Chris Lattner Joins Google Brain - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/14/swift-creator-chris-lattner-joins-google-brain-after-tesla-autopilot-stint <comment><USER2> I find it strange that probably the most successful and influential compiler and PL developer in a generation doesn't seem to be interested in compilers or PL anymore.

<comment><USER3> There is an obvious overlap between programming languages and machine learning at Google: TensorFlow.

For example, see "A Computational Model for TensorFlow" [https://research.google.com/pubs/pub46196.html](https://research.google.com/pubs/pub46196.html)

There are tons of interesting things going on in TensorFlow from a programming language perspective. It has optimization at the low level, like CUDA and SIMD back ends via the Eigen library [1] (which is pretty crazy C++ metaprogramming in its own right).

But it also has optimization at the high level / cluster level, e.g. deciding which nodes to put computations on, to minimize data movement across various networks, etc.

It also has multiple front ends. Python is the main one, but IIRC people were developing others (maybe not at Google).

I worked adjacent to the TensorFlow team, and A LOT of people had BOTH ML and PL skills [2]. It's not an either-or thing. It's best when you have the same person with both sets of expertise.

I think a big problem with large parts of the academic PL community is they're not exposed enough to real applications. Difficulty isn't proportional to real-world benefit. It's certainly difficult to invent type systems to statically detect minor problems, but that doesn't mean it's important for creating and maintaining software. (Sorry, had to rant about that.)

Machine learning is a domain rife with programming language problems, but of course it takes a long time to develop that expertise. I'm sure Lattner would be a good person to synthesize knowledge in the different domains.

[1] [http://eigen.tuxfamily.org/index.php?title=Main_Page](http://eigen.tuxfamily.org/index.php?title=Main_Page)

[2] edit: I should really say ML and distributed computing skills. But most people with distributed computing skills know a decent amount about programming languages; they overlap in MapReduce-type big data frameworks too.

<comment><USER4> Makes me wonder if Google is working on a programming language for machine learning...

<comment><USER3> That's what TensorFlow is. It happens to use the Python interpreter as the front end, and for metaprogramming, but the language has its own semantics (see the paper above).

You could probably an invent your own syntax for it (and I'm sure someone has), but that's a small part of the picture.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Super interesting developments..

Also, re:

>AI can't democratize itself (yet?) so I'll help make it more accessible to everyone!

This needs to happen more on the software side. You can buy a world-class quad-gpu machine for about half the cost of a vehicle. You can build a world- class single-gpu machine (what I have) for a fifth of that. It's literally amazing how accessible the hardware is, compared to almost any other science which requires 7 figure funding to get world-class results.

The software, the learning, the math, all need to become more and more accessible so more people can pick up and train an algorithm.

<comment><USER6> I mean...you can't make math simpler. like...math is math. you can create resources that make it easier to teach math (and for the record high quality textbooks on AI/ML ABOUND). I think you want software and libraries so you can build things without understanding the math. To some degree this already possible (see my english major linkedin friends playing withs sci-kit etc etc). Fundamentally though, I think you need at least some basic understanding of the mathematics to interpret results/create new ideas. Arguing otherwise is like saying you can code without knowing what a queue is...I mean sure you can probably create something that compiles and runs but your horizons will be more narrow than someone with a full computer science education and grounding. just like trying to do ml without at least some understanding of the math is like a blind man trying to open a door.

case-in-point: I am on hn right now because my research is going badly because I am using another researcher's code and I don't fully understand the correspondence between the paper and the code. I am getting terrible results on some multi-class classification (i.e. approximately random). I am not sure if I am using some wrong parameters or because the signal I am looking for doesn't exist in the data. Not knowing at least some mathematics would make this a LOT harder

<comment><USER7> _mean...you can 't make math simpler. like...math is math._

Notation makes a huge difference. LinAlg is a good example of this. And a PL _is_ notation.

<comment><USER8> Simpler notation might make it easier to implement algorithms without fully understanding them. Not sure how much good is going to come from that.

But if you fully understand the problem, notation is not an issue.

<comment><USER7> I disagree. Try using Roman numerals for example. Or doing linear programming or any sort of optimisation without using matrix notation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Just wondering - does a normal person stand a chance to join Google Brain, or do you need to make node.js, swift, own self-driving car or another crazy project to get in?

<comment><USER10> Not sure about in general, but it seems like their residency program [0] gives a good shot at landing on the team afterwards and is accessible to "normal" people passionate about ML

[0] [https://research.google.com/teams/brain/residency/](https://research.google.com/teams/brain/residency/)

<comment><USER11> Another way is to do 20% and then transfer in which is what I did. That seems doable (I don't have PhD for example).

<comment><USER12> What do you mean by 20%?

<comment><USER11> Start on another team at Google (preferably using ML) and do 20% time with Brain.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> >…he created the Land compiler and LLVM.

I think you mean _Clang_ and LLVM

<comment><USER14> [http://nondot.org/sabre/](http://nondot.org/sabre/)

"I lead and am the original author of the LLVM Compiler Infrastructure, an open source umbrella project that includes all sorts of toolchain related technology: compilers, debuggers, JIT systems, optimizers, static analysis systems, etc. I started both LLVM and Clang and am still the individual with the most commits."

<comment><USER15> The parent is likely talking about the "Land" typo.

<comment><USER16> It was probably a clang->land auto correct on a phone. It used to be I only had to worry about my fingers hitting the wrong keys, now I have to worry about my computer not believing that what I wanted to type was what I _actually_ typed.

<comment><USER14> My mistake. I skimmed over the word "Land" without really noticing it.

Add voice dictation and things get even weirder. A lot of times it's magical with some crazy word thrown in.

<comment><USER16> Agreed on the voice thing. I've found some really odd sound alikes in my comments when I've used it (trust me it sucks to type a long response on a phone keyboard :-) A common one is substituting 'by' and 'buy' at different times.

<comment><USER17> It's always fun to try to dictate "wreck a nice beach." It's such a classic example of sound-alikes gone wrong that it seems engines go out of their way to interpret it as "recognize speech" unless you take extreme measures.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Is Google's work culture more like Apple or Tesla? Curious if this is likely to address whatever about Telsa wasn't keeping him happy. Or maybe it was more about the specific work he was tasked to do?

<comment><USER19> It's like neither, but probably pretty similar to the academic UIUC culture where LLVM got started. Having both worked at Google and followed Chris Lattner's work on LLVM since before he was at Apple, I suspect he'll be happier there than at Tesla.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I was kind of worried he would not find anything... :D

Seriously, I wonder if stars like Lattner even need to submit a CV or their mail simply floods with offers.

<comment><USER21> I am guessing he doesn't have to write code on a whiteboard.

<comment><USER20> Damn, I always thought interviews of guys like him went along these lines: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUhsNIeIgpY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUhsNIeIgpY)

<comment><USER22> I think they don't even have to explicitly show attitude like in the video you shared. Their past accomplishments in managing complex systems and projects can more than speak for themselves. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I have zero experience with this, but I imagine working for three major competitors in such a short time can lead to some complicated situations regarding industrial secrets.

Compilers (specially open source) may be a stretch, but Tesla AI and Google AI? Can a contract clause protect one company when you're working for the other on the exact same field?

Again, I have no idea what I'm talking about, just curious.

<comment><USER23> Non-compete clauses are illegal in California. That's one of the big reasons for the tech boom there.

<comment><USER24> So, how does that work with, non-California companies, like Microsoft? Former MS employee joins FB/Google. Now can MS sue them?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Worrisome for Apple that its AI efforts weren't interesting enough to keep Lattner, or win him back.

<comment><USER25> I would think that the whole Siri fiasco would keep anybody in AI/ML the hell away from Apple.

<comment><USER26> Care to elaborate on the Siri fiasco? I'm out of the loop.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Swift on Android confirmed.

</comment><comment><USER28> Interesting as a company change (IMHO), from privacy-focused Apple to Google... :D

<comment><USER29> Privacy focused? Oh, you mean how they pivoted when their Ad business failed.

<comment><USER30> Didn't their ad business fail because they refused to share/collect as much user data, and hence advertisers were less willing to spend on their platform?

<comment><USER29> Not to my recollection. They exited the Ad business because it was a financial failure. Do you really think Apple would have exited a business if they were on track to make Google like revenue from it? No way - the shareholders would have raided the building.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Intelligent Machinery - an essay by Alan Turing - <AUTHOR> http://www.turingarchive.org/viewer/?id=127&title=1

<comment><USER2> here's another one with a beautiful cover

<http://www.npl.co.uk/turing/intelligent-machinery>

some related materials:

[http://transcriptions.english.ucsb.edu/archive/courses/warne...](http://transcriptions.english.ucsb.edu/archive/courses/warner/english197/Schedule_files/Turing/Turing.html)

<http://www.dreamsongs.com/Searle.html>

<http://www.loebner.net/Prizef/TuringArticle.html>

</comment><comment><USER3> A somewhat more readable copy can be found at "<http://www.alanturing.net/intelligent_machinery/>.</comment>


4chan vs Scientology: really?  - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/culture/culturereviews/magazine/17-10/mf_chanology

<comment><USER2> It's the opposite of Gandhi's nonviolent resistance. Instead of acting as a moral foil, they act as a moral mirror. Both methods force to the surface judgments that people have already made but have avoided acknowledging. When people read about "a man slathered in Vaseline and covered in pubic hair and toenail clippings storm[ing] in and... desecrating a place of worship" and find themselves wondering which side they're on, they can't deny that they have little respect for Scientology.

</comment><comment><USER3> Anonymous's video proclaiming their intent is truly epic. It's interesting to note the lack of coherence and describable goals in cruise's video when compared to the Anonymous video.

There's a Scientology church near where I live, and every time I see Anonymous members outside it I make it a point to stop and tell them that I think they're doing a good job...

I always take heart when I see people standing up against something they think is wrong, regardless of their effectiveness.

<comment><USER4> I don't really understand what it is about Scientology that pisses people off that much. You seem to be able to rally people against it more easily then you can against skinheads.

What gives?

<comment><USER5> I think one of the main things that pisses people off about Scientology as opposed to skinheads (to use your example) is that no one really thinks that skinheads and their associated organisations are legitimate despite any efforts to make themselves seem so. No one is clamouring to give skinheads tax exempt status as non-profit/religious outfits.

Scientology tries to maintain a veneer of legitimacy while in reality, being pretty damn shady. By and large, I suspect they seem far more hypocritical to Anonymous, et al than many other questionable fringe groups, such as skinheads. If there's anything that really sets off activism on the Interwebs, it seems to be hypocrisy.

Plus have you actually read about the beliefs and teachings they push while demanding that people pay for the privilege of receiving them? Have you read about the "Sea Org" and so on? Whacky stuff.

<comment><USER3> Exactly. I get pissed off because they stand on the street and smile at you, trying to hand you a leaflet, while others inside quietly work at helping their fellow converts shut down contact with their family and friends, then encourage them to pay their way to enlightenment.

I think Scientology is a cult, and I think that it's acceptance as a religion by government gives it a sheen of legitimacy and makes it more accessible than it ought to be.

<comment><USER4> Let me play devil's advocate.

People with new found faith often become alienated from their friends and family outside this circle. Sometimes it is because the conversion process is similar to rehabilitation and it is necessary to be removed from some of the problematic context. Sometimes it is lack

Church fund-raising is something quite common. Many of the most benign religious communities manage to raise significant portions of their devotees' incomes. You might not agree with the ends of some of these religious groups. But when I agree with their 'mission,' I usually don't see this as a bad thing. We live in a time of plenty. I assume few Scientologists starve.

What is the actual difference between a cult and a religion? It certainly isn't about the specifics of the beliefs. It isn't about size. If you want to make 'they are a cult,' your argument you should probably define cult and explain what is wrong with a cult. If it a specific practice or practices (cut ties, raise money) you object too and think should result in lost legal status, why not base your argument on that and drop the label.

What gives the government the right to decide what is a religion and what is not anyway?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> _the last of the epic trolls_

Really, wired? My experience with 4-chan has generally been that whatever you say about/of/to them, they'll try their damn hardest to prove you wrong. Give them enough time, and order will rise out of the chaos that is Anonymous. Sure, it will eat itself, and descend back into the depths of madness eventually, but something will rise back into its place.

I would bet, given another decade or two Anonymous, whether it be the 4-chan brand or from other meeting place, will do something that tops even this. As the Internet and networks in general are rising more towards the public eye, the memembers of Anonymous, who are mostly young, technologically adept individuals with questionable morals, will gain more and more relevance. Like it or not, there is a draw to Anonymous, and where there is technological interconnection it will exist and thrive.

<comment><USER7> I'd bet they top themselves within a year or two. The chans may have peaked in size, but what that means is the people who are most interesting there are going to be finding new ways to branch out to avoid newfags. I'd bet they consolidate and end up with something even more intense than 4chan was back in the glory days.

<comment><USER6> You seem to be far more versed in the ways of 4chan. I have spent a few hours there a few times, long enough to understand the draw and that it wasn't for me, and I have several friends who spend time on the various boards there. Would you mind explaining a few things?

I've seen "chans" refer to several things, both the various boards (/b/, /g/, /r/ and the like), and referring to individual people. Which way are you using it, and why (as opposed to using it the other way)?

 _Peaked in size_ I understand that 4-chan servers tend to be very heavily trafficked, to the point that many people have said "DOS attack on 4chan? Is the internet on?" or something of similar meaning. Is this what you mean, or does it have to do with some kind of critical mass relation between Anonymous contributors and how much Original Content can be created/consumed (I would assume there is a peak point for that, although I don't have the slightest idea where that would be).

 _news ways to branch out_ I was under the impression that 4channers held a generally negative feeling for any other boards, tending to call them "imitators" and the like. What makes you think that a sufficiently interesting person could change that, considering the anonymous nature of 4chan (thus making it impossible for any person to actually back up how interesting they were, historically).

 _Back in the glory days_ I see this often, although it seems to be more a state of message boards in general than 4chan, although it does seem particularly loudly voiced on 4chan. Would you mind elaborating what those glory days were like, sense it certainly seems to me that some of the most impressive things to come out of 4chan have happened recently (Chanology, the Times poll rigging, and the like).

Sorry if I read too much into what you said. I've wanted to ask someone about their 4chan experiences for a while, but none of my friends want to admit to much, so I was hoping the semi-anonymity of HN would help a little.

<comment><USER8> > _I've seen "chans" refer to several things, both the various boards (/b/, > /g/, /r/ and the like), and referring to individual people. Which way are > you using it, and why (as opposed to using it the other way)?_

'chans' refers to imageboard sites in general. 4chan arose out of a 'need/interest' in creating an English-language version of 2channel (2ch.net) from m00t who was a 'goon' from the SomethingAwful forums.

It was originally 4chan.net until the domain was 'hijacked' by a hosting service, so then it became 4chan.org. Since then there have been multiple boards spawned from 4chan (since the image board software open source, though 4chan doesn't release their internal modifications to it to my knowledge): iichan.net 7chan.org 420chan.org etc. These are collectively referred to as the 'chans' much in the way that Unix-like operating systems are referred to as '* nixes' (edit: sorry only way to avoid turning it into italics). If you want to have a more comprehensive listing look to <http://shii.org/2ch>

> _Peaked in size I understand that 4-chan servers tend to be very heavily > trafficked, to the point that many people have said "DOS attack on 4chan? Is > the internet on?" or something of similar meaning. Is this what you mean, or > does it have to do with some kind of critical mass relation between > Anonymous contributors and how much Original Content can be created/consumed > (I would assume there is a peak point for that, although I don't have the > slightest idea where that would be)._

4chan can be and _is_ DDoS'd. The traffic to the site is MASSIVE (they've had to upgrade hosting several times and at least a couple of years ago or so they were constantly maxing out a 100Mbps connection), but they are occasionally taken down. Note that there is a significant amount of spam to the boards with links to malware or other sites trying to promote themselves (or just spam trying to 'flame' the 'community').

A number of DDoS attacks were initiated by way of uploading an 'image' that was just a javascript file with the extension changed. The text of the post then instructs the user to save it to '4chan.js' and double-click on it. Unfortunately there are a lot morons that do this and (at least the site admins claim) that this infects their computer somehow (I suppose the browser; most likely IE and Windows users) making them a 'zombie' in a 4chan-directed attack. The admins then need to try and post information on how users can remove this stuff from their computer. This is sort of ingenious if you think about it... The best way to DDOS 4chan is to infect all of its users with something that increases their normal traffic to the site 10 fold or more.

> _Back in the glory days I see this often, although it seems to be more a > state of message boards in general than 4chan, although it does seem > particularly loudly voiced on 4chan. Would you mind elaborating what those > glory days were like, sense it certainly seems to me that some of the most > impressive things to come out of 4chan have happened recently (Chanology, > the Times poll rigging, and the like)._

This is just people being nostalgic to the past. There are people that claim that site was 'never good' and people that claim all of the 'newfags' are 'the cancer that is killing 4chan.' (At one point 7chan.org was hijacked to redirect cancer.org) 'Anonymous' is such a hodgepodge of differing opinion that you really can't get a single unifying view-point on anything. There are people that go on 'raids' to hijack people's emails and whatnot... and there are other 'Anons' that are referred to as 'white knights' that try and warn people that have been targeted. Sometimes 'glory days' posts are nothing more than trolls trolling other trolls too. You really can't take too much on the site seriously.

<comment><USER7> _This is just people being nostalgic to the past. There are people that claim that site was 'never good' and people that claim all of the 'newfags' are 'the cancer that is killing 4chan.'_

I was referring to the fact that once upon a time 4chan wasn't about the memespawning and repetition. The memes were just a part of the larger community that was /b/.

What I find funny is that you can see 4chan's community spreading to other sites. Reddit is now fully infested with meme generation, and it's just started to have the same set of people artificially creating memes and getting scolded by long-time users. I'm curious to see how Reddit survives, considering it both has user-based content moderation and subreddits to stave off the so-called cancer.

Now, of course, Hacker News has recently made the tip into memeage, and I'd suspect within a year we see a meme or two that's become a big part of the site. It's taken a surprisingly long time to tip, but it's tipped.

<comment><USER9> Which memes do you recognize as appearing on HN? The only one I can think of is Erlang references. I like the idea of labeling poor arguments against pg's disagreement hierarchy would make a useful meme, though I'm probably wrong and can't see it.

e.g. <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=829337>

<comment><USER7> Erlang was more of an inside joke. I'm referring more to the Kanye jokes I've seen here, and similar mainstream memes being quoted within the month or so since I started using HN again.

Used to be people memeing like that would be downvoted instantly. Now we've grown to the point where meme recognition is more of a factor than Hacker News guidelines. It's a very, very, very slow fall, but it's a fall.

<comment><USER10> Part of it is that memes transmit so rapidly now to a pretty large percentage of internet users thanks to Twitter, Facebook and friends. All the old ways to transmit memes (irc, SA, chans, ytmnd, etc) are still active too, but the lag time between meme creation and meme saturation is way smaller than it used to be. So people are naturally becoming accustomed to seeing them in more venues.

It's not like memes are unique to the internet (see: _Sometimes the Dragon Wins_ , for example) but their speed of infection and increasingly large reach is quite astounding.

<comment><USER7> I've never heard of Sometimes the Dragon, actually. And it's not about meme transmission: They've always been fast. The thing is, memes reflect a community's insider aspect. If you see a meme and allow it, you're allowing that self-congratulatory "We're on the Internet and know what the Internet thinks" aspect in. I mean, memes convey no useful information; they derail threads; very rarely is a meme used alongside relevant information. So on a site that uses upvoting/downvoting, as is all the rage here, a meme posting gets upvoted by all the people who kneejerk upvote memes, and downvoted by all the people who think that the community is worth more than a meme posting. (You can get that pretty clearly in this case, since memes usually aren't funny or clever beyond being repetitive, so don't get upvotes by non- kneejerkers.)

So when I joined Hacker News, a year and a half ago, memes weren't posted. Ever. It was antithetical to the idea of Hacker News. This was a place where serious-minded people talked about a very particular subset of information, almost all coding/business-related. When I joined, this was still almost entirely the case. Thing is, I joined at the same time that a lot of Redditors were also jumping ship, and we left for the same reasons, and we came to a community that was not what we wanted. Back when Reddit started, it was a geek haven, too, but geek havens are boring to nongeeks. What made Reddit so cool was when it became a center for interesting, unique links; problem was, when it did that it became nongeek, and so lots of people that weren't into the whole programming scene joined, and after a while the people that joined weren't interested in the community. So kind of like how 4chan got big when people heard it had awesome stuff, then got overloaded with memes, Reddit went through the same trend, and as it did, Hacker News went through the first major chance, which is that its community started being shared not just with coders but with people who just wanted big and detailed conversations. People like me, in other words.

There're a set of stories that don't feel oldschool Hacker Newsy. This is one of them. It's an _interesting_ story, but it has nothing to do with hackers. And as much as I care about the community, I voted it up, because I and some users like me have an ulterior motive. I don't program, so I benefit when the top stories are dramatic ones and ones about _social_ things rather than about programs and companies. I don't want Hacker News, I want old Reddit, and so that's how I attempt to shape the community. I still like conversation and interest, but I'm focused on a noncoding environment, ignore the programming stuff.

Still following me? Sweet, because I'm not the only sort of person who found Hacker News. We also saw a slew of wantrepreneurs and karma hounds. (To be fair, I'm also a little of each.) We had a ton of people join this community to promote their startup/get into YCombinator, and a few people who joined to gain karma points and "win", because any site that assigns a score to things works like that. Now, on Hacker News things aren't nearly as bad as they are now on Reddit, and HN is declining much more slowly, but what it means is the community's become bombarded with basically every small announcement you can imagine (remember when Facebook released usernames?) from the people who want points, and a ton of self-serving spam from everybody who owns a blog or a web site and wants attention. This further dilutes the site focus, especially when the various types of diluters work in tandem—the people, for instance, who will submit any story featuring/written by/commented on by a YCombinator graduate, excusing themselves with the "YCombinator news is hacker news" line that pretty much always works. So the original community, which is composed of sharp clever entrepreneurs, is slowly growing outnumbered on two fronts, both the non-coders and the people who want HN worsened for selfish reasons.

This isn't anything new. Last year, for instance, I had a fun thread where one guy made 20 throwaway accounts during an argument with me, upvoting himself and downvoting me to oblivion, all to promote a blog post. There've been several waves of newbies to Hacker News, and usually they either leave or they get incorporated with little damage. But Hacker News is becoming more and more well-known (fun story: one of the thirteen-year-old kids at the summer camp I worked at read Hacker News in school when he was bored), and with each successive wave we're failing to maintain that core focus. Or rather: We lost the core focus a long time ago, so that programming is only the central aspect of the site as frequently as blog drama or tech gossip is, and now the secondary focuses—good conversation and relevant discussion—are similarly slowly caving away. More and more people are downvoting based on disagreement, which is where it starts. In the month since I started posting again on HN, I've noticed that a lot of my posts are getting pummeled down in the first few minutes after I post them, then slowly voted back up. Other users and I have had discussions about that here. It's a sign that people are treating these conversations as games, where getting more upvotes means you're "winning" right fight. That means the door is open for more sensationalist postings, since those gain traction faster particularly when downvoting submissions isn't allowed. When you have 'turndead' on, you'll see it's not that surprising for five of the top thirty posts to be dead posts that moderators killed.

To make matters worse, Paul has shown quite a bit of apathy regarding this site. He sees it as a static community where no new features means no new change in community sentiment, and he's mistaken. I've seen a lot of complaints in the last week alone about broken features, moderator abuse, etc., complaints reaching almost the degree they were at back when forums had almost seen their intellectual heyday. In fact, the situation's very analogous. Social news is hitting the mainstream, and at the same time it's hitting the limits of what it's able to handle without breaking down. The Internet is moving more and more towards the new Twitter style of navigation, where each person is a single voice capable of choosing their own news, and the tech elite are moving towards that, be it Twitter, Tumblr, FriendFeed, or Facebook. There, you have _all_ the power, no moderation required. Here, a site can last maybe twice as long as a forum, but it collapses all the same. I don't know if Paul's thought about this or cares much about it, but Hacker News is not invulnerable. It's past its prime by now, its most passionate users are growing dissatisfied, and it's not capable of reacting quickly enough to save itself from all the external troubles that are plaguing it more and more.

Which brings us back to memes. Memes are a sign of the end. They're what happens when a web site both acknowledges an external Internet and so loses its own unique voice, and begins generating its own inside jokes as a form of compensation. We're there. Erlang was the big warning sign, but we're at the point now where people have begun using Internet jokes for quick upvotes. And it's not a huge "this is the end of the HN" thing. It's slow, and subtle, and people don't mind much that it's happening, don't mind that some smart people are leaving or that the occasional joke's slipping in. But it certainly _is_ happening, like it's happened to every site I've used save two: SomethingAwful and Metafilter, whose moderators work hard as the dickens to make sure the sites maintain their focus. On Hacker News, the moderators aren't fast enough or vicious enough to prevent things. What its method of quietly "killing" posts doesn't understand is that banning users wasn't just to stop them from arriving. It was to warn other users, very blatantly, that some shit was good and other shit was shit. Of course, SA and Metafilter also charge for admission, which goes a long way toward preserving community.

Long story short: Sites can be studied by how they treat memes. Social news is theoretically a way to prevent corruption, but it buckles under too much weight, particularly now that the people that should be defending networks now have an opt-out system they can use to avoid the hassles altogether. So now, instead of downvoting fiercely and giving the community a focus, they either join in or don't put up much of a fight and my mom got scared and said you're movin' with your auntie and uncle in Bel-Air. I whistled for a cab and when it came near the license plate said "Fresh", and it had dice in the mirror. If anything I could say that this cab was rare but I thought "Man, forget it yo homes to Bel-Air."

<comment><USER10> I may respond to more aspects of your comment later, but I wanted to make a few quick points.

      > They've always been fast.

Yes, and now, I'd argue, they are even faster. Unfortunately, I am not aware of any good studies about meme transmission rate-- it's the sort of thing that is difficult to measure without affecting the meme in the process of measuring. Data from a botnet would be ideal.

      > The thing is, memes reflect a community's insider aspect. If you
      > see a meme and allow it, you're allowing that self-congratulatory
      > "We're on the Internet and know what the Internet thinks"

This is of course true. But don't forget that much social behavior is about fitting-in better with ones peers. It's a signal that says "I belong here" or "We are a part of the same tribe". Again, not unique to the internet at all. It's just much faster lately.

      > usually aren't funny or clever beyond being repetitive, so don't
      > get upvotes by non-kneejerkers.

I don't claim to have a complete theory of humor, but a big part of what makes something funny is repetition coupled with subtle changes in the pattern. Many memes, especially of the ytmnd or 4chan variety, tap into this to great effect. I can think of more than a couple which I thought were uninteresting in their original presentation that became outstanding after several iterations.

Also, note how many memes use self-reference and absurdity. This is the essence of post-modernism. Again, this is nothing new, but memes certainly allow exposure of these themes to a very broad audience.

Finally, with respect to your assertion that "very rarely is a meme used alongside relevant information," I note that your own post contradicts this.

<comment><USER7> _This is of course true. But don't forget that much social behavior is about fitting-in better with ones peers. It's a signal that says "I belong here" or "We are a part of the same tribe". Again, not unique to the internet at all. It's just much faster lately._

Oh, absolutely! It's the same reason why music scenes fall apart and various cities rise and fall as the center of activity. Once something gets known past a point, it gets diluted. The Internet's just the latest thing to stop being cool when people get more involved.

 _I don't claim to have a complete theory of humor, but a big part of what makes something funny is repetition coupled with subtle changes in the pattern. Many memes, especially of the ytmnd or 4chan variety, tap into this to great effect. I can think of more than a couple which I thought were uninteresting in their original presentation that became outstanding after several iterations._

Definitely. I love memes. But they've got the same 99:1 ratio of shit:clever as anything else. The problem with them on a social news site in particular is that because they're such an everybody-knows-us safety net, once they gain traction they drown out other things, and they work with both dumb and clever people. Compare that to actual discussions, where the good tends to rise to the top since the bad is either easily identified or _can_ be identified.

 _Also, note how many memes use self-reference and absurdity. This is the essence of post-modernism. Again, this is nothing new, but memes certainly allow exposure of these themes to a very broad audience._

Agreed again. Problem again is that they don't coexist well with other elements of conversation. (I have the same problem with people who quote memes in real life. Very unappealing, that.)

 _Finally, with respect to your assertion that "very rarely is a meme used alongside relevant information," I note that your own post contradicts this._

I saw an opening and had to go for it. Didn't want to be giving memes a bad name. ;-)

<comment><USER10> It sounds you we're pretty much in agreement and you just find memes annoying in some contexts. No argument there. I wouldn't look for them to go away anytime soon, though. If anything I'd expect things to get considerably "worse" in terms of some especially prevalent memes becoming further embedded in culture. It doesn't look like lolcats are showing any signs of slowing down, for example.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It should be noted that the 4chan macroculture's rather divided as to whether or not Anonymous as protestors should really be considered Anonymous as representative of the *chan culture as a whole. 4chan's founder, Moot, has expressed a rather large level of disdain for the protest movement.

<comment><USER12> Even suggesting that Anonymous by and large takes any interest in what Moot thinks shows just how misinformed you are. There's more to a spear than just it's point.

<comment><USER11> Suggesting that a segment of Anonymous /doesn't/ treat him as a figurehead is possibly equally misinformed.

Actually, the only informed statement to make about Anonymous is that there isn't such thing as a capital-letter Anonymous. Considering them the funhouse- mirror version of Iain M. Banks's Culture is closer to the truth than otherwise.

<comment><USER13> I get a Stand-Alone Complex feel out of them, only with less mystery as to the source of the memes. That concept is closest to capturing the way highly ordered things happen far out of proportion to any individual plan.

(I highly recommend Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex. It is one of the best near-future prediction shows I have ever seen, if not the best.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> this link sent me on a 2-hour bender. thank you.

<comment><AUTHOR> If it only took two hours, it wasn't a bender.</comment></comment>


In 4 US state prisons, 3,300 inmates test positive, 96% without symptoms - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-prisons-testing-in/in-four-u-s-state-prisons-nearly-3300-inmates-test-positive-for-coronavirus-96-without-symptoms-idUSKCN2270RX <comment><USER3> One of the super-interesting things here, is that apparently everyone was in the specific window where they test positive for the virus. This implies the population was recently infected, had not been previously infected, and it spread almost completely within a tight window.

This implies a shocking high R(effective) for that population. In 2 weeks we'll have super interesting data one way of the other on the CFR.

<comment><USER4> A prison is very much like a cruise ship from a viral perspective. We know from the cruise ship data like the Diamond Princess that most people had no symptoms initially, but overtime most people became symptomatic [1].

Of course if we are really lucky and the prison was infected with a naturally attenuated strain we should make use of it [2].

1\. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7078829/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7078829/)

2\. [https://www.tillett.info/2020/04/12/how-would-a-search- for-a...](https://www.tillett.info/2020/04/12/how-would-a-search-for-a- natural-attenuated-sars-cov-2-strain-work-in-practice/)

<comment><USER5> > A prison is very much like a cruise ship from a viral perspective.

Prisons are much worse. Chow line with men almost heel to toe. Commissary line. Med line. Recycled air. Big crowds in small spaces.

<comment><USER6>
        > Prisons are much worse. Chow line with men almost
        > heel to toe. Commissary line. Med line. Recycled
        > air. Big crowds in small spaces.

How could the prison be much worse than the cruise ship you just described?

<comment><USER7> OP is describing a prison.

<comment><USER8> That's the joke.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> To add another data point, Singapore has been testing foreign workers living in dormitories extensively, uncovering about 10,000 cases (about 80% of the country's total cases). These are relatively fit individuals between the ages of 20 and 40. However, the number of people in the ICU has remained remarkably consistent at about ~20 people in the past 10 days (Fingers crossed it remains that way).

[https://www.moh.gov.sg/news-highlights/details/46-more- cases...](https://www.moh.gov.sg/news-highlights/details/46-more-cases- discharged-618-new-cases-of-covid-19-infection-confirmed)

<comment><USER10> Many migrant workers in Singapore are the only breadwinners for their families back home in Bangladesh/India/Myanmar. One of the reasons the Singapore government has done extensive testing way beyond global standards is that many of these foreign workers are financially disincentivized to seek medical help the moment the first symptoms appear. The fact that Singapore's leader has publicly promised stable incomes for this affected group speaks volumes of the government.

As a fellow south east asian, I am deathly afraid of the under-reporting and testing in other ASEAN countries. Singapore. A 2017 statista study of migrant worker populations in South East Asia ([https://www.statista.com/statistics/711513/asean-number- of-m...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/711513/asean-number-of-migrant- workers-by-country/)) shows that Malaysia and Thailand have much larger migrant worker populations than Singapore. Their living conditions are either on par or worse than the ones living in Singapore, yet there are apparently no Covid-19 clusters among migrant populations in other ASEAN countries. This is extremely alarming.

<comment> _-___________-_ It would be _extremely alarming_ if there were large numbers of deaths or hospital admissions occurring among the Singapore workers who are testing positive. Given that there are virtually none, the lack of testing in other ASEAN countries is hardly _extremely alarming_. A lack of data is less concerning if you wouldn't do anything differently if you had the data.

<comment><USER11> If it turns out that the infection rate is higher and the death rate is lower for healthy individuals than originally estimated it would be extremely alarming that were are not taking a totally different approach to handling this pandemic

<comment> _-___________-_ agreed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I've read that asymptomatic carriers are though to be less infectious than those with symptoms because of the lower concentration of virus in the saliva. Also, many virologists mentioned in recent texts that the initial concentration of the virus you receive can affect how sick you'll get - <USER2> more viruses you're exposed to, the faster they can invade the body and the more severe it will get.

Can those two facts be combined into a theory that asymptomatic carriers are more likely to produce more mild and asymptomatic cases?

Don't know if it makes any sense (probably not), but it would certainly explain how in some closed environments there's a prevalence for mild cases, while in others there's a plenty of very sick people, regardless of the age.

<comment><USER13> I have been wondering about the effect of the degree of initial infection. I kind of assume the virus grows exponentially inside the body and would dwarf the initial constant. If a low initial dose affects the severity of the disease, I think that would be incredibly useful to know. I also wish there was info on percentage of infection via fomites vs inhalation.

<comment><USER14> I think it's the opposite. The initial conditions have a profound effect on the exponential nature of the growth. Half the dose could mean that your immune system can suppress it. There is probably critical rate at which both growth rates match.

<comment><USER14> I don't think my response is 100% correct. The rate of change (derivative) of an exponetial function is another exponential function. d/dx(2^x) = (2^x)*ln(2). And if the base is e, then d/dx(e^x) = e^x.

<comment><USER14> Yo people, I don't understand why my statements are correct - please someone with a math background or an epidemiologist comment here, I suck at math and I don't understand how these growth rates compare. My comment is being upvoted but it may not be true.

<comment><USER15> The math is a simplification of a biological process that is highly variable and poorly documented. Your original idea is a fine hypothesis, though the suitability of the params behind exponential growth is mostly irrelevant.

<comment><USER16> We're learning a lot about virology during this time. Infection and immunity are not binary, and now we have enough data to recognize that. We will also learn a lot about mutation, things like carrier recombination. I think this will change everything about how we attempt to control things through vaccination.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I've been tracking the antibody study results in a spreadsheet, and they are suggesting a 10-20x undercount of cases in the official "confirmed" numbers. You can see the data I've collected here: [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16onEUBWIV5IqN1RCvTla...](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16onEUBWIV5IqN1RCvTlad1jnQZ9W7p_P_yS-0D6j1-8)

<comment><USER18> I did similar calculations, and found the institutions in charge give us very unreliable data. The term "corona case" is very, very, ambiguous and cannot the understood as such without a detailed explanation on how the counting was done.

Thanks for sharing.

I found the peek in all-case mortality also very interesting, because that way counting is much more unambiguous: dead is dead.

They showed a clear diversion from the "average" in recent weeks, but... they did not show the stdev for the averages. Finally I found a chart that shows that "outliers" are not uncommon.

[https://imgur.com/IPNiXRe](https://imgur.com/IPNiXRe)

<comment><USER19> > because that way counting is much more unambiguous: dead is dead

Unrealistically low death stats coming from Turkey compared to cases easily refute that argument.

Dead is dead, unless the state finds a way to claim that it was not a COVID19 dead.

<comment><USER20> No. Not unless. You misunderstand what all cause mortality means. The state can count COVID19 deaths as all bungee-jumping related the number still shows up in the total death rate. If you know what is the usual statistic you can show if there is an effect.

This is what "dead is dead" mean. One can argue what should count as a COVID19 case, and how exactly we are counting. There is a lot less argument over who is dead and who is not.

<comment><USER19> > You misunderstand what all cause mortality means.

It seems I actually missed the mention of "all-cause" while reading the comment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> News articles from around April 10 indicate that mass testing hadn't begun, or was just beginning (1 example here [0])

Reporting on 96% without symptoms is misleading without mentioning this: It gives the impression that the # of coronavirus infections could be up to 24x higher than the known positives cases. But symptoms can take 2-14 days to develop, meaning it is entirely too soon to tell if these are all asymptomatic cases, or merely pre-symptomatic.

[0] [https://www.dispatch.com/news/20200410/coronavirus-in- marion...](https://www.dispatch.com/news/20200410/coronavirus-in-marion- prison-rsquoweve-never-experienced-anything-like-this-beforersquo)

</comment><comment><USER22> 96% are without symptoms _yet_.

There was a nursing home in Massachusetts which had 51 out of 98 residents testing positive but asymptomatic in early April. While this sounded encouraging in the sense no one was critically ill because of coronavirus, a few weeks later 19 had died and about 30 more had tested positive.

Let's wait a month until there is a clearer picture about the impact of the virus on a particular population of people.

[https://www.boston.com/news/local- news/2020/04/04/coronaviru...](https://www.boston.com/news/local- news/2020/04/04/coronavirus-cases-wilmington-nursing-home/)

[https://www.wcvb.com/article/85-of-patients-at-wilmington- ma...](https://www.wcvb.com/article/85-of-patients-at-wilmington- massachusetts-nursing-home-test-positive-for-coronavirus/32087000)

<comment><USER23> Did you see the NYC antibody sample that showed that approximately 21 percent of citizens had antibodies? It seems like a nursing home is a pretty bad representation of a population.

<comment><USER24> Am I the only one who is still confused by what they're finding in these antibody tests? Are they looking for antibodies that attach to specific features unique to SARS-CoV-2? Because I'm pretty sure even HCoV-NL63 enter lung cells through ACE2 as well. How can they tell antibodies for these viruses apart? Also aren't antibodies effectively developed in a sort of random process?

<comment><USER25> I am confused as can be about all of it now. First it was stay locked in, then heard immunity, now they say heard immunity may not happen.

<comment><USER26> If you're confused by this, you may need to check your news sources. Experts have been explaining all of this for months. First, people need to stay locked in and keep distance in order to slow down the spreading so health care systems don't get overwhelmed. Second, the disease itself can only be stopped once herd immunity is reached. Ideally, herd immunity is achieved by vaccination, once there is one. Until then, social distancing is needed to limit the number of deaths and keep the health system working. Third, it is not yet clear whether long-lasting immunity can be achieved at all. It's very likely, but there is not yet enough data. Immunity may last from 2 months to 2 years or longer. We don't know yet for sure.

<comment><USER27> Not sure why you're being downvoted, this is well established. Even with everyone indoors, the US new infection rate remains around 40,000 new cases per day recorded -- and holding steady. Now with states re-opening that can only go one direction, until herd immunity is established.

<comment><USER28> Those are positive tests. They are remaining high because the number of tests has been increasing. The important metric to track is percent positive tests, which has been consistently dropping for weeks.

[https://coronavirus.1point3acres.com/en/test](https://coronavirus.1point3acres.com/en/test)

<comment><USER27> I'm curious if that's true -- based on that excellent data, it appears that the number of people who test positive has been pretty much steady. Chances are those were always, and remain, positive tests at the point of care/admission to a hospital. The new tests are likely randos. So long as we continue to see the same raw absolute number of positive tests, I'd say it's not a win -- yet. There's been in fact a steady increase since 4/21 in positive tests in real number terms.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> One of the more interesting differences between US prison populations and others is that smoking tobacco is way more prevalent:

 _> Estimated smoking prevalence among inmates was approximately 50% in 2003–2004, compared to 21% among noninstitutionalized adults._ [0]

Which might play a major role in the spread and the actual severity of COVID-19 as French researchers are speculating that nicotine could be responsible for blocking the ACE2 receptors that COVID-19 uses to get into cells, which could explain why there's such a low incidence of tobacco smokers among patients, far below what should be expected [1].

There's nothing really concrete yet, for now they want to experiment with nicotine patches as treatment.

But in that context, prison populations could make for an interesting control group: Maybe the prevalence of smoking is what keeps the virus less severe, due to reduced viral load reaching cells, and thus fewer carriers are symptomatic?

[0] [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5100810/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5100810/)

[1] [https://www.qeios.com/read/article/574](https://www.qeios.com/read/article/574)

<comment><USER30> I could see this making sense for tobacco users that don't smoke (e.g. chewing tobacco) but for people that smoke...I mean this is a respiratory illness. If you have compromised lungs this seems like it would be a nightmare for smokers. Are you concerned at all with the veracity of these claims?

<comment><USER29> Not at all, I'm merely sharing information that might be interesting to this situation.

Nowhere did I declare anything as fact, I even called something "speculation" by researchers when they don't consider it much one themselves:

 _> There are however, sufficient scientific data to suggest that smoking protection is likely to be mediated by nicotine. SARS-CoV2 is known to use the angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor for cell entry[14-16], and there is evidence that nicotine modulates ACE2 expression[17]which could in turn modulate the nicotinic acetyl choline receptor (manuscript submitted). We hypothesize that SARS-CoV2 might alter the control of the nicotine receptor by acetylcholine. This hypothesis may also explain why previous studies have found an association between smoking and Covid-19 severity[1, 9, 10]. As hospitals generally impose smoking cessation and nicotine withdrawal at the time of hospitalization, tobacco (nicotine) cessation could lead to the release of nicotine receptors, that are increased in smokers, and to a "rebound effect" responsible for the worsening of disease observed in hospitalized smokers._

In that context, it really doesn't matter if this is a "respiratory illness", as nicotine can be applied in a number of ways, like patches.

So even tho it might seem counter-intuitive, this could be part of a plausible explanation why smokers are so underrepresented among COVID-19 patients not just in France, but also in the US and China.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Some possibilities: there is widespread infection from a common source around the same time, and many of those "asymptomatic" inmates aren't going to stay that way; the test has false positives; the population of this prison is comprised mostly of people who tend to be asymptomatic carriers (for example, if most prisoners are in their early 20's); COVID-19 has a lot more asymptomatic carriers than we thought.

<comment><USER32> It's 4 prisons. The odds of there being one Typhoid Mary is unlikely.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Plugging the 96% into New York numbers results in 155,000 / 4 * 100 = 3,875,000 infected people in NYC, or about half the population.

This is assuming that tests in NYC currently include every infected and symptomatic person. Considering the official advice for people with mild symptoms is to stay home (and not seek a test), that assumption is ... optimistic.

It also wouldn't fit with the anti-body tests that have been done in NYC that showed figures closer to 15-20%.

So I'd expect about 1/2 to 2/3 of these 96% to develop symptoms within the next week.

The other possibility is the prison population not being representative of the general population. That's probably true in terms of fatality rates, because they are younger. I'm not entirely sure if that age imbalance is just as strong for _any_ symptoms as it is for risk of hospitalisation and death.

</comment><comment><USER34> It doesn't appear to mention what type of test was done. Were they checking for current active infection, or for antibodies which would indicate if the person has ever been infected? (if the latter, they may have had symptoms back then)

<comment><USER35> I am not willing to even consider these results until more details about testing are revealed. There has already been so much misinformation about testing and results that I am incredibly skeptical of any results now.

<comment><USER36> Same here. Is there any chance the viral load test is also testing positive for other coronaviruses that are not SARS-CoV-2? Because I can't find any information addressing that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Before the deluge of "But wait two weeks" comments, I just want to ask at what point we accept that the potentially of totally asymptomatic cases is insanely high, far higher than anyone thought?

<comment><USER38> There's also the nuance of US state prison care quality. _" Without symptoms"_ could just mean _" not obviously gasping for air"_.

<comment><USER39> Amnesty International campaign against this and are currently calling for the release of ICE detainees. Judging by a skim of their releases even those obviously gasping for air don't necessarily get the care they need. It's a truely massive system which in itself is part of the problem, though the exceptionally low bar for the care of prisoners is Amnesty's primary angle.

[https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/04/usa- covid19-p...](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/04/usa- covid19-pandemic-authorities-must-release-immigration-detainees/)

<comment><USER40> > Amnesty International campaign against this and are currently calling for > the release of ICE detainees.

Virus aside, when are they not?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Every article I see about people testing asymptomatic is followed by comments insisting they were asymptomatic _when tested_ , with no idea of whether they _stayed_ asymptomatic or whether virtually all of them had symptoms a few days later, thus basically invalid.

But this _doesn 't seem like a hard problem to solve, folks_. Is nobody bothering to _follow up_ with the asymptomatic people a week later? Just take their mobile phone number, and text them en masse with a quick Y/N question as to whether or not they got sick?

This stuff _baffles_ me. This is literally a matter of life-and-death, and yet the most basic questions seem to be unanswered. (Or are these follow-up surveys being done but the media just refuses to report them because it now feels like week-old news? I'd love to know.)

<comment><USER42> > Just take their mobile phone number, and text them en masse with a quick Y/N > question as to whether or not they got sick?

I've been wondering why this isn't just being done for everyone in the country, every few days?

"The main symptoms of COVID-19 are X, Y, Z. If you think you may have COVID-19 please respond "Yes" to this text message. This is free. Your response is private and used to understand the spread of COVID-19 in our country. Please visit [http://some.link](http://some.link) for more information"

If someone responds "yes" you could follow up with some more questions, if that was useful. And then text them a few days later to see if they're feeling better or worse, or maybe ask them to describe how they feel.

There are lots of problems with this idea: people lying or not taking it seriously; people not responding; not everyone has a cellphone; some people will be worried about privacy, etc etc...

But surely there'd be something useful to learn from it? And it seems like it should be easy to do, really, if you got the mobile providers on board (or just order them to help).

<comment><USER43> Do you even need to be an official to do that? Perhaps a newspaper could do it, to accurate news.

<comment><USER44> I saw it suggested on Twitter yesterday that the political polling firms should be doing some coronavirus polling, tracking trends in self-reported cases the same way they track public opinion.

I'm not sure if that would be scientifically useful in any way, but it sure would be interesting.

<comment><USER45> See my reply to GP.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> People can test positive and are most contagious before they show symptoms. As opposed to influenza where people with symptoms are most contagious. The delay in the onset of symptoms is why this is a very difficult virus to contain.

Further, the accuracy of our tests is questionable and hopefully improving.

Finally, viral shedding has been seen up to 35+ days since symptom onset. Meaning if they showed symptoms a month ago, they may still test positive.

[https://www.aarp.org/health/conditions- treatments/info-2020/...](https://www.aarp.org/health/conditions- treatments/info-2020/onset-of-covid-19-symptoms.html)

</comment><comment><USER47> As a Canadian, I'm shaking my head at our officials who said "we do know that asymptomatic people are not the key driver of epidemics" as a response to concerns back in January of the potential for the virus to grow in our country via incoming travelers who came from hot spots and were not screened or forced to isolate if they expressed no symptoms.

Now our long term care facilities are being overrun with cases potentially because we waited until deaths piled up before testing asymptomatic caretakers for the virus.

<comment><USER48> Agreed 100%. Here in BC, public health wasn't even saying, "It's not known whether asymptomatic carriers can spread the virus," but actually, "Evidence suggests asymptomatic carriers _can not_ spread the virus." Something that as far as I can tell was never actually true. This was reported in public briefings, was repeated by public health nurses on the call-in lines, and was distributed as the government's official position to daycare workers, presumably among others. Really mind-boggling to me. I can only assume somewhere along the line lack of evidence got confused for evidence of lack, and just kept getting parroted from there.

<comment><USER49> > "Evidence suggests asymptomatic carriers can not spread the virus."

I don't understand this. How would that even work? If you're infected, what would stop you from shedding virus like anyone else? Is there a precedent for this, for respiratory viruses?

<comment><USER50> Both SARS and MERS were not particularly contagious during the incubation phase.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Fine non-Covid point:

>>> The United States has more people behind bars than any other nation, a total incarcerated population of nearly 2.3 million as of 2017 — nearly half of which is in state prisons. Smaller numbers are locked in federal prisons and local jails, which typically hold people for relatively short periods as they await trial.

That isn't correct. "Local Jails" hold two general populations: people serving less than a year (generally non-felony convictions) and people awaiting legal process. The infamous Rikers Island in NY is technically a "local jail". People regularly stay in these facilities for YEARS. The AVERAGE stay at Rikers is 6+ months. (Total stay, not time between appearances.)

The distinction between "jail" and "prison" in the US is academic. For purposes of disease, and certainly from the perspective of inmates, both are prisons where large populations are locked up in confined quarters for years at a time.

</comment><comment><USER52> The Reuters article is not useful. It doesn't tell us the type of tests being done, and certainly says nothing about false positives. Like most other articles, this article is what I call "bullshit" but John Ionnidis calls:

"Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science":

[https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies- da...](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies- and-medical-science/308269/)

Dr. Ioannidis on Why We Don't Have Reliable Data Surrounding COVID-19:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUvWaxuurzQ&feature=emb_logo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUvWaxuurzQ&feature=emb_logo)

<comment><USER36> I was doing stuff with the Johns Hopkins data and it has all kinds problems with it (not to mention the format is terrible; time series as columns?!). They also tacked on the retroactive New York cases to the end to the time series data. I did a post on it:

[https://battlepenguin.com/tech/fighting-with-the- data/](https://battlepenguin.com/tech/fighting-with-the-data/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> This is actually not such a bad thing. It means that the true case rate is much much higher, and thus the true fatality rate is much much lower.

<comment><USER54> On the other hand this means it is much more infectious and there are many more infective asymptotic carriers. This will almost certainly make it impossible to contain using traditional public health means such as contact tracing and quarantining.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> Reuter's website is a shit show of moving popping, sliding gizmos. Makes it unreadable. I can't imagine using a screen reader with that.

It is like constantly rearranging the furniture while a blind person is in the store.

</comment><comment><USER56> No mention of what kind of test was performed. And this article is not alone - most don't bother.

The kind of test matters. A qPCR tests the presence of an active infection. Antibody test determines past exposure.

Each has different expectations for symptoms, communicability, and prognosis.

It's not a lot to ask - just report the kind of test that was done, and do so with in the first two paragraphs. Then let me draw my own conclusions about what the study means.

That's a minimum. Ideally, an article would mention the exact brand of test that was performed. If heterogeneous testing methods were used, report that as well.

<comment><USER57> If it were an antibody test then I don't think it would be correct to say that they "tested positive for coronavirus", and also it wouldn't make sense to talk about their symptomaticity

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I see a lot of people dismissing the shared air space & HVAC systems as possible vectors of infection besides close contact, but you have to remember a very important factor:

Droplets exist in a continuum, not a binary of big == fall to ground, small == stay in the air. There's a range, and as they get smaller they stay in the air longer.

 _Large droplets ( >50 μm in diameter) settle on the ground almost immediately, and intermediate-sized droplets (10–50 μm) settle within several minutes. Small particles (<10 μm), including droplet nuclei from evaporated larger particles, can remain airborne for hours and are easily inhaled deep into the respiratory tract._ [0]

As such, while particles that stay aloft longer may not exists in sufficient quantities when it is just one infected, or a few infected inmates, that changes with the # of infected. With each infected inmate the concentrations of those small particles will increase.

Let's say that normally the small particles exist at 3% the necessary quantity to infect another person. Then 33 inmates and staff get sick through close contact, and all of a sudden the concentrations of small droplets is sufficient to infect people. You hit a critical mass, and each additional infection only makes it worse, creating a rapid downward spiral.

[0] [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147198/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4147198/)

</comment><comment><USER58> I don't know a lot about the antibody tests. Is the novel coronavirus novel enough that they know exactly the kind they're testing? Is it a specific test for SARS-CoV-2?

<comment><USER59> There are many antibody tests. The one I've read about (from the Charité in Berlin) was designed (or found) to also test positive for the "original" SARS, and for very closely related bat viruses (neither of which should present an issue when testing humans today), but not for other corona viruses (such as the common cold etc.).

That test has also very carefully been validated, with excellent sensitivity (=few false negatives) and specificity (=few false positives). Not sure all available tests have gone through quite so thorough validation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> I've read there are over 10,000 strains of the virus, some more deadly than others! [https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3080771/coro...](https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3080771/coronavirus- mutations-affect-deadliness-strains-chinese-study)

</comment><comment><USER61> With _those_ kinds or positive rates, I have to start wondering about the specificity of those tests.

The UK government recently hat to gave up on millions of antibody tests because they just didn't work.

Coronaviruses in general are endemic and almost always go without symptoms and would also eventually spread to the majority of the prison population.

</comment><comment> Munky-Necan The cruise ships were a great Petri dish and so far it is believed that asymptomatic patients comprise 15-20%, but more research is needed.

[https://www.niid.go.jp/niid/en/2019-ncov-e/9417-covid-dp- fe-...](https://www.niid.go.jp/niid/en/2019-ncov-e/9417-covid-dp-fe-02.html)

</comment><comment><USER62> I'd guess smoking rates are very high in prisons. It seems smokers (even former) are much better off than non-smokers.

<comment><USER63> That's the opposite of everything I've read

<comment><USER64> I think they're referring to this: [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/22/french- study-s...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/22/french-study- suggests-smokers-at-lower-risk-of-getting-coronavirus)

The idea is that nicotine may lower your chances of infection, but once established I imagine that smoking will definitely reduce your chances of survival.

<comment><USER65> Well, it lowers your chance of being listed as an infected person.

Presuming this is true (lots of evidence but still much too early to be sure), there's two possibilities: nicotine makes a person less likely to be infected, or nicotine makes it less likely that the infected will develop any symptoms. No symptoms, no test, that's been the rule until quite recently.

If it's the latter, it could explain what's going on here. I doubt that's the explanation, but it's possible.

<comment><USER62> There seems to be a reasonable path to effect regarding regulation of ACE2 which is the primary receptor molecule for COVID.

[https://www.qeios.com/read/article/571](https://www.qeios.com/read/article/571)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> I'm curious how they determined if inmates were asymptomatic. If it was just asking, the symptoms may be under reported. In prison, you try and appear invincible, your survival depends on it, so I could imagine many people saying they are asymptomatic when they are not.

<comment><USER67> So many assumptions, I highly doubt from my time being in prisons others would think... Oh man that guy has the cold.. He must be weak.

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> Does anyone know if there's been any studies on those who have taken no medications at all in past X days vs those that take any (either OTC or otherwise) and those with and without symptoms?

I ask because I'd assume drug use would be lower in prisons, and among those in poorer countries. I'm just wondering if a particular set of drugs could accelerate/make this worse?

That said, I'm not sure this is even possible to obtain metrics on, it'd just be interesting to see if there's any type of correlation to rule out. I realize there's been conflicting studies on whether certain heart meds may accelerate, but I've not been able to find anything about any drugs use whatsoever.

</comment><comment><USER69> I'm curious to know exactly what the science is behind the tests being performed currently. And how does a body typically fight a virus in the first place?

This might sound amateurish (it is), but I have been picturing this virus and how our bodies are fighting it similar to how our bodies fight cancer. Tons of people who never end up with cancer diagnosis are constantly fighting off cancer cells, it's just that the capacity of their (relatively) healthy bodies exceeds the total # of cancer cells they need to fight off.

Is it possible these tests have become too sensitive to where they're easily detecting the virus in seemingly healthy people?

</comment><comment><USER70> Maybe the virus has evolved (through natural selection) to not to kill its hosts?

<comment><USER71> People who die from the virus usually infect many others before death. There isn't really any selection pressure for keeping the host alive.

<comment><USER70> Sure, but people who don't show symptoms can infect more! So in that case, the less potent one becomes more dominant, no?

Meanwhile those who show symptoms are more likely to stop infecting as soon as they're isolated.

That said, I'm not sure if there has been any different stands identified yet?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> Maybe we can institute a work-recovery program where inmates can do high- exposure work (once they are truly recovered). give them experience and a feeling of duty and purpose.

Nah, they'll probably just keep using em for slave labor.

</comment><comment><USER73> The nature of exponential growth is such that no matter when you test, 50% will have gotten it within the last doubling period. If it's doubling every three days, half have caught it in the last 3 days, 75% in the last 6 days, 86% in the last 9 and so on. Given the long incubation period it makes sense that the vast majority are currently asymptomatic. I think that will be the case at every point during exponential growth, even if the ultimates fatality rate is quite high.

</comment><comment><USER74> Do states have an legal obligation to prevent the spread of disease in prisons? It seems like prison does not provide enough space to stop people from dying from diseases.

I wonder if you can sue.

</comment><comment><USER75> Are these antibody or antigen tests? I am extremely suspect that the antibody tests being used are not delivering false positives. There was a study that showed 800,000 people in Los Angeles likely have antibodies. This does not make sense given that the ICU admissions did not even remotely track that of Northern Italy, which shared a similar population size. I suspect that these antibody tests are picking up a positive on another another Coronavirus.

</comment><comment><USER76> Two questions:

1\. How good is this test? Maybe people have no symptoms because the test is wrong?

2\. Is there some reason prisoners would deny having symptoms even if they did?

</comment><comment><USER77> So it strikes me as possible that SARS-CoV-2 has a very high r value and lethality on par with flu viruses, but is killing a lot more people than flu viruses due to the lack of pre-existing immunity, combined with the rapid spread through the population claiming those most vulnerable to it all at once.

</comment><comment><USER78> An asymptomatic presentation would not include a chest x-ray. People with visible lung lesions and 60% oxygenation levels doe not exhibit any symptoms. The body's warning system is wired to C02 concentrations, and C02 gets evacuated so people report feeling fine while they have significant lung damage.

</comment><comment><USER79> 96% asymptomatic FOR NOW. We'll see later.

<comment><USER40> Will we though? Or more likely we'll never hear about stats from these four state prisons again?

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> If the virus moves fast through a population (like we might expect in a crowded prison) then all the population in one provision will have a single strain.

However, this is 4 prisons: do staff or inmates move between prisons more often than say every week?

It is possible (although unlikely) the virus strain is less spdangerous.

</comment><comment><USER81> Alone, this doesn't show anything. But following this population for 3 weeks should tell us a alot.

</comment><comment><USER82> Is there the possibility that these test results are wrong? The spread is far wider than what would be expected and that means that quarantining and contact tracing would be eseentially useless. But we've seen that both are very useful.

<comment><USER83> Look up Dr. Andrew Kaufman on Youtube. Medicamentum Authenticam.

</comment></comment><comment><USER84> Lets not get too excited about this. Whatever the numbers, that's interesting and worth recording for planning. But whatever they are, they result in "way too many deaths". This is still a very dangerous and rapidly-spreading virus.

<comment><USER85> Where is the cutoff between "way too many deaths" and not too many deaths? I don't mean to be glib, but it is an important question that needs to be weighed against destroying all of our economic institutions.

<comment><USER86> > that needs to be weighed against destroying all of our economic > institutions.

No it doesn't. Like the statement alone doesn't even have any credence, let alone following through with it.

Incredibly daft.

<comment><USER77> Economic institutions sustain people's lives. Declining productivity translates to loss in life expectancy.

<comment><USER84> If everything else remains unchanged. Which it isn't. Changes are happening every day.

And nobody plans to stay in this mode forever. Medicine is making tremendous progress at an astonishing rate. They just need time.

Stay patient.

<comment><USER77> There are viral infections for which vaccines were never successfully developed, despite over a decade of research and trials. There is no guarantee a vaccine will be developed for SARS-CoV-2 in anything approaching a timely manner. People need to weigh the costs and risks of a near total freeze on economic activity against those of letting the virus run its course until herd immunity develops.

<comment><USER84> There are 115 trials underway. There are 100,000 very smart investigators working day and night. There has already been tremendous progress.

My niece works at a lab developing a cheap test. Two of their researchers have already died of this virus (they went to work despite the risks). Don't make fools of them, by falling into despair and negativity.

<comment><USER77> A vaccine for HIV was never found.

I hope they succeed in creating a vaccine for COVID19, but resting the lifting of a highly destructive mass-lockdown of healthy people on a hope, is reckless.

Contingency plans need to be created; a definite end date for the lockdowns, irrespective of whether a vaccine exists.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER87> One potential cause: We habe hints now (Charité Study) that previous infections with other, less harmful corona viruses may provide some degree of immunity (unconfirmed).

Maybe one or more these other coronaviruses made rounds in this prison earlier this year?

</comment><comment><USER88> Same thing happened in a Greek "hot spot", a prison for refugees. These places were build to host X number of inmates but in reality they host close to 50X. The population were infected at nearly 100% without symptoms.

</comment><comment><USER89> From what I can tell, this makes a strong suggestion that were much further through infecting the whole population than we think.

Anyone with some bayesian ideas on by how much?

</comment><comment><USER90> Yet elsewhere, hospitals are flooded and body bags piled.

<comment><USER91> Because people with the worst symptoms go to the hospital.

</comment></comment><comment><USER92> They should be conscripted to the war front with symptom-suppressing medication, to prevent further contamination of inmates.

</comment><comment><USER59> Would be nice if they had specified what test (PCR from throat swap, from sputum, from stool; antibody test; …).

</comment><comment><USER93> I wish I could get an anti-body test done because I had flu-like symptoms before any tests were available

</comment><comment><USER94> Is there a an explanation for why US has the highest prison population in the world?

</comment><comment><USER95> Mutation or less harmful strain?

</comment><comment><USER96> Does anybody know the false positive rate of the test?

Could this be an artifact of that plus low actual incidence like:

\- False positive rate of 10%

\- 100 tests

\- 1 true positives. All with symptoms

\- 9 false positives. All without symptoms (duh!)

Headline: "90% asymptomatic!"

Truth: "Shitty test procedure!"

Yes, yes, I know you know this. Do you think people doing tests and writing headlines know this?

What is the false positive rate?

<comment><USER97> > They started with the Marion Correctional Institution, which houses 2,500 > prisoners in north central Ohio, many of them older with pre-existing health > conditions. After testing 2,300 inmates for the coronavirus, they were > shocked. Of the 2,028 who tested positive, close to 95% had no symptoms.

<comment><USER98> This is the relevant response. What the commenter is trying to imply is that the authors of this study are so staggeringly stupid that they overlooked the possibility of false positives when designing this experiment.

In reality, this test would need a false positive rate of over eighty percent to explain this kind of asymptomatic infection rate.

Also, prisons are useful because due to the close quarters it can be taken as a given that a substantial proportion of the population is infected, further minimizing the danger of these sorts of errors. The choice of population suggests a sophisticated experiment design, and the commenter is implying that the study authors made a statistics 101-level error.

<comment><USER96> As someone else has said on another comment, it just needs the experimenter to be infected and a bit careless, and there is your high percentage of positive results.

Plus yeah, to be honest, you dismiss staggering stupidity leading to juicy headlines at your own risk.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER99> Hope they didn't give them the batch that arstechnica reported contaminated.

</comment><comment><USER100> I posted the following comment on a very similar Reuters article about asymptomatic rates on an aircraft carrier 8 days ago (on a Friday):

\- - IMHO, this article is intentionally misleading. The incubation period is currently estimated to be 2-14 days (mean is 5.6 days per CDC, similar per WHO). The article doesn't mention any dates or time frames, but does mention: "Roughly 60 percent of the over 600 sailors who tested positive so far have not shown symptoms of COVID-19" — note how "so far" is ambiguous in that sentence. It also states, "The Navy's testing of the entire 4,800-member crew of the aircraft carrier - which is about 94% complete...", which seems to indicate nowhere near enough time has elapsed to draw any sort of conclusion. This paper [1] found that testing of all pregnancy patients in a hospital yielded 34% asymptomatic cases. That number drops to 8% "shortly after discharge", and could be lower than 8% (Again, no timeframe is stated). [1] [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S258993332...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589933320300483) \- -

If you just s/navy/prisons/ and s/[navy figures]/[prison figures] (and forgive my oversimplification of RegEx captures), I think that comment works just as well here.

At the risk of sounding paranoid, does this seem like a campaign of misinformation by omission? Or perhaps I'm being overly critical?

The key issue I take with both articles is that they speculate _a lot_ , but gloss over the fact that no timeframes are provided to determine what percentage could actually be asymptomatic and never develop symptoms vs. simply being pre-symptomatic at the time of testing.

If the article were focused on how quickly this virus can spread in closed quarters, that would be one thing. But this rather lengthy article only has one sentence in the middle that even mentions asymptomatic cases eventually developing symptoms:

"Some people diagnosed as asymptomatic when tested for the coronavirus, however, may go on to develop symptoms later, according to researchers."

Also, this article mentions testing asymptomatic prisoners (universal testing), but it doesn't say why these specific prisons where chosen first. Perhaps some had at least one positive test result? If so, wouldn't the close quarters explain most of the relatively high rates of asymptomatic positives reported, given the (initially) exponential curve of spread over time?

</comment><comment><USER101> Isn't this a bit of promising news, means herd immunity is probably much deeper and larger than we are currently aware.

<comment><USER102> WHO says we can't assume previous infection means future immunity.

[https://www.who.int/news- room/commentaries/detail/immunity-p...](https://www.who.int/news- room/commentaries/detail/immunity-passports-in-the-context-of-covid-19)

<comment><USER101> Not sure why I am getting downvoted, I guess covid-19 shaming is a thing. From what I've read people who appear to get it again is actually just a relapse of the original infection[1].

[1] [https://thehill.com/changing-america/well- being/prevention-c...](https://thehill.com/changing-america/well- being/prevention-cures/491988-fauci-recovered-coronavirus-patients-will- likely)

<comment><USER103> I must say that for a community of rather technical people when not scientists and engineers, hackernews has a surprisingly high level of FUD-pushers and doomers on that topic. I put that on account of anxiety.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER104> Are there differences in vaccination in the affected population? A noteable difference is the age group of high risk group is ~65 in Italy and ~80 in Sweden. (Citation needed, I only found secondary sources). These ages correspond to changes in vaccine regimen in the affected countries. Might the younger inmates have been vaccinated differently?

</comment><comment><USER93> Georgia's actions don't seem so dumb now...

</comment><comment><USER105> how is this related to hacking?

</comment><comment><USER106> Ioannidis was right all along.

</comment><comment><USER107> No, they will develop symptoms. Test again in two weeks.

<comment><USER108> I'm in a high risk category with an incurable respiratory condition. I'm convinced I've already had it and I'm mostly recovered now.

I was mostly asymptomatic. The biggest thing going on was that I was very tired, which was also something easily explained by other things going on, so I was basically already on the mend before I concluded I must have had it.

I believe we are barking up the wrong tree. We are looking for respiratory distress because it leads to low oxygen levels. I think we need to be looking more at what it does to the blood. Fortunately, some doctors are looking in that direction, but I think not enough, probably.

My symptoms were similar to anemia. It's easily missed because you mostly lack energy.

Again, there can be lots of reasons a person has low energy. It can be quite hard to say "Clearly, this symptom is indicative of Coronavirus."

So I suspect a lot of people will never be overtly symptomatic in the ways the world is looking for with its huge focus on lung issues.

<comment><USER109> Doctors are already seeing blood clots in many COVID-19 patients. Strokes, heart attacks, and pulmonary embolisms appear to be much more common than with other forms of viral pneumonia. Some hospitals have incorporated blood thinners into their treatment protocols.

<comment><USER108> Yeah, I'm aware. For example: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22883260](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22883260)

I also had an interesting discussion with someone who is apparently some kind of medical researcher about zinc and blood stuff. This was very helpful to me and my sons in trying to recover our energy levels, which also firms up my suspicions that a. we had the infection and b. my mental models are less wrong than some of what is out there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER110> > by throwaway888abc

Pretty funny, good enough for reuters but not for HN it seems...

</comment><comment><USER111> Whether a conspiracy or a fuck-up, the more weaknesses of democracy exposed by this virus, the more benefits the survivals will have in the long run. DT be like:"Kill all those intouchables, so I'll have another 4 years sitting on the bloody throne!"

</comment><comment><USER112> At this point only thing I can ask is, forget the shutdowns, when we'll we recognize the most viral thing about COVID was the histeria? Having lived closely through the swine flu, it was quite a bit worse, affected people under 60 which tend to be more socially active and no shutdowns were required. In fact one of the learnings/facts of that crisis were that masks are mostly useless to prevent contagion.

</comment><comment><USER113> > The numbers are the latest evidence to suggest that people who are > asymptomatic — contagious but not physically sick — may be driving the > spread of the virus

That's also suggesting that the fatality rate is nowhere near what we have been led to believe.

<comment><USER114> What have we been led to believe?

</comment></comment><comment><USER115> >"It adds to the understanding that we have a severe undercount of cases in the U.S.," said Dr. Leana Wen,

There it is! Now can we get back to normal. Of those 4% with symptoms, what tiny percentage need advanced hospitalization? Of that tiny percentage, what tinier percentage still, die?</comment>


IBM's zEnterprise architecture makes mainframes cool again, also efficient - <AUTHOR> http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/23/ibms-zenterprise-architecture-makes-mainframes-cool-again-also/

<comment><USER2> Having put hard time into the financial sector (where most of these dinosaur descendants find themselves) I can say that nothing will make mainframes cool again. Ever.

The features aren't really anything earth-shattering compared to the z10, and I had my fill of those already. It can just handle more of the same. And let's face it, once you've seen more than 1TB of RAM and more than 48 cores crammed into one box, all bets of being impressed by hardware are off. Oh, nice. Three TB of RAM.

The energy savings, if true, will be nice. But at more than 3kW per legacy z10 unit, that's not saying much. Very few enterprises need the raw power of this platform. The financial industry uses it mostly for its ability to have zero downtime and to take advantage of the sysplex functionality.</comment>


Apply HN: FORUM – A public messaging app - <AUTHOR> What if we can publish a thought that is at the same time :
- a status (social network use case)
- a sentence/paragraph in a long article (blogging platform use case)
- a message in a conversation (messaging app use case)
This is the goal of "FORUM", a new kind of social network that provides the benefits of a social network, a messaging app and a blogging platform with only one feature.
You can try it here : https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=co.forum.app
and see the demo here : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ft7JvfzoF2Q <comment><USER2> This seems insufficiently different than Twitter after their recent changes, where you are can tweet your status, write posts that are longer than 140 characters, and direct message other users.

<comment><AUTHOR> So I would like to emphasize on 2 things:

\- on Forum there is no direct private message, the messaging system is public. A message can be at the same time a status, a part within an article (which is composed by many status) and a message in a conversation.

\- there is no newsfeed on Forum, but a stack of cards. The user swipes the cards up to upvote the status, down to pass. By doing so, he contributes to rank the content.

demo video : [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ft7JvfzoF2Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ft7JvfzoF2Q)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Previous: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11445956](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11445956)

<comment><AUTHOR> yes, sorry for the double post for those who will notice, I wanted to make a smaller post description</comment></comment>


Starting a "How to build Instagram using React Native" course soon - <AUTHOR> https://learnreactnative.design <comment><AUTHOR> Would love to hear what specifically you folks would like me to focus on. Animation? UX? UI? Etc.</comment>


What Isaac Asimov Taught Us About Predicting the Future - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/31/books/review/isaac-asimov-psychohistory.html <comment><USER2> Relatedly, here's what Asimov predicted for 2019: [https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2018/12/27/35-years- ago-i...](https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2018/12/27/35-years-ago-isaac- asimov-was-asked-by-the-star-to-predict-the-world-of-2019-here-is-what-he- wrote.html)

<comment><USER3> Thanks. That was really good.

I just wish the following was true.

>> The consequences of human irresponsibility in terms of waste and pollution will become more apparent and unbearable with time and again, attempts to deal with this will become more strenuous. It is to be hoped that by 2019, advances in technology will place tools in our hands that will help accelerate the process whereby the deterioration of the environment will be reversed.

<comment><USER4> Well he's right about the first party. As for the tools... people need to vote.. in the US at least.

<comment><USER5> Problems are easy to predict.

The technological solutions to those problems are predictable by a sufficiently educated person.

Politics is impossible to predict. Even if you're dead on about how a group of people feel in one region, go 200 miles west, you may be completely wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The article has basically nothing to do with the title. It is a recap of the plot of the foundation series and an extended analogy about how trump is the same as the Mule

<comment><USER7> neat. was this article plagiarized?

[https://www.eclectablog.com/2016/05/donald-trump-is- playing-...](https://www.eclectablog.com/2016/05/donald-trump-is-playing-the- role-of-the-mule-from-isaac-asimovs-foundation-trilogy.html)

<comment><USER8> The NYT has form for it recently, they've rehashed some of Laura Loomer's old work for example.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> barry-cotter If you're interested in predicting the future read Philip Tetlock's Superforecasting. In general people don't make precise predictions to be right or wrong.

Review

[https://www.econlib.org/archives/2015/10/superforecastin.htm...](https://www.econlib.org/archives/2015/10/superforecastin.html)

[https://www.econlib.org/archives/2015/10/outside_first.html](https://www.econlib.org/archives/2015/10/outside_first.html)

Superforecasting on Amazon

[https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0771070527/ref=cm_cr_arp_mb_b...](https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0771070527/ref=cm_cr_arp_mb_bdcrb_top?ie=UTF8)

Tetlock's Wikipedia page

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

Econtalk interview podcast with Tetlock

[https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/econtalk/id135066958](https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/econtalk/id135066958)

<comment><USER9> But before reading "Superforecasting", read Jackal's two-star review on Amazon. I agree with that well-written review, which also recommends other things to read.

<comment><USER10> This is not the first time I get very good recommendations from Jackal. Who is he?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Asimov is definitely a favourite and the use of fiction to explore otherwise polical/philosophical ideas is something I wish we had more of.

That said, seeing the world as predictable cycles is... a strong theme in modern history/political philosophy & not unique to him. That's (imo) what makes the psychohistory great. It's a fictionalised form of an idea that appears everywhere humans try to think of a big picture. Destiny.. fate.

Marx was explicitly deterministic in his historical materialism theory, his core idea, and possibly the thing Asimov was parodying in psychohistory. Economics as a whole could be thing Asimov was parodying. The like of to set Malthus, Ricardo and even Keynes played this game. Modern economists (notably thomas picketty) predict cycles, their inevitable consequences and 2nd order effects.

New/neo liberalism in the 80s & 90s had a strong, economics-oriented idea that the world would inevitably move towards liberal democracy and it's economic institutions. Gibbon's "Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire" has strong deterministic themes: success, decadence, collapse, renewal.

Yuval Noah Harare's "Sapiens" has its driving theme of human history (a march towards more & better cooperation). The history leads directly into futurism & prediction in the sequel... also deterministic themes.

Destiny has been a favourite theme in our stories since our first stories.

<comment><USER12> If you're not familiar with it, you should check out generational archetypes. It's the cyclical nature of generations, not empires. Anecdotally, it seems fairly accurate.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss%E2%80%93Howe_generatio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss%E2%80%93Howe_generational_theory)</comment></comment>