Amazon guy who wrote a rebuttal to NYT worked 100-hour week at another company - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.in/The-Amazon-employee-who-wrote-a-rebuttal-to-the-New-York-Times-once-worked-100-hour-weeks-at-a-different-tech-company/articleshow/48535271.cms <comment><USER2> Relevant: [http://pastebin.com/BjD84BQ3](http://pastebin.com/BjD84BQ3)

Also, I'll link my critique of amazon's work environment/culture here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/3hc9gs/jeff_bezos_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/3hc9gs/jeff_bezos_is_simply_shocked_to_hear_amazon_is_a/cu6ac7r)

Amazon isn't the worst place to work, certainly, and some parts of it are alright, but it has some enormous, deep seated institutional problems with the way it treats its workers (blue collar and white collar). Fundamentally the problem is that Amazon treats workers like machinery, and even when they aren't being "overworked" in a nominal sense of hours per week they are still often being overburdened in terms of stress and workload. I've had many friends and friendly-acquaintances who have worked for amazon in one capacity or another and nearly universally (with one exception) the story is that it's a decidedly sub-par experience, and many of them leave of their own volition after only 1 or 2 years. For myself I left a significant amount of bonuses and stock grants, let alone salary, on the table to only work 1 year there. There are some things amazon does well, even exceptionally well, but maintaining a healthy work environment is not one of them.

</comment><comment><USER3> > _Most of us hadn 't slept more than an average of 2 hours a night in > months._

This doesn't pass the sniff test. Not to say that the work in this mysterious company wasn't gruelling, but it makes the numbers suspect.

<comment><USER4> Sniff test, nothing. This is absolutely ludicrous. 20 hour work-days (9am->5am) for months straight??? Gimme a break. You'd be hallucinating on the second week.

For the life of me I don't understand how this humble-brag is repeated year after year by people.

<comment><USER5> An occasional 100 hour work week is tough but do-able. Claiming an entire team got an average of 2 hours of sleep a night for months (meaning that some on the team got even less than that) is outright preposterous. It also reeks of "powering through" machismo and I don't believe it happened quite like that.

If it did happen though, that is a total failure of leadership. Not only were these people being tormented, they were a danger to themselves and others just driving in to the office every day.

Unless the fate of the entire human race relied on the success of their project, everyone involved should have given this ultimatum on the second week of this ordeal: reschedule the project to realistic goals or cancel it entirely, or I quit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> >> Disclosure: Jeff Bezos is an investor in Business Insider through his personal investment company Bezos Expeditions.

Meh.

</comment><comment><USER7> Direct pointer to referenced article to avoid parsing it from BI clickbait: [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20141208045206-6976444-- the-w...](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20141208045206-6976444--the-work- death-march-a-survivor-s-tale?trk=prof-post)

This is definitely about Microsoft - the "HiPo" reference gives it away and I think worth reading. I knew someone in that same period who was killing himself there, sleeping in his office for one dubious effort after another.

</comment><comment><USER8> Even if he actually did put in a 100-hour work week (highly suspect as I and probably others question if actual quality work was getting done during all 100 hours or if he counts other activities as part of "working"), he likely was and even admits that he was a walking zombie which definitely calls into question the quality of the work[0].

[0] [http://lifehacker.com/working-over-40-hours-a-week-makes- you...](http://lifehacker.com/working-over-40-hours-a-week-makes-you-less- productive-1725646811)

</comment><comment><USER9> Here's the article referenced: [http://www.businessinsider.com/an-amazonians- response-to-ins...](http://www.businessinsider.com/an-amazonians-response-to- inside-amazon-wrestling-big-ideas-in-a-bruising- workplace-2015-8?_ga=1.59315822.299718283.1439354017)

That is a seriously dense piece that took major effort to write.</comment>


How quitting my corporate job for my startup dream f*cked my life up - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/swlh/how-quitting-my-corporate-job-for-my-startup-dream-f-cked-my-life-up-3b6b3e29b318 <comment><USER3> "One day, I even found myself asking my girlfriend for a few cents because I had no money to buy bottled water"

In general, when you have no money, tap water is better than bankruptcy.

<comment><USER4> exactly! bottled water is a good that is well-known to be over-priced

<comment><USER5> Over priced and 100% unnecessary, unless you live in Flint

<comment><USER6> That is 100% untrue, even the flint water could be treated to be potable.

<comment><USER5> In your home? If you knew the water was that contaminated would you trust your home water treatment equipment to remove everything? In that situation I think I'd buy bottled water until things are resolved.

<comment><USER7> Distilling water with an activated carbon filter does remove everything.

<comment><USER5> Sure, how much does that system cost and does it actually taste good to drink? I've heard distilled water tastes horrible.

<comment><USER6> if you remove everything from the water with this method, or any other method, there is systems to re-mineralize water... (Reverse osmosis would also remove most of the lead)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> So a guy working as a highly paid consultant that does not have time to spend any of his money runs out of it in less than a year... And his top "warning" for the whole thing is social pressure. Is this a joke?

<comment><USER9> I would imagine that once you're into a certain lifestyle (i.e. not leading a student life anymore) you have very high monthly expenses and lifestyle choices that are not that easy to get rid off.

<comment><USER10> You'd think, "if your salary goes from $250k to $20k, start living like you make $20k" wouldn't really need to be communicated out like some sort of secret.

<comment><USER11> I promise you, they don't teach you that in business school

"There's 2 things they don't teach you at Harvard. How to handle failure, and how to handle a shotgun. I'm about to do both" \- the dude from the Simpsons movie

<comment><USER12> Consultants are rarely entrepreneurs, he would have been smarter hiring 1-3 people to build his startup idea, then quit his job. People with startups have this fascination they can do it all themselves, it rarely works.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> So he wrote this from a beach in Thailand while sipping a fancy drink? He no longer works at a job he hates. He went on a two year journey attempting to self actualize - but discovered his actual self is a bit of a failure?*

How has his life been fucked up?

What's the word (some sort of portmanteau of entrepreneur & porn) which we use to describe this Tim Ferriss style trash?

*that last point is a bit harsh, trying to be sarcastic/funny there, not mean

<comment><USER14> Entrepornography?

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Maybe it's consulting outside the U.S. (guy was a Senior Associate at Bain for 1 year), but the consulting intro doesn't ring true. Both personal experience and an extensive network into MBB: I don't know anyone at that (junior) level who a) is flying trans-Atlantic on a weekly basis (to the U.S. no less), b) doesn't know where they're going until last minute, and c) changes projects every week.

It doesn't happen. This isn't _House of Lies_.

Guy appears to be a professional blogger now, so this is very much a grain-of- salt perspective.

<comment><USER16> He's not necessarily lying - I have several MBB friends (engagement manager level) who have been flying trans-Atlantic nearly weekly from the US for the better part of the last 3 years. Hell, I still fly coast to coast on a regular basis myself.

MBB-level consulting has changed a lot in the last few years. Clients are no longer willing to pay their rates for full projects, so a lot of their projects are now 2-3 week due diligence projects to validate the output that some internal team or a Big 4 accounting firm's consulting division put together. One friend of mine has worked at McKinsey for 4 years and has yet to work on a project longer than 6 weeks the entire time (most of her projects are 2-4 weeks).

Even then, it's basically just the "MBB tax" you have to pay to whatever consulting company your board of directors used to work at. These projects could probably be done remotely, but those firms calling card is to massively over-deliver every project they get in order to justify their rates.

All of this leads to a situation where projects are shorter, less valuable, and happen with less lead time than they used to. The pipelines have been getting shallower every year - look at how MBB are all trying to branch out into operations consulting with mixed results.

One thing to keep in mind is that while MBB tend to exude this aura of invincibility, they're actually struggling right now. I wouldn't be surprised to see some consolidation happen in this space soon.

<comment><USER11> I thought the point of having SF, LA, NYC offices was to cut down on travel time, to the benefit of both the consultants and the client.

<comment><USER17> There is a high element of bullshit social control in situations like this.

You could probably hire a few people in (say) Eastern Europe and set them up with great process, tooling, and telecon and beat the hell out of consulting groups that run their consultants ragged, but running them ragged is a mechanism of control. You are so committed to it you are not going to question any assumptions.

It is like the way that if you want to succeed in certain professions you pretty much need to move -- it satisfies the ideological idea that "we are hiring the best people from all over the world" and it separates you from friends and family and once more makes it almost impossible you will question the unspoken assumptions your career is based on.

<comment><USER16> > but running them ragged is a mechanism of control.

This is actually wrong. I used to think that, but again, the world has changed. Running your team ragged is purely a dog and pony show to win follow- up work. When you go into a client you don't know at all, and you do 6 weeks of work and develop a business strategy... the only way that works is if you walked in with a strategy. Which you _always_ do.

You then proceed to run your team ragged over the next 6 weeks to produce mountains of work and show the executive team at the client "Hey, look at our guys and how hard they work!" The work itself is usually just 120 slides full of busy work with so many assumptions baked in it's all but meaningless, but you make a great first impression and cemented your company's brand perception at the executive level of that client. You can then sell much lower-quality follow-on work for _years_ on the strength of that one 6 week project.

In consulting (ESPECIALLY strategy consulting) politics, perception and packaging are far, far more important than the quality of the output.

Therefore, running your people ragged isn't about control or producing quality output. It's about impressing the client by working your ass off, and establishing a brand perception that hopefully will extend down to the other types of work your company does (which may or may not be of very high quality).

Anyway, I firmly believe that most strategy consulting work in 2016 is really just pipeline development for operations consulting. Important for sure, but not really what most strategy consultants signed up for.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I remember reading this a while ago and feeling completely duped. The author's definition of a 'f _cked up life ' is what I would love my life to be, assuming I would have an idea to devote myself too, and would be in an environment where that wouldn't seem strange.

What is f_cked up it the situation when you're doing it backwards: instead of jumping into a business, and dealing with those _problems_ , you start believing that the normality of your life is what's holding you down, so you artificially create those problems, without having a decent reason for doing so...

<comment><USER18> I wonder if all the upvotes are due the content, or my accidental use of _italic formatting_...

In case of the former, would anyone care to elaborate? Do you solely agree with the message, or do you find yourself in a similar situation as described?

<comment><USER19> Everything looks more _important_ with _formatting_. Maybe _you_ should become a consultant. ;-)

<comment><USER18> I'm way ahead of you :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The title is incredibly annoying. Leaving your corporate job for your dream has a very high chance of fucking up your life for a myriad of very obvious reasons.

Not only that, but the idea that following your dream by creating a startup would provide you with more free-time is beyond basic logic.

</comment><comment><USER21> This appears to be a thinly veiled marketing exercise.

</comment><comment><USER22> I work as an independent consultant as my "startup". I had been consulting for about 5 years for other people and saw less and less value in letting the consulting company take 65% of the money they charge for me. I made a good salary, but I never took health benefits, though I did use 401k matching. Anyway, it took a while, but I made the correct contacts and was able to sign MSAs with the 2 major software vendors I do work for, and now can land my own work. I now bill for about 85% of what the other companies charged for me, and even after paying both sides of the employment taxes I have come out way ahead. I found an 18 month project that was planned so that nobody would work > 40 hours a week and have a 7-4 work schedule. There is a possibility of travel, but I will increase my rate for those gigs to make up for the "hardship".

I dont know that I could really call my business a startup, but I do think that if you are working your ass off as a consultant and have a legitimate skill set and the right contacts, you can make your life better. It sounds like this guy just traded one sweatshop for another of his own making.

<comment><USER23> I took a fairly similar path for a couple years and honestly felt it was pretty much the best of all worlds (corporate/consulting/startup). The only hiccup was growth...I found myself taking on and wanting to do more and it slowly became more than I could handle myself or through the part time online services available at this point in time. People under appreciate their value as an independent consultant so often I am really surprised.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I'm not quite sure what to make of this article. Especially the end quote where he is sort of suggesting going this "dangerous" route, but sort of not.

> No matter how much your journey f*cks up your life or how difficult it will > be, enjoy the ride and keep following your passion. As Tony Gaskin puts it > perfectly: "If you don't build your dream, someone will hire you to help > build theirs."

</comment><comment><USER25> Posts like these are the new infomercial.

</comment><comment><USER26> I've been working at a consulting firm for almost six years. Tons of people quit to make their own startups or go into another industry. For me, I'm just thinking of taking a six month leave next year so I can live in Europe, not work unless I want to, and pursue the arts. I'm thinking of doing a lot of traveling, photography, and writing.

I think a lot of the angst people have about corporate jobs is that people think about what they are missing out on. I think it's really important to not lose sight of what you enjoy, even if you only have a few hours a week to enjoy it.

<comment><USER27> Definitely agree. If you're thinking that you're missing out on life then make the change, go down a tangential path. Do not go through life bitching & whining that you didn't make the most of an opportunity.

Take the sabbatical and go to Europe for 6 months. If it turns out to not be what you expected, so what, you've learned something and grown.

<comment><USER26> The only real expectation that I have is that I'll come out of it with tons of experiences. Who knows what'll happen or not happen.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> It's important to understand what your expectations from a startup founder life are. There are very few resources that explain what to expect and that it's really just hard work on problems that you care about.

The way the media glorifies the startup founder life is very misleading to budding founders.

The opening lecture in Sam's startup class was an eye opener in many ways and put into perspective what being a startup founder really means(especially the part that Dustin Moskovitz talks about).

[http://startupclass.samaltman.com](http://startupclass.samaltman.com)

</comment><comment><USER29> I am suspicious of work/life advice from people whose ultimate life goals involve tropical vacations and alcohol.

<comment><USER30> I don't see what your ultimate life goals - or even having any - has to do with work/life advice. If you spend half your time working, and half your time on a tropical beach with a margarita, how is that a bad thing?

<comment><USER31> It's a signal of an immature/not quite baked thought process. Try spending a month on the beach sometime. It gets old.

<comment><USER30> I grew up in Florida and Mexico, so i'm aware that too much of the same thing gets old - which is why I spend up to a week on a beach at a time, and work the rest of the time in a big city. The dichotomy is blissful.

But even the idea that it can get old is very dependent on the person - <USER2> people's life goals are to surf, eat ceviche, and drink cerveza while fishing with friends. They may not get sick of it, while you or I might. Their work/life balance might be giving diving lessons in the spring in Trinidad and working a WWOOF off-season, interspersed with consulting work (a friend of mine). The dude in the article likes beaches and tropical drinks. As long as they can identify how to achieve a healthy balance, doesn't matter what it is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> There's an oversupply of ex-consultants and they all fancy themselves as the next Jeff Bezos (Bezos is ex-McKinsey and his company operates like it). As a current consultant who sees so many of his co-workers with this dream, I feel many of them are being unrealistic about their prospects. It's not like an ex- McKinsey consultant is really unique in VC pitches anymore.

But many end up bailing because these companies have an "up or out" culture (meaning you either get promoted or fired every 3 years -- with about 80% at each level getting the boot) that makes it very stressful. So it's pretty easy to say "Yeah, fuck this place, I'm gonna go be a startup founder!" when you're 90% sure you're getting fired next year. And being fired from McKinsey/Bain/BCG doesn't mean you're bad, it just means you're not a good fit for the role above you (i.e. if you're moving up from being an engagement manager, you're gonna get laid off if you're not a natural salesperson).

Thing is, being a startup founder is basically the same thing as working for McKinsey/Bain/BCG. It's still "up or out" with each round of funding, and the chances of success at each step are honestly smaller. You also don't have the firm's built-in network and research tools to help you be successful.

I don't even think the average payoffs are better in the startup world. I mean sure, if you can build your company into a unicorn _and keep the momentum through an exit_ you will come out ahead. What are the chances of that, 0.0001%?

A better exit from McKinsey/Bain/BCG IMO would be to shack up with a "second- tier" consulting firm like Deloitte, PwC, Accenture, etc. Depending where you come in, you can pretty easily make partner within 4 or 5 years (anyone coming from the world of top-tier consulting is already used to the crazy workload required for this). Get to that point and you're pulling in $250k-$1M a year without much risk at all for as long as you want to keep doing it. And a generous pension (laugh if you want, but large LLPs are one of the few places where pensions make sense) to retire on whenever you decide you don't want to do it.

And then, if you still have the urge to run a startup, you're in a position where you'll have the knowledge, connections and financial security to go run a startup as the CEO who comes in and runs the show after the founders realize their limitations. IMO this is a better path because 1) any company hiring an expensive outside CEO is likely on an upward trajectory overall 2) VC funded startups are getting more risky, not less, so let the founders take that risk and 3) you can assess the cultural / product / market fit before you take the job.

<comment><USER32> You keep saying Bezos used to work at McKinsey, but I don't see that info anywhere else? He used to work at the trading firm D.E. Shaw, and Amazon seems to operate in a very un-McKinsey way in many ways (i.e. they don't use PowerPoint), so this is confusing...

<comment><USER33> Maybe he's confused since Jeff Bezos's wife is named Mackenzie? Mostly joking..

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> That is a good article but it was on HN a few years ago.

A mistake I think people make is optimizing their lives for income rather than experiences and contentment. I have thoroughly enjoyed my career but I have kept my working hours to under an average of 25 hours a week for the last 30 years (not counting time writing, which is more of a simple pleasure in life than consulting).

<comment><USER35> Experiences can also cost money. Traveling can be done less expensively, but is not cheap. Being out in a boat out on the water every weekend is not cheap, but is an experience I live for. So when optimizing you have to find a balance where you can make enough money to enjoy the experiences you want to enjoy.

<comment><USER3> Travel is cheap if you're not doing it the five star hotel way :-)

<comment><USER35> Plane tickets are often 1-2k per person. Even cheap travel is expensive for most people. I never do the 5 star hotel way and it is still not cheap.

<comment><USER36> Travel costs time or money. I can travel for about the same price as staying at home, basically. But then I occasionally like hitchhiking and couchsurfing, and cooking with strangers in hostels, and hiking with a tent (areas in Europe allow you one night's stay on unoccupied land if you don't bother anyone).. takes a lot longer than the faster ways, but it's basically free. I only spend money on food and gifts to hosts. (It is also a priviledge of youth and health, I admit, to be able to take the bike to the next country/city/whatever.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> If you have no free time and feel overworked in your current job then surely starting a start up won't fix that.

</comment><comment><USER38> What I learned from this: If you have to call your mommy when you quit your job, you're not ready to start your own business.

Also, 2 years after the call to mommy is not quite mature enough to start doling out advice.

</comment><comment><USER39> This can't be serious, I know it's from 2014 but the author seriously showing of his egotists needs with a facebook photo (725 likes whoo) despite talking about not to care about social pressure is beyond understanding. And living from "inspirational" blog posts to wannabe entrepreneurs (= selling shovels during the gold rush) in a tourist resort? Be sure which dream you are following before quitting your boring corporate job, it's usually more meaningful than what you'll be end up doing, from what I'm seeing in this kind of posts.

Edit: sorry for the tone, I'm a bit emotive because I fell in this trap too, and now that I see through the marketing stuff I don't understand why this kind of post continue to be upvoted.

</comment><comment><USER40> > there will be so many hidden costs, accountant fees, lawyer needs

I don't understand this. I do my own accounting and have never spent a single dime on a lawyer. It feels like I'm doing something illegal though because people keep saying this is such a huge cost.

<comment><USER41> Personal experience from having been through both sides:

People who come from corporate backgrounds tend to think having accountants and lawyers is necessary even when it's a one man company because they're used to being specialists, and accountancy / legal isn't _what they do_.

People who come from lean startup backgrounds tend to think they can get by on their own work and the advice they can get over a pint with a lawyer forever because they're used to being generalists. Doing things that they have no expertise in is what they do every day.

The reality tends to be somewhere in the middle. Doing your own accounts when it's just you is ~as hard as getting someone else to do it. Doing your own accounts when you're a team of 20 is enough of a time sink to drag down your overall productivity significantly. If you do go down the "professionals" route though, costs mount quickly.

</comment></comment><comment> mark-r Reminds me of something I once heard:

Starting your own business is great, you can work half days! And you get to decide which twelve hours that will be!

Sounds like he would have considered himself lucky to keep it to twelve hours.

</comment><comment><USER42> "Entrepreneurs are willing to work 80 hours a week to avoid working 40 hours a week."

This statement, but itself, doesn't really give you the entire picture. I've had my own company for the last 10 years.

Running a company is more about controlling my own destiny, than the amount of hours I'm working. I can choose if I want to work 80 hours a week or 20...and I don't have a boss or a manager leading me on a path I know will be a failure.

</comment><comment><USER43> So much life is about the intersection of preparation and timing. What Ali fails to mention is how his startup prepared him and supplied perspective for the lifestyle approach he is now taking. You rarely go from corporate job to traversing beaches with wi-fi access.

</comment><comment><USER44> How is this on he front page?

</comment><comment><USER45> So there are literally zero consulting companies that will pay a fair wage for 40 hours work? Or is it just that the fancy ones like McKinsey all want to run you ragged?

</comment><comment><USER46> My read of this article could be summarized as: Want fanciness without the stress? Don't go for corporate world nor start a startup.

</comment><comment><USER47> it was a good read, but a better title would have been,

"how quitting my dreadful corporate job for my startup dream lead me to a happy life of self-employed consulting."

</comment><comment><USER48> Can we change the sensationalist f*cked up title?</comment>


How China is rewriting the book on human origins - <AUTHOR> http://www.nature.com/news/how-china-is-rewriting-the-book-on-human-origins-1.20231 <comment><USER3> Those of you who turned this discussion into a circle of hell with your incivility, ideology, and attacks make me ashamed to be associated with this site.

We're soon going to release a much stronger version of the site guidelines and start making it a lot clearer how unacceptable such behavior is on HN. If you want to abuse each other or blast your views at enemies, please go elsewhere. There's no intellectual curiosity in any of this, and the vast majority of us are here to avoid it.

</comment><comment><USER4> I've been trying to follow the developing human origin story (as a layman) for while now. It's hard to overstate the importance of the elephant in the room here, which is race and variation within the human species. There was a huge movement, especially post-WW2, to scientifically "want" to find that all humans were the same and therefore "equal"

The Out-of-Africa narrative has to be understood in this context, that it is a very positive narrative, that humans-as-humans developed just once in this tiny spot in Africa and then spread out around the world very recently, never interbred with other hominid species so they're all gone, and therefore we're all pretty much exactly the same.

What has been emerging especially now that genetic sequencing is becoming rapidly cheaper and more advanced at picking human genomes out of the genetic diaspora found in old fossils, is a much more complicated picture. The Chinese obviously have little need to adhere to US political correctness, so they're beginning to push the evidence that Asian hominid genes contributed to the emergence of modern humans/civilization.

The emerging picture to me is one of multiple waves of hominin advances spreading in a varied way and admixing with existing local populations. So there's pretty clearly an ancient Out-of-Africa wave of homo erectus(who were far more advanced than previously acknowledged), a possible evolution of "homo erectus+" and wave out of Asia, and likely an "Out of Arabia" mix of neanderthals and AMHs in the Levant, all of which intermixed imperfectly. The Neanderthals themselves look plausibly responsible for some advances in human civilization (Mousterians)

What you wind up with is a far more complex picture of human evolution and far more significant and long-standing difference between human populations, which I think requires a new narrative and philosophy for what human equality means and a way to ground it on something more fundamental than a wished-for genetic similarity.

<comment><USER5> "Obviously"? Have you ever met any older Chinese people, or folks fresh from the mainland? They're racist as hell. My dad was fond of telling me that the one black physics professor he knew at UC Berkeley was a very nice guy, but clearly a charity case, and that blacks were just lazy in general. It's much more safe to say that it's 'obvious' that the Chinese could have a political agenda in pushing the notion that there are special Asian hominid genes. They're as susceptible to racism and patriotism as anyone else.

No man, or woman, on this planet, is free from ideological bias.

<comment><USER6> I am not sure. Calling people lazy seems a logical conclusion for older generation Chines people. My parents call me lazy very often, because I cannot keep my apartment tidy...

They led a life with prevalent poverty and lack of food, and almost any kind of living supplies. They all need to work hard. I am not surprised that an older generation Chinese call most US people lazy.

As for whether there is a racism judgement, I dont know. You are most close to your dad. :)

<comment><USER7> There's all the difference between calling you, his son, lazy, and saying "blacks are just lazy in general". Can you easily see your dad telling you: "you're lazy, like all yellows"?

<comment><USER6> No kidding, my dad actually says "your generations are too lazy"...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> So... okay, the picture is fuzzy, and Asia is much more important as thought.

What I don't understand is, the article also says the genetical picture still points to the established ("old") theories centering on Africa? As someone only reading about the subject on the side whenever something interesting comes up I'm slightly confused by this aspect of the article.

I'm not confused about there not being a linear but a convoluted story - <USER2> never thought there was ( _except when I was fresh out of an East German school quite some time ago and everything being a linear progress story eventually leading to communism was quite clear :)_ ).

<comment><USER9> The fixed factor is that 97℅ of our DNA matches with that of fossils in Africa. So our ancestors must have come from there, but that doesn't mean there were a few intermediate stops.

Also always worth remembering that the classification as eg sapiens, heidelbergensis or erectus is not one checklist that always ticks the same boxes. In each of these groups defined by us on the basis of some common features but there is much variation. And of course there are regional or temporal differences within eg sapiens.

Then you have parallel evolutions, interbreeding, fakes, unclear dating, and you never know if a particular specimen that you find really has 'typical ' features and genes for that time and space, eg it could have been that one lady/guy that happened to have wandered far from where the rest of its group remained, or could have been somewhat different. Eg imagine the only specimen that remains from our era is an inbred Egyptian pharaoh or someone with down syndrome. Those are bad examples as you could probably figure such things somewhat from the DNA, but it's not so clear for every condition, eg if epigenetics* had some bigger effect.

* = A layer on your genes that De/activates or strengthens/weakens their effects and that we barely understand. The famous example is that data on Danish military recruits, which were measured upon entry into service, showed that if a man suffers starvation/malnutrition in his childhood his sons (!) will on average be less tall than others of their generation. One generation is not enough for genetic selection, so it must be a change in epigenetics.

<comment><USER10> > The fixed factor is that 97℅ of our DNA matches with that of fossils in > Africa.

Chimpanzee and human DNA are 96 to 99% identical. Does the 97% DNA match between human and the African fossil have any significance at all?

<comment><USER11> I believe that this is being brushed over. Cats have 90% DNA matches with modern humans as well as the overlap with chimps you mentioned.

It is clear that just a couple of percent different is a HUGE difference in animals (I am including humans as animals).

So, while it is clear that there is some relationship, the percentage of DNA matches does not seem like strong evidence of "this follows from that" and seems more like "this and that share common previous DNA".

And of course there is a political and social-responsibility component to this, even though people pretend like scientist are immune to politics or social trends.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Wish we had a "house paleontologist" here to explain the story better.

My takeaway is that there is new fossil evidence, which I think should excite researchers everywhere. Instead, the article ends on a researcher expressing cautionary restraint.

What am I missing? Is fossil evidence not reliable? Does this new evidence challenge conventional wisdom about human evolution?

<comment><USER13> It comes down to this:

> Some Western researchers suggest that there is a hint of nationalism in > Chinese palaeontologists' support for continuity. "The Chinese — they do not > accept the idea that H. sapiens evolved in Africa," says one researcher. > "They want everything to come from China."

<comment><USER14> In other words, opinion vs opinion. Maybe that's why the posted story is so murky. The following sentences:

> Chinese researchers reject such allegations. "This has nothing to do with > nationalism," says Wu. It's all about the evidence — the transitional > fossils and archaeological artefacts, he says. "Everything points to > continuous evolution in China from H. erectus to modern human."

> But the continuity-with-hybridization model is countered by overwhelming > genetic data that point to Africa as the wellspring of modern humans. > Studies of Chinese populations show that 97.4% of their genetic make-up is > from ancestral modern humans from Africa [...]

> "If there had been significant contributions from Chinese H. erectus, they > would show up in the genetic data," says Li Hui, a population geneticist at > Fudan University in Shanghai.

<comment><USER15> Simply saying "opinion vs opinion" is a false equivalency.

It's basically the equivalent of climate deniers vs climate change, with the deniers' funding basically coming from a single government.

There's intense nationalism (and racism) at play here, and the Chinese government isn't funding pure science so much as it is funding science with the intent of finding a specific result.

I'm not a paleontologist, but I've lived and studied International Relations in China (at Tsinghua University, where many of China's leaders studied), and I saw first hand how research was corrupted and self-regulated to draw certain conclusions that agreed with the Government's known or perceived position. This was often felt to be necessary to protect funding and academic positions (one professor of mine in private confessed to me that "80% of what I say is true, and the rest I say for reasons we all know").

I know there is strong nationalistic beliefs around human origins in China as well, and suspect strongly the same forces that affect IR academic research are at play here.

Fake fossils are also extremely common in China[1][2], and widespread racism, especially toward black people, is difficult to overstate[3] (which leaves many Chinese refusing to believe they may have originated in Africa).

There's a good reason many paleontologists outside of China are taking many of these studies and theories with a China-sized grain of salt. That isn't to say that there isn't good science being done in China as well. But sometimes it can be difficult to separate the 20% from the 80%, and when findings seem to draw conclusions that the Government wanted to see all along, they're rightly viewed highly suspiciously.

[1] [https://www.paleodirect.com/fake-chinese-fossils-fossil- forg...](https://www.paleodirect.com/fake-chinese-fossils-fossil-forgery-from- china/)

[2] [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-fake- fossils-p...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-fake-fossils- pervert-paleontology-excerpt/)

[3] [http://thediplomat.com/2016/06/racism-with-chinese- character...](http://thediplomat.com/2016/06/racism-with-chinese- characteristics-the-laundry-detergent-ad-and-han-privilege/)

<comment><USER16> >I saw first hand how research was corrupted and self-regulated to draw certain conclusions that agreed with the Government's known or perceived position

When China was promoting the idea of it controlling the South China Sea, suddenly my feed was full of bullshit academic articles about finding Chinese culture artifacts on those not-really islands. As well as a fabled 600 year old book that no longer exists. Its clear this was done by the CCP to help their claim of those islands.

Back in the old days China made propagandist attacks on western medicine and cooked the books on its traditional medicine, which was administered at the time and still today in many/some cases. It was almost all fraud. They weren't claiming a little bit of zing from Ginseng or a bit of pain relief from massage or acupuncture but cancer cures and such using roots and stews.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I thought multiregionalism was discredited by genetic studies in the past decade?

</comment><comment><USER18> This field has generated a lot of questionable research and discoveries over the last 100 years. Piltdown Man is the most famous example, but there was also a big hoax perpetuated by Fujimura Shinichi in Japan about 15 years ago (1):

 _Prominent Japanese archaeologist Shinichi Fujimura has been caught red- handed burying artifacts at a site, prompting demands for a review of the nation 's Palaeolithic record. Nicknamed "God's Hands" by colleagues who marveled at his luck in locating ancient sites, Fujimura was senior director at the Tohoku Paleolithic Institute. His discovery of artifacts dated to the early Palaeolithic period (600,000-120,000 years ago) at the Kamitakamori ruins in Miyagi Prefecture in 1994 established the site as Japan's oldest. Fujimura's team recently made headlines again following discovery of postholes that provided evidence for early Palaeolithic dwellings at Kamitakamori.

Fujimura's hoax, occurring less than a month after his team's headline-making posthole discovery, was exposed by Japan's Mainichi Shimbun newspaper, which published three photographs on its front page of him deliberately burying 61 artifacts on the Kamitakamori site. The artifacts were taken by Fujimura from earlier excavations. He has also confessed to deliberately burying artifacts at the Palaeolithic site of Soshinfudozaka, but insists his other discoveries were authentic._

A lot of questionable finds and outright hoaxes tie into ethnic, nationalist, or local pride. (2)

China has a record of attempting to use historical/archeological artifacts to establish modern-day territorial claims (3):

 _China's archaeological work in disputed islands also extends to the Spratly Island chain, which it disputes with the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, and Taiwan. China has identified roughly 200 different underwater "cultural heritage sites" between the Spratlys and the Paracels, and has been conducting archaeological explorations in the Spratlys since at least 2013.

Maritime archaeology seems like an innocuous enough field. Yet Kaogu-01's deployment close to the site of a battle between China and Vietnam in an island chain still claimed by the latter, as well as ongoing archaeological work in the disputed Spratly Island chain, indicate that China may see a secondary, political purpose in expanding its maritime archaeological industry, namely strengthening China's claims to disputed areas in the South China Sea._

1\. [http://archive.archaeology.org/0101/newsbriefs/godshands.htm...](http://archive.archaeology.org/0101/newsbriefs/godshands.html)

2\. [http://www.anonymousswisscollector.com/2014/10/faking-the- pa...](http://www.anonymousswisscollector.com/2014/10/faking-the-past-when- archaeologists-manufacture-illicit-antiquities.html)

3\. [http://thediplomat.com/2015/07/archaeology-and-the-south- chi...](http://thediplomat.com/2015/07/archaeology-and-the-south-china-sea/)

</comment><comment><USER19> It is a (possible THE) major journal in science but call me skeptical. I tell you three things about the Chinese:

1\. They have had a highly developed culture since at least 5000 years (but please don't tell them that their bone carvings can't compete with what the Egyptians had)

2\. Their culture developed totally independent and without exchange with other cultures and civilizations in the West. (Don't mention for example the Tarim mummies, this is insulting for Chinese: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarim_mummies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarim_mummies) )

3\. Chinese always hated and rejected the idea that they developed from African/black ancestors. So this is really a question that is asked in China with a very strong bias.

<comment><USER20> > Chinese always hated and rejected the idea that they developed from > African/black ancestors

They're not very far behind the West in that regard. Piltdown man was only discredited in 1953...

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> China is paying researchers to claim humankind evolved in China, basically. It doesn't match the genetic evidence which shows we evolved in Africa.

<comment><USER3> We detached this subthread from [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12159012](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12159012) and marked it off-topic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> > It is utterly disrespectful to dozens of scientists devoting their careers > to the research.

China is a one party state with dictatorial control over pretty much everything. Do you really think those guys have any check against CCP thugs telling them what to publish? Being a good scientist takes a back seat to your survival and the survival of your family. Most people aren't willing to be tortured or killed for their views.

<comment><USER22> What you described is true in 1950's until early 1980's. The government had dictatorial control over everything in academia. (Let's restrict our discussion in academia. Otherwise, it would be a very large topic.) The scenarios in natural science research have been gradually opened up. The scientists doesn't enjoy as much academia freedom as in USA, but it is not as restrictive as the news media said. (That doesn't mean the government has no influence or control, either.)

For example, in the article, Dr. Li Hui apparently disagrees with the continuity-with-hybridization model. Dr. Li Hui works in Fudan University, Shanghai.

I did biology research in Beijing for two years in 1990's. My advisor openly challenged the research of a "government-sponsored" professor in department meetings. Many professors supported her, my advisor. I don't think she got any "special" treatments from the government. The last time I heard from her, she was enjoying her time after retirement.

<comment><USER16> Sorry pal, China is still like this:

Authorities also tightened press restrictions. The State Administration of Press Publication, Radio, Film, and Television issued a directive in July requiring that Chinese journalists sign an agreement stating that they will not release unpublished information without prior approval from their employers and requiring that they pass political ideology exams before they can be issued official press cards.

In July, the CCP's disciplinary commission announced that researchers at the central Chinese Academic of Social Sciences had been "infiltrated by foreign forces" and participated in "illegal collusion" during politically sensitive periods. The party subsequently issued a rule that would make ideological evaluation a top requirement for assessing CASS researchers; those who fail are to be expelled.

[https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2015/country- chapters/china...](https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2015/country- chapters/china-and-tibet#eaa21f)

Academic Fraud in China:

[http://www.chinesemedicalnews.com/2015/03/academic-fraud- in-...](http://www.chinesemedicalnews.com/2015/03/academic-fraud-in- china-43-medical.html)

The open access publisher BioMedCentral has this week announced the retraction of 43 medical journal publications by Chinese researchers after it discovered widespread peer review fraud. Most of the articles were submitted by medical researchers at universities in China, including China Medical University, Sichuan University, Shandong University and Jiaotong University Medical School.

<comment><USER3> > _Sorry pal,_

Including uncivil swipes like that in your arguments here will eventually get you banned, so please be scrupulously civil from now on, especially when commenting on inflammatory topics and/or when you think someone else is wrong.

<comment><USER16> Are you a native english speaker? I don't think saying "sorry pal" is a bannable offense here.

<comment><USER3> The issue is whether an account has a pattern of incivility, which yours unfortunately does. Please fix this.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Apple now considering bidding in the wireless auction - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/sep2007/tc20070910_014733.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_top+story

<comment><USER2> I currently work in the ISP billing industry, with a focus on WiMAX. Yes, it really is a low margin headache. It's also filled with moribund oligopolists intent on squeezing every last penny out of their consumers (nee customers).

I'm anxious to see how the upcoming auctions on the 700 MHz spectrum turn out. If one of the new contenders such as Google or (possibly Apple) can upset the status quo it will be a huge win for customers and innovation in the wireless market. Google's proposed 4 levels of openness, for example, would be a huge breath of fresh air which could provide the level of competition and innovation which could possibly get the USA back in the game in comparison to other nations in terms of the wireless market and broadband penetration.

High-speed wireless broadband is a possible solution to the "last-mile" problem which could bypass the current broadband monopolies based on physical presence in homes (cable and DSL.)

Here's hoping that we manage to not screw this one up. We're not going to see an auction and opportunity like this again for a very long time.

Disclaimer: My views are my own and not necessarily representative of the corporation I work for.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm also eager to see a shift towards openness in the US mobile industry. Let startups complete fairly in this emerging space, without the telcos walled gardens.

While I would primarily like to see the major telcos fail to win the auction, I am not too keen on the idea of Apple winning either... Unlike Google I dont think they have openness objectives in mind. The iPhone, iTunes, and just about everything else with Apple recently is an indication of this. They are all about walled gardens. I wont go as far as saying they are as bad as the telcos. I think the end users would still benefit more (at least when using Apple wireless devices), but I suspect Google would better represent most end users.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The strategic importance of owning the network could be incredibly valuable for any tech company. If the author is correct though, and the business really is a low margin headache, wouldn't it still be in their interest for Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc to set up some kind of joint venture to administer the network while they focus on their individual services?

I know it may be tough for them to work with their competitors like this, but it's better then being squeezed by and independent operator.

<comment><USER4> I don't think Microsoft will join this bidding war. They always try not to upset their partners.

<comment><AUTHOR> Microsoft appears to be very interested in the proposed "white space" auction. Basically, the white space frequencies are the wasted spectrum between the various frequency bands. Microsoft apparently wants in on ownership of these series of smaller bands to use for mobile devices.

But the FCC first has to be convinced that devices operating in the white space bands wont interfere with those in the normal bands.. So far it looks like they are not convinced: [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/13/microsoft_says_white...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/13/microsoft_says_white_space_prototype_was_broken/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Is a joint goog/aapl bid unlikely? Or am I reading too much into gmaps on iphone?

</comment><comment><USER6> Awesome. Can't wait.</comment>


Ask HN: What personal metrics do you track? - <AUTHOR>

I read earlier in the Piano App thread comments, that the creator tracked the exact time he spent on each part of its development. I've also kept tabs on Feltron's work, and that of other self trackers.
And I want to start quantifying myself - at least for a while.
What do you track? And what do you recommend others track, too? <comment><USER2> If you're interested in this for the sake of software development, you might be interested in the Personal Software Process (PSP). It's an attempt to turn CMMI into a process that an individual software engineer can follow, and it comes from the same people that invented CMMI (Carnegie Mellon's Software Engineering Institute).

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

</comment><comment><USER3> Kevin Kelly has a blog dedicated to "self quantification" and has a bunch of interesting resources and thoughts on the process. For example, one interesting study he did was on the efficacy of caffeine on his daily productivity. The blog is worth a look: <http://www.kk.org/quantifiedself/>

</comment><comment><USER4> only three things. I draw a line on a calendar and try not to break the line. 1- what I eat. Have I eaten at least 1 meal raw? 2- writing. Have I written for at least 2 hrs? 3- additional item. Last month it was learning colemak (done). Doing 2hrs of company promotion was another month's goal. This month, it's learning scipy well (2hr day)

<comment><AUTHOR> Written anything? As in a note, or an email, or whatever? Or written something thoughtful and content-heavy?

Also, for learning colemak, what exactly do you track? How much time you spent learning each day, maybe?

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I track number of lines of code I write every month. I use statcvs which generates nice graphs over my CVS repository.</comment>


Chromebook Arrives as Netbook Checks Out - <AUTHOR> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-20071332-64/chromebook-arrives-as-netbook-checks-out/

<comment><USER2> Netbooks over? Please. They're an increasingly popular substitute for lugging (and paying for) a full-sized laptop.

</comment><comment><USER3> I am sorry, but to be honest chrome noteboks are nothing more than just a fad that will pass, sort of like windows zune. not sure about netbooks but i still like hem. and i bought second one recentlty.</comment>


Apple Invents an Augmented Reality Windshield - <AUTHOR> http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2018/08/apple-invents-an-augmented-reality-windshield-that-will-even-support-facetime-calls-between-different-vehicles.html <comment><USER2> Heads up display showing info from external sensors ... can you spell patent troll children?

</comment><comment><USER3> That's such a backwards-looking patent in the era of SDC.

People should be filing patents about how to make people more comfortable in what is essentially a moving room, not trying to optimize the driving experience.

<comment><USER4> People are going to still be driving themselves for a long, long time before "the era of SDC" fully arrives.

Also, I can think of _tons_ of applications of an AR windshield in a self- driving car.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Sounds like a typical patent these days--a vague interface design full of obvious "innovations" and no technical details whatsoever. A lot of "what" and no "how". These are useful for exactly one thing: suing other companies for having the audacity to actually create a working implementation.

<comment><USER6> Wouldn't every single futuristic sci fi movie with a car in it qualify as preexisting art?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Once we have autonomous vehicles, we can spare the attention to admire the windshield instead of looking at traffic and road signs. We should throw in some good movies, too.

</comment><comment><USER8> > [...] will even Support FaceTime Calls between Different Vehicles

At first that sounded like a bad idea, but there's an important distinction:

> autonomous vehicle</comment>


How Silicon Valley Is Trying to Hack Its Way into a Longer Life - <AUTHOR> http://time.com/4672962/silicon-valley-longer-life/ <comment><USER2> I've always had a personal saying to short any story or company that appears on the cover of Time Magazine. The thought being that by the time a movement or company is that mainstream it is oversold.

I'm inclined to stick to my heuristic here. I'm not seeing any scientific basis to these life enhancing approaches. Rather, I see extremely wealthy individuals who are afraid of dying.

Lorenzo de Medici was also magnificently wealthy and willing to deploy substantial capital in an attempt to live longer. Supposedly he ate crushed diamonds on the recommendation of his doctors, before he died.

<comment><USER3> Some of the earliest writing we have is about attempts to live longer. Epic of Gilgamesh, Egyptian tombs.....

<comment><USER4> Qin huangshi (China's first emperor) was famous for this, so much that he died taking mercury to prolong is life.

<comment><USER5> Nitpick: He was Qin Shi Huang (秦始皇), which literally means "First Emperor of Qin". [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qin_Shi_Huang](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qin_Shi_Huang)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Journalists as a rule exhibit next to no ability to analyze or distinguish varieties of what is going on in the areas of (a) meaningful longevity science that can plausibly produce large gains in life span at some point, (b) dumb "anti-aging" industry nonsense, and (c) longevity science that is not in principle capable of useful gains in life span.

They are given the instruction from above to write something about efforts to live longer in order to fill today's news hole, grab the first five things they come across in a quick search of recent news, rank them all equally, and throw them into the blender. Out pops a popular science article. Little to no attempt is made to gain or convey insight or understanding.

</comment><comment><USER7> Molecular biology professor at an elite school here with over a decade of experience in what's regarded as one of the most critical aging pathways. Nothing to see here.

<comment><USER8> Could you point the ignorant towards us towards recommended places to read? Not to live forever, but to be interested!

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> We're just in the process of setting up our longer life tech startup. We will guarantee you will live to 120 or your money back.

<comment><USER10> Ha, you think you're tricky, but your not! You didn't define the units. 120 what? Seconds? Nice try though.

<comment><USER11> I think the joke here is that if you're dead a refund is pointless...

Even if they do refund the money, they could make a killing on interest.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Summary of pro death arguments

        **Fairness**
        Only rich people will get it. (no tech has ever done this.)
        Better to give money to the poor than science. (family,city,state,nation, has proven local investment beats foreign.)

        **Bad for society**
        Dead people make more room for new, other people. (consider going first.)
        Run out of resources (live people discover/extract/renew better than dead or nonexistant)
        Overpopulation (colonize the seas, solar system, or have a war.)
          Stop having kids
          Worse wars (nukes are more dangerous than having your first 220 year old person in 2136)
        Dictators never die (they die all the time and rarely of age)

        **Bad for individual**
        You'll get bored. (your memory isn't that good, or your boredom isn't age related)
        You'll have to watch your loved ones die. (so you prefer they watch you?)
        You'll live forever in a terrible state. (longevity requires robustness.)
        Against gods will (not if he disallows suicide, then it is required.)

More people make more progress faster. I'm glad my parents didn't decide the world would be prettier or work better without me in it. Einstein, Bell, Tesla, Da Vinci etc, still alive and productive would be nice. You're literally asking for others to die out of your fear. The burden should be higher. Have courage. If living longer sucks, we'll know 100 years from now, and decide then. First 220 year old in 2136 unless you know how to make one faster than 1 year per year? And that's if you added 120 years to a 100 year old person starting TODAY.

P.S. Curing aging isn't immortality. You die at 600 on average by accident, and if the parade of imaginary horribles were true, even earlier.

</comment><comment><USER13> Finding cure to diseases like Cancer is better;

<comment><USER12> Curing cancer is only worth less than 3.9 years. Curing heart disease is only worth less than 4.55 years. [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12972744_Gains_in_l...](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12972744_Gains_in_life_expectancy_by_eliminating_major_causes_of_death_Revised_estimates_taking_into_account_competing_causes_of_death)</comment></comment>


Most Meetings Are an Hour and That's Too Long - <AUTHOR> https://www.thecut.com/2018/11/most-meetings-are-an-hour-and-thats-too-long.html <comment><USER2> What sort of meeting though</comment>


Ask HN: Rust Web Server Framework? - <AUTHOR> What's the current go-to web framework for Rust? Iron has apparently been sunsetted, and from what I can tell actix imploded under internet toxicity.<p>What's left? Is it a wild-west or is there something reliable? <comment><USER2> actix got new maintainers, it hasn't imploded at all.

I just heard of a company using Surf in production.

There's still a bunch. No clear winner yet. Heard lots of good stuff about Warp.

<comment><AUTHOR> Is there a blog post explaining the transfer to new maintainers? All I can find is the "postmortem" post

<comment><USER2> [https://github.com/actix/actix- web/issues/1289](https://github.com/actix/actix-web/issues/1289)</comment></comment></comment>


Obama vs. Romney Tweet Battle - <AUTHOR> http://obamaromneytweetbattle.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> This is a little map made by sgruhier, which I helped to deploy.

A streaming daemon collects all the tweets containing "obama" or "romney" and shows the geolocalized ones on a map, using the Maptimize clustering engine.

</comment><comment><USER2> it would be helpful, but presumably far more complex, to analyze the sentiment attached to each instance</comment>


Trees Infused With Glowing Nanoparticles Could Replace Streetlights - <AUTHOR> http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-11/trees-could-one-day-serve-streetlights-thanks-gold-nanoparticles <comment><USER2> The original research paper [http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2010/NR/C0NR00...](http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2010/NR/C0NR00330A)</comment>