job without publishing an Op-Ed - <AUTHOR> http://www.thereformedbroker.com/2012/03/14/how-to-quit-a-job-without-publishing-an-op-ed/

<comment><USER2> Heh. The man says it like it is.</comment>


Bring back the lash – Why flogging is more humane than prison - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/mayjune_2011/features/bring_back_the_lash029136.php?page=all

<comment><USER2> That's bunkum. Flogging is a specific punishment. "Prison" has a wide range of meanings. The idea seems to be that the US prison system is barbaric, so why not swap that form of barbarism for something which is cheaper.

Rather than, you know, fixing the prison system and the laws which make the US have the highest, or nearly highest, incarceration rate in the world.

Remember though that the author's reference comparison is: "Our rate of incarceration is roughly seven times that of Canada or any Western European country." The incarceration rate in Singapore is 233/100K. The US has 707/100K (but see the note at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarcerat...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate#United_States) ).

By comparison, Canada: 118, France: 103, England&Wales: 148, Ireland: 89, Germany: 87, Sweden: 64.

Setting the barbarity aside, if the best that flogging could do is to get the incarceration rate down to 200/100K while prison and law reforms can bring the incarceration rate down to 100/100K - I'll assume that Singapore and Canada are equally lovely places to live - then flogging isn't the way to go.</comment>


How to do a PhD - <AUTHOR> http://jameshaytonphd.com/the-10-commandments-for-phd-failure/ <comment><USER2> I've seen a lot of really good people get very badly hurt pursuing a Ph.D. I did get a STEM field Ph.D. but didn't get hurt.

For a good and broad view of the problem, buried in D. Knuth's _The TeXBook_ is

"The traditional way is to put off all creative aspects until the last part of graduate school. For seventeen or more years, a student is taught examsmanship, then suddenly after passing enough exams in graduate school he's told to do something original."

Yes, here Knuth identifies a significant challenge.

Compared with the OP, here's a very different and much more specific approach that clearly makes a lot of sense and that worked well for me:

First, note carefully that for some work that can be called _research_ the usual, nearly universal criteria are that the work be "new, correct, and significant". Below, keep these three in mind.

Second, get a major in math, at least a good undergraduate major in pure and applied math and hopefully enough more in pure and applied math for roughly a Master's in math. Even if you don't care about the Master's degree, I do very much recommend getting the math for a Master's degree.

Why pure math? The pure math gives you the crucial, central, foundational tools of math, that is, many crucial prerequisites and, broadly, the ability to state and prove theorems. E.g., you will learn how to write math, and that alone will start to put you ahead, even of some high end professors.

What pure math? For your research likely mostly you will use the part of math called _analysis_ but in your studies for more you will also want at least the basics of abstract algebra and maybe differential geometry, combinatorics, and maybe even some in foundations. In addition, if you have some reason to believe you can get some value from algebraic topology or geometry, then, sure study those.

Why applied math? Likely applied math will be closer to the math you will use for your research. What applied math? Sure, e.g., statistics, numerical linear algebra, ordinary differential equations, more in numerical techniques, optimization, stochastic processes, etc.

Third, get your Ph.D. in some field of _engineering_ \-- computer science, electronic engineering, mechanical engineering, civil engineering, operations research, statistics, etc.

Three biggie points:

(1) In science and engineering, by far the most highly respected research is that which _mathematizes_ the field. Good work here can help meet the criterion of "significant".

(2) Work in math, well supported with theorems and proofs, is much more difficult to criticize than work that is mostly just experimental or empirical. Good work here can be help meet the criterion of "correct".

(3) The standard and severe weakness of the backgrounds of researchers in most of science and in engineering is way too little in math. Thus, there are a lot of good research problems they can't address. So, your good work here can be help meet the criterion of "new".

So, with your background in math, on (1)-(3) you will have at least a good -- maybe even an overwhelmingly strong -- comparative, competitive advantage.

Another point if you care: Unless your family wants to donate $10+ million or so, it is just super tough to get into an Ivy League university. But getting in as a grad student is much easier -- e.g., I got accepted to Cornell, Brown, and Princeton.

So, you should intend that your research be essentially math for that field of engineering. Usually you will aim to use your math tools to solve a relatively practical problem in that field of engineering, but you might use your math to add to the basic _theory_ of that field; for some wild guesses, you might do something in the theory of predators and prey in environmental engineering; maybe you would have been the one who did Kalman filtering in electronic engineering; maybe in mechanical engineering and continuum mechanics you will make some nice theoretical contribution to materials science.

Why engineering instead of pure math or physical science? (1) Engineering has no end of practical problems -- say, from outside of, and neglected by, academics -- to be solved. So, if you pick, attack, and solve a problem important in practice, then there is a good chance your work will meet the criterion of "new", since the work is mathematical, "correct", and since the problem was important in practice, "significant". (2) In pure math and physical science, the range of candidate problems is much more narrow, e.g., in physics you can try to say what _dark energy_ is -- lots of luck doing that.

So, right, for a research problem in some field of engineering, maybe pick a practical problem that is considered important and that you found someplace, maybe outside academics, maybe on a job, maybe a real job or maybe just a summer job or an internship. I did that: I picked a problem I found at FedEx.

Then, it will be quite good for you to have the problem in mind when go for your Ph.D. I had the problem and a good, first-cut, intuitive solution (worked out on an airplane flight) before I entered my Ph.D. program. In my first year, I took some advanced, relatively pure, not often taught, graduate math coursework that gave me good math prerequisites to let me convert my intuitive solution a solid math solution. So, in my first summer, in six weeks, independently, alone in the library, I worked out the math, with theorems and proofs, and walked out with a 50 page manuscript that was the original research for my Ph.D. dissertation. I recommend doing such a thing.

Getting into research early is commonly considered good advice: E.g., IIRC, the Princeton math department has said on their Web site that a student should have some research underway in their first year. Even, better, have the core research done before the second year -- which is what I did and, I believe, a strong advantage in getting the Ph.D.

The math gave me another advantage: In a course, a problem was apparent -- a tricky, deep question about the Kuhn-Tucker conditions. There was no answer in the course, and I could find no answer in the library. So, I attacked the problem -- the key was some pure math I had -- and found a surprisingly nice solution, in two weeks. I wrote up my solution and got credit for a _reading course_. But the work was publishable -- presto, bingo, at that university the criteria for a Ph.D. dissertation was that the work be "an original contribution to knowledge worthy of publication". Well, the best way to show that some work is "worthy of publication" is to submit it for publication and have it accepted. I did that. So, technically that work was enough for my Ph.D. dissertation, a second one.

For that problem in the Kuhn-Tucker conditions and for my dissertation research, I never had any real _faculty direction_. I recommend: Don't wait for the faculty to provide a good problem or _direction_. Instead, on your own as much as you can, at least if it is easy for you, and it was for me, pick a good problem, do the research, get the work ready for publication, and, hopefully, publish it. For a graduate student to have, early on, from largely independent effort, some work worthy of publication makes essentially everything else in the Ph.D. program and the start of a career much easier and better.

Okay, how to do the research? Well, for me, the core, hard work of the research was a little more involved but, really, not much more difficult than the more difficult exercises in standard, advanced pure math texts.

The difference was, for research, in part need to keep in mind some view from higher up, say, 50,000 feet down to 1000 feet and don't always be crawling around on the ground with the lowest level details (which is common and usually effective enough in solving exercises).

Next, guess: To find and prove a new result, first have to guess it. Sure, make _educated guesses_ based on your solid background but also work just intuitively. So build intuitive models and, as you learn more, revise the models to make them more accurate.

E.g., during the work, is _A_ true? Well, it doesn't seem wrong right away intuitively. But, if _A_ is true, then, hmm, _B_ is true. Could _B_ be true? At least, first-cut, intuitively, naw, not a chance (this may be wrong, but let that happen for now). So, likely _A_ is not true.

You can do a lot of this in your head without writing anything. And, even if slowly, you will learn to do at least some derivations in your head.

Now, for _C_ , intuitively it looks true. So, try to prove _C_. Gee, the proof doesn't work. Then observe: The proof doesn't make good use of all the hypotheses of _C_ ; so, you've been trying to prove something more general than _C_ and likely not true. Bummer. So look again at the hypotheses of _C_ and try to see how they are essential and how to exploit them.

So, continue in this way, maintaining a good view from above the ground level, with lots of intuition and guessing and trying to prove some little things.

When you get a proof of a result that looks good, then write it up, carefully, cleanly, put a date and title on the first page, put a staple in the UL corner of the sheets, and toss it on a stack, continue on, maybe building on what you have.

There is also Polya, _How to Solve It_.

From A. Wiles, the guy who solved Fermat's last theorem and just won the Abel Prize, is

"Perhaps I could best describe my experience of doing mathematics in terms of entering a dark mansion. You go into the first room and it's dark, completely dark. You stumble around, bumping into the furniture. Gradually, you learn where each piece of furniture is. And finally, after six months or so, you find the light switch and turn it on. Suddenly it's all illuminated and you can see exactly where you were. Then you go into the next dark room ..."

<comment><USER3> Really appreciate the insights here - I'd love to get your advice on my own situation

I've already done a pure math (+business) undergrad from a mid-tier university and have been working as a product manager at a financial services company for 3yrs post undergrad. I've been thinking of getting a PhD in an engineering sub-discipline, but not sure how to go about doing it especially since I have no research experience.

Do I:

(i) spend 1 year doing research with a professor nearby then apply (I live close to a major research university)

(ii) apply now and hopefully my work experience can cover for research experience

(iii) Rethink the whole PhD thing and get a professional degree like an MBA (did well on GMAT)

(iv) Just continue to learn on the side and try to use my skills for opportunities

\-----

Also two more questions if you don't mind:

How did you narrow your interests before applying for a PhD?

Is it possible to get a masters level pure math education through self study? I've taken until PhD level measure theory.

<comment><USER2> > I've already done a pure math (+business) undergrad from a mid-tier > university and have been working as a product manager at a financial > services company for 3yrs post undergrad. I've been thinking of getting a > PhD in an engineering sub-discipline, but not sure how to go about doing it > especially since I have no research experience.

It would appear that you might pursue something in "financial engineering".

Since you are in the financial industry, you might ask around and grow a network: E.g., ask person A; maybe can get them to suggest person B; tell person B that person A recommended them and ask person B; etc. I.e., apply social networking techniques. E.g., try to get to some people who can outline some of what James Simons did. If you can, talk to Simons. Similarly for various _quants_ and people who create algorithms and code for _automatic trading_. Look into the programs in financial engineering at Princeton (E. Cinlar), NYU (M. Avellaneda), Columbia (I. Karatzas), and CMU (S. Shreve).

If you want to get into some other field of engineering, then gather some information, meet some people and get some input, and start to pick some fields or one field.

> (i) spend 1 year doing research with a professor nearby then apply (I live > close to a major research university)

Maybe. If you can find a good situation and like it, maybe, sure.

I have been suggesting that you start with your own problem and make some progress on it, maybe with a little advice (once I got just three words), and maybe then consider a professor as a official or unofficial mentor or dissertation adviser.

> (ii) apply now and hopefully my work experience can cover for research > experience

For a graduate program, in most fields, you are not expected to have experience in research. So don't have to "cover for research experience".

> (iii) Rethink the whole PhD thing and get a professional degree like an MBA > (did well on GMAT)

And, with that MBA, what will you do with it? Consulting? Try to work your way up as a C-level guy? Try to do portfolio management or be a venture capitalist?

I'm a former MBA prof -- typically an MBA is not very technical, but, now, especially with some much in computing, being technical can be seen as an advantage. Or, maybe the flip side is, soon all the work that the techies can do will be done and what will be left is the non-technical work. Your guess.

As far as I can see, still need to hustle and/or be lucky to have a good career.

Also, an MBA is expensive while a Ph.D. often costs $0.00 for tuition and might provide a stipend.

> (iv) Just continue to learn on the side and try to use my skills for > opportunities

That can be a short-term approach that can lead to a degree later.

If you sense that your background is not good enough to go for a degree, then, sure.

A major cause of my success in grad school is the math I studied independently between my Bachelor's and my Ph.D. program.

In particular, for a Ph.D., will likely have to pass qualifying exams, and you will want to have enough preparation for a path to do that.

> How did you narrow your interests before applying for a PhD?

I attacked some practical problems with applied math and computing. I did this, first, in work in US national security around DC.

> Is it possible to get a masters level pure math education through self > study? I've taken until PhD level measure theory.

IIRC at one time the Web site of the math department at Princeton said that the graduate courses were introductions to research by experts in their fields, that no courses were offered for preparation for the qualifying exams, and that students were expected to prepare via independent study. For this, you will need a good undergraduate background.

There is some question how much a student or anyone should attempt via independent study. As a researcher, a lot of independent study is usually just part of the work, but there are seminars, etc. that can help.

Mostly I did well with independent study, but once in statistics I picked a poor book and wasted some time. And, for some subjects, I did get and really needed the good, mature overview of a good course -- else there are too many places along the way where can waste time, get stuck, or go off on a tangent. Also it can be good to be around good researchers and learn their attitudes and approaches: E.g., often researchers go through new material surprisingly quickly and, really, without the thorough mastery often implied as important or even essential in high school and undergraduate school. E.g., in research, for some new material are trying to make use of it, not get a high score on some GRE exams.

<comment><USER3> Wow, thank you so much for the comprehensive response! This is the reason I love HN. Will definitely take this advice to heart and apply it today.

Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> _5\. Get to know the literature_

I'm not writing a thesis, but a book on teaching coding, and this one point is really important. One of my chapters was on the cognitive benefits of writing software code--which I assumed were great because of Seymor Papert ("Mindstorms") and Ted Nelson's ("Computer Lib/Dream Machines") glowing enthusiasm for teaching kids how to code.

I started writing the chapter and had to get into the literature to find references to support the idea that learning to code carried concrete cognitive benefits. The research was extremely mixed, with one survey of the literature being highly critical of Papert for assuming so many benefits when the research was not finding that at all. I ended up having to stop everything and just read papers for a week to understand what science really knew about the subject. When I went back to rewrite my chapter, I had to temper my own enthusiasm and add numerous qualifications and cautions about my claims considering the evidence.

I'm happy for the experience as my thoughts on the subject are much more highly nuanced now, but it was very disheartening at first.

<comment><USER5> CS literature is uniformly abysmal.

<comment><USER6> False.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If you get the first one wrong the rest of the list will not matter at all. The most important questions are, who will my advisor be? What is the completion rate for graduate students under their care? What kind of personal network does the advisor maintain and what kinds of roles do the graduating PhDs go into?

I wish I had known to ask that sort of thing. My advisor typically kept a lab of a dozen postdocs and a single PhD at any given time. I think in 25 years of being a research professor with sizeable grants that advisor only graduated 4 doctoral students, and a rather distressing proportion of the postdocs left not only academia but science after that lab.

I would also try to hang out with the current doctoral students and assess their psychological well-being.

<comment><USER8> While this is completely valid advice, it might not be applicable with junior faculty who may not have graduated many students. I chose my advisor (who was as assistant professor at the time) based on the belief that I'll get to publish aggressively since it's in both of our interests. But I had no way of knowing how hard it would be to work with her. And I wasn't the only person who felt this way; I saw my fellow group mates (all of us joined the group at around the same time) and other collaborators express similar sentiments in course of time. But since I'd already sunk in time, I decided to stick around.

I was able to successfully complete my PhD, but I took more time than expected. Moreover, I was no way near as productive as I'd hoped to.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I am after my PhD and I consider quality of this list being close to of a "be creative" list.

That is, in principle all points make sense, but they are either truism, too obvious, too vague or things that are out of control. (If I had read it before starting my PhD it wouldn't have changed a thing).

Or maybe I am overly skeptical of simplistic life-advice? Is there any take- home message that changed your way of acting?

<comment><USER10> Here is a piece of advice for CS graduate students: take a look at the Gartner hype cycle. Here's the cycle from 2014: [http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2819918](http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2819918). Pick something far on the left side of the curve, and ride the hype.

<comment><USER11> "Quantum computing" is ahead of "connected home"?

<comment><USER12> These curves are marketing material for an "advisory firm". Nothing more, nothing less. The idea of the curbe is more important that the particular points, and the points are often mis-placed. Also, lots of technologies jump around randomly on the curve or move rapidly through some parts, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Definitely need to focus. I think most of us come into our PhDs thinking that our research is going to change the world. For anyone doing highly theoretical work we can be over ambitious. We try to bite off more than we can chew, and then we're either paralyzed or we spend a good portion of our time back peddling to simpler problems. If I could give one piece of advice. Start simple. If possible replicate some of the earlier work because you may discover that you're building on a lot of unreported assumptions. Aim for a portfolio of small papers that together tell a larger story, rather than trying to pack it all into on opus magnus.

<comment><USER14> > For anyone doing highly theoretical work we can be over ambitious.

I would say that this danger applies more to those doing practical (applied) work. A practically oriented program will often have a clear goal, and preset goals are often unattainable in research. By contrast, a student doing theoretical work can always bend their goals when necessary.

<comment><USER15> I think this contributes to why theoretical degrees take, on average, much less time to complete in my experience.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Or, as in my case, don't do a PhD. I really thought I wanted to, but as it turns out, I didn't:

[http://henrikwarne.com/2016/03/07/ph-d-or-professional- progr...](http://henrikwarne.com/2016/03/07/ph-d-or-professional-programmer/)

</comment><comment><USER17> Be selfish.

Finishing a PhD is unlike completing a project in most other jobs. In most other jobs, someone _needs_ what you're working on. Other people's investment in the outcome is similar to your own. If you fail to complete your work, others are likely to fail to complete their work. Consequently, incentives (hopefully) line up, and infrastructure (hopefully) exists to support you, with the recognition that your success is linked to group success.

Your PhD dissertation is not like this. Yes, your adviser _is_ invested in you finishing - but not as nearly as much as you are. They will have other students, and they can always work on their own. Your peers may be invested, if they are working on another part of the project - but if you do not finish, they will find a way to get on without you. Your university is invested in you (quite literally, most of the time, with money), but again, not as nearly as invested as you are: plenty of grad students never finish, and they will help you, but schools also recognize that not all students finish.

The author has a good list, and I may read his book, but he's missing this attitude that I felt I had to adopt. The person who cares most about you finishing is you, and sometimes that means having to be selfish in order to finish. That can take of the form of not engaging in as much service in your department, or not providing some help on a project that is not part of your dissertation.

I do think this attitude is unfortunate, but it is a natural result of the requirement that a PhD dissertation represents work that the student _owns_. I much more enjoy the research I have done in an industry research lab, where me and my colleagues have collaborated equally. (Or equal-enough that in a grad school context, no one person could claim ownership of the work for a dissertation.) But, it's the system we have, and because of that, I think that in order to finish, grad students have to - at least eventually - adopt a selfish attitude.

Specifically, this "selfish attitude" means ruthless evaluating: will this thing get me closer to graduation? If no, don't do it. (Obviously this only applies to work. Having a life outside of grad school work is enormously important.) In the beginning, I don't think one needs to have this attitude. But as you approach completion, I think one needs to start thinking this way.

</comment><comment><USER18> While it has a bit of snark to it, certainly conveys the point of "This is your PhD. No one is going to hold your hand. Get it done."

The people who drop out of PhD programs usually are plenty smart enough, they just don't know how to make things happen.

Then again, some people seem content and happy to do 8 years of PhD studies followed by 10 more of meandering post-docs. Bummer is when they're surprised that no one wants to make them a professor.

<comment><USER15>
        The people who drop out of PhD programs usually are plenty smart enough, they just don't know how to make things happen.

Vast oversimplification. I've watched people leave Ph.D programs for a wide array of reasons. Any attempt at binary classification on this is foolhardy.

<comment><USER19> Clone a person ten times and send them to ten different positions, they will all fail for different reasons. Luck is as big a factor as is talent and diligence.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> While the article is interesting, I find it quite confusing to read with its paragraphs once ironic once advisory...

</comment><comment><USER21> 11 commandments ...</comment>


Open Source Mailing List Applet Using the Mailgun PHP SDK - <AUTHOR> http://blog.mailgun.com/post/turnkey-mailing-list-applet-using-the-mailgun-php-sdk/

<comment><USER2> Thanks for putting this together Jeff. A lot of Mailgun customers organize local open-source projects and use mailing lists to stay connected with members. That's one of the reasons we originally created mailing lists. Nice that managing them will be a little eaiser now.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sure thing! I use it for my own lists.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> GitHub link is a 404. It would be nice for an open source project to use a public repository, just my 2¢.

<comment><USER4> Doh! Sorry about that... Fixed!</comment></comment>


The Sad State Of Video Apps - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/28/the-sad-state-of-video-apps/ <comment><USER2> Given the numbers posted by Viddy, in comparison to, say, Keek, I'd hardly call even the sharing portion much of a success.

The theme of this post seems to be that content is king and that content is missing, but what it skips over is that Hollywood movies spend millions in pre- and post-production adding effects, editing, etc. to produce that content, and that it takes a lot of talent to do so.

Until you can scale out that talent, sharing is your best bet.

</comment><comment><USER3> I wrote this post for TechCrunch. Would love to discuss with anyone interested, particularly as it relates to Kill Hollywood...</comment>


Thousands of Hong Kong protestors parting to let ambulance through [video] - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/chowtingagnes/status/1140300351381344256 <comment><AUTHOR> It's a tweet in Japanese, but from Agnes Chow Ting, a Hong Kong activist who is doing her best to inform Japanese people directly about the protests.

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


We Need a "TRUSTe for SaaS Apps" - <AUTHOR> http://glasseyonsaas.typepad.com/glassey_on_saas/2008/09/we-need-a-truste-for-saas-apps.html

<comment><USER2> I agree, there is a real opportunity there. The "seal of approval" businesses are great. You get paid for doing almost nothing, so it has very high margins. The customers prominently feature the seals on their sites, and pay you for the privilege for promoting your brand, giving you SEO and making your business go viral.

</comment><comment><USER3> I could use something like this. We lose plenty of business because "I'm not confident giving my data to people I don't know much about".

</comment><comment><USER4> What, we need another one of those rip-off leeches? No thanks, there's already enough Verisigns in this world.</comment>


Source: Twitter's Ad Platform Launches Tonight - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/12/source-twitters-ad-platform-launches-tonight/

<comment><USER2> Do people really search Twitter enough to make this their cash cow? (Assuming they refrain from putting ads in the normal timeline, and just have them on search.)

The last paragraph implies that that's what they're doing, but it seems that searches are infrequent enough that it'll be hard for this to make them real profits.

Plus, if people dislike the ads at all, at least one client (probably many), will be "the ad-free client", and many people will start searching through that/those clients.

<comment><USER3> I'm not sure that's true actually. The vast majority of users I've seen find a client and stick with it. While power users will probably get annoyed by the ads and find a new one, I suspect an average user will learn to cope, or simply stop using the service.

<comment><USER4> Yep, I just use the free Twitterrific client on the iPhone and it actually serves high quality, unobtrusive, and occasionally _helpful_ ads via The Deck. I've never been bothered by them enough to consider jumping ship.

Advertising isn't inherently undesirable, but even if it were, its annoyance would still have to exceed the cost of migration for users to make a switch.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's certainly a tumultuous time if you've based your business on a "feature" of Twitter that it could feasibly replicate itself.

<http://tweetup.com> launched just _yesterday_ proclaiming their advertising value-add to the Twitter ecosystem. The atmosphere there must be pretty tense today...

As for Promoted Tweets, I wonder how this affects the ToS for people who are already using one of those tweet-brokering services. Are those services now dead in the water? What about if you take direct payments for a sponsored tweet and thus circumvent Twitter's ad platform - will this be against the new ToS?

<comment><USER6> Well if someone decided putting all there eggs in the easy to implement Twitter feature basket they are asking for trouble. I wouldn't assume there was any feature that just worked around the Twitter API only that Twitter might not implement themselves at some point.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> i see the sponsored retweet market as more convincing than the sponsored tweet one. targeting influencers based on the demographics/behavior (think retweet) of their followers just seems so much more relevant than advertising against search terms.

i know there are other services that already do this, but imho twitter should consider offering this directly, alongside the search campaigns, so that advertisers can manage all of their twitter campaigns from one spot. they could also build a more convenient, "official" system that makes it dead easy for influencers to sell out.

if they can't gain their own traction based on convenience, they always have the option to pull an apple and simply cripple the competition through their TOS (they could simply ban third party analytics services and sell the data to the third party companies, or they could just ban other competition outright. it's their platform, after all)

but that would obviously suck. hopefuly they won't do this.

</comment><comment><USER8> I'm wondering about their seemingly dumb approach. In my opinion it would be better to charge on per click basis for the links in the tweets. Say if want your links to be clickable you route them through a specific shortener and then Twitter counts the clicks. Others will have their links as text. Seems pretty fair to me.</comment>